Study: Liberal Men Have Smaller Muscles

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

It's official- liberal men are wimps:

notleftnews.com/news/study-yes-apparently-it-is-a-real-study-liberal-men-have-smaller-muscles-seriously/#



Ceasar Milktoast is more than just a stereotype... 

[swamp]

I'm not sure having less upper body strength makes someone a wimp, but whatever makes you feel better about yourself........

[Tennesseer]

This from the Reverend Moon the Loon's newspaper. It's about money. No surprise here.

"Starting with the hypothesis that upper-body strength — “a proxy for the ability to physically defend or acquire resources” — would sway a man’s conclusions about redistribution of wealth by the government, the researchers then collected data from the U.S., Argentina and Denmark.

The data revealed that wealthy men with high upper-body strength were less likely to support redistribution, while less wealthy men of the same strength were more likely to support it, the Daily Mail reports."

p.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/may/16/study-physically-strong-men-lean-conservative/

[Deleted]

* Patience, get off the insult kick.  I'm getting tired of deleting your snark, so quit dishing it out.  If you're having a bad day, either take a nap or go outside and play.  This vendetta isn't going to fly. - mmhmm, Administrator

[billisonboard]

The actual results of the study are misrepresented in the article linked in the OP.

The researchers collected data on bicep size, socioeconomic status, and support for economic redistribution from hundreds of people in the United States, Argentina, and Denmark.

In line with their hypotheses, the data revealed that wealthy men with high upper-body strength were less likely to support redistribution, while less wealthy men of the same strength were more likely to support it.

...

Men with low upper-body strength, on the other hand, were less likely to support their own self-interest. Wealthy men of this group showed less resistance to redistribution, while poor men showed less support. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130515085514.htm

[djAdvocate]

that makes sense to me.  liberals tend to use their heads more than their muscles. 

[swamp]

May 17, 2013 13:23:32 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

May 17, 2013 12:22:29 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

It's official- liberal men are wimps:

notleftnews.com/news/study-yes-apparently-it-is-a-real-study-liberal-men-have-smaller-muscles-seriously/#



Ceasar Milktoast is more than just a stereotype... 

* quote removed as post quoted has been removed - mmhmm, Administrator*

ceaser milktoast, the conservative whisperer.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 17, 2013 13:41:35 GMT -5 swamp said:

May 17, 2013 13:23:32 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

ceaser milktoast, the conservative whisperer.

We've all heard of typos. We'll have to call that one a trope-o.

Next you'll be nitpicking at Paul about Fred Flatstone and Morty Mouse.

[Angel!]

May 17, 2013 13:32:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that makes sense to me.  liberals tend to use their heads more than their muscles. 

Bingo.  Liberals may have smaller muscles, but they also have higher IQs.

www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html

I find it extremely interesting & wonder the impact of nature vs nuture in all of this.  Dos the same enviroment that leads to a larger IQ & less focus on working out also lead to being liberal?  Or is there some genetic link between all of these?  Or is there some sort of causality - does a slightly higher IQ lead a person to think differently about the issues?  Or does having smaller muscles really lead a person to be less likely to assert their self-interest, and why is that in an environment where you aren't physically fighting over issues - is this a leftover trait from the caveman days where it would have made sense for those with smaller muscles to avoid confrontations? 

And I wonder about correlation & causation in this.  I suppose it could be the opposite of what the article seems to imply & that those more worried about their self-interest are more inclined to workout. But again why in an environment where protecting ones self-interest is not a physical task? Although I suppose in some ways in could be, just not in reference to wealth redistribution.  And I wonder what a study comparing muscle mass to IQ would show, common sense would dictate there is some sort of correlation there based on the other 2 studies, but I suppose it is possible there is not one.

Fascinating stuff & I wish we knew more about it. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Fascinating stuff & I wish we knew more about it.

Kanazawa is a quack. He's the same pop psychologist who claimed that drinking alcohol made you smarter (about a year ago).

His job is basically to make up excuses for why so many trends in human societies run contrary to evolution.

[jkapp]

May 17, 2013 13:32:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that makes sense to me.  liberals tend to use their heads more than their muscles. 

Emotions, maybe, not heads.  Fiscal management would take using a good head, and that ain't happenin'...

[Angel!]

May 17, 2013 15:20:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Fascinating stuff & I wish we knew more about it.

Kanazawa is a quack. He's the same pop psychologist who claimed that drinking alcohol made you smarter (about a year ago).

His job is basically to make up excuses for why so many trends in human societies run contrary to evolution.

Ad hominem fallacy.  I don't care why he thinks liberals are smarter or what other theories he puts out.  Unless you are claiming that he is unable to complete a fairly simple statistical analysis & still get the article published in a peer reviewed journal, then it really doesn't matter.  And if he did screw up the analysis, then it should be fairly easy for you to find another scientists showing the flaw in his analysis. 

Or I could find another study that shows basically what the first study showed regarding IQ & political leanings.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html

The study, published in Psychological Science, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood.

Or is Gordon Hodson also a quack?

[Virgil Showlion]

I don't deny that a correlation exists. It's his theory about "evolutionarily novel behaviours" that's bunkum.

He is a statistics abuser.

[djAdvocate]

May 17, 2013 15:38:24 GMT -5 jkapp said:

May 17, 2013 13:32:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that makes sense to me.  liberals tend to use their heads more than their muscles. 

Emotions, maybe, not heads. 

no.  those that use their emotions will invariably have to use their fists.

Fiscal management would take using a good head, and that ain't happenin'...

my dad is as conservative as you get, and never had two nickles to rub together.

[Angel!]

May 17, 2013 15:42:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I don't deny that a correlation exists. It's his theory about "evolutionarily novel behaviours" that's bunkum.

He is a statistics abuser.

Which is why I didn't mention his theories, merely the correlation.  I find these correlations interesting & something that widely tested & showing statistically significant results must mean something.  It might not be causational in any way, but they are linked somehow & I don't doubt someday we will know why. 

It could be something completely correlational though like breastfeeding increases IQ for people with a certain gene, and liberals are both more likely to breastfeed & more likely to raise a future liberal.  The breastfeeding thing is true, the other two are completely made up, although I suppose they could be true.  Liberals want to believe it is because a person with a high IQ would think through all the issues & the liberal stance is the smarter stance, but that may not be the case at all. 

[Virgil Showlion]

May 17, 2013 16:04:48 GMT -5 Angel! said:

May 17, 2013 15:42:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I don't deny that a correlation exists. It's his theory about "evolutionarily novel behaviours" that's bunkum.

He is a statistics abuser.

Which is why I didn't mention his theories, merely the correlation.  I find these correlations interesting & something that widely tested & showing statistically significant results must mean something.  It might not be causational in any way, but they are linked somehow & I don't doubt someday we will know why. 

It could be something completely correlational though like breastfeeding increases IQ for people with a certain gene, and liberals are both more likely to breastfeed & more likely to raise a future liberal.  The breastfeeding thing is true, the other two are completely made up, although I suppose they could be true.  Liberals want to believe it is because a person with a high IQ would think through all the issues & the liberal stance is the smarter stance, but that may not be the case at all. 

Indeed.

And all I said is that Kanazawa is a quack. He runs around digging up correlations and flinging baseless hypotheses at pop science magazines. We've had a few threads in the past pop up with respect to claims he's made.

Personally I have no trouble believing that liberals are smarter than conservatives by an average of 6 IQ points, or that conservative men are stronger on average than liberal men. Nor would I automatically reject a study showing Europeans smarter than Americans, Asians smarter than blacks, or cat owners more emotionally insecure than dog owners. What I can do without is the million pet theories about what such differences portend, especially when the magnitude of the difference is barely notable.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2013 15:38:24 GMT -5 jkapp said:

May 17, 2013 13:32:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that makes sense to me.  liberals tend to use their heads more than their muscles. 

Emotions, maybe, not heads.  Fiscal management would take using a good head, and that ain't happenin'...

I am on the middle, am I account? 

[frankq]

After doing a few minutes of research...yes, I was bored.....it appears that gay men tend to be liberal. It also appears that gay men are much more likely to be slight in build/short in statue or combination of such, and have less upper body strength and smaller muscles than more conservative straight men. Therefore it is not unreasonable to extrapolate that men with less upper body strength and muscles are more liberal that men with more upper body strength and bigger muscles as the data suggests, but the lone notion of upper body strength and muscling is not the entire determining factor, just one snippet of the data. The "why" of the data is more important....A nice example of interpretation of data and consequent spin. Looking at the data, dealing in generalities, one could make the case that liberal men tend to be gay. One could also look at this data and say that being liberal has the physiological effect of causing one to have smaller muscles. Taking that line of reasoning, does that mean that assuming the most conservative view would make you another Schwarzenegger? I am in no way saying this is true or my opinion mind you, but again, data can be twisted and molded to back a variety of views depending on how you (want to) look at it. Interesting.....Happens all the time out here......

[billisonboard]

May 18, 2013 9:25:14 GMT -5 frankq said:

After doing a few minutes of research... It also appears that gay men are much more likely to be slight in build/short in statue or combination of such, and have less upper body strength and smaller muscles than more conservative straight men. ...

I would be interested in seeing what research you used in determining this "fact".

[frankq]

It's called Google. I simply did a few searches, like, do gay men tend to be more liberal. Then Google relative stature of gay men. That's all.

[billisonboard]

May 18, 2013 9:45:09 GMT -5 frankq said:

It's called Google. I simply did a few searches, like, do gay men tend to be more liberal. Then Google relative stature of gay men. That's all.

Standard practice is when claims are made, the source is provided.

[frankq]

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120221123206AAOgBr0

There's one bill. * Keep your comments directed at the subject of discussion, frankq, not at another poster.  Thanks. - mmhmm, Administrator*

[frankq]

Just trying to help him out mmhmm since he's always looking for an argument.

[billisonboard]

I look for discussion based on facts, not opinion.

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120221123206AAOgBr0

[mmhmm]

May 18, 2013 10:09:24 GMT -5 frankq said:

Just trying to help him out mmhmm since he's always looking for an argument.

Frank, as I said (and, especially, on P&M - Current Events is a spin-off from that forum), we need to confine ourselves to commenting on the subject matter and avoid personal comments to other posters.  Politics is a contentious subject as it is.  No need to add flames to the fire, so to speak.  If billis needs your help, I'm sure he'll ask.

Additionally, it's not at all odd for posters to request links on those two forums.  It's not an insult to do so.  They're simply seeking to verify information provided.

mmhmm, P&M Moderator


*Edited because I was in the wrong freakin' forum!  *

[Deleted]

May 18, 2013 10:14:24 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

billis,
Great answer!
But everyones facts can be little bit close toward to their own belief. 

[frankq]

May 18, 2013 10:14:24 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I look for discussion based on facts, not opinion.

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120221123206AAOgBr0

No, you're not, because if you had read my entire post it was in regards to how "fact" and "data" can be skewed to support a variety of views. I openly said that I do not subscribe to any one view, hence, I have expressed no "opinion". A simple search will show you that most gays are liberal. That doesn't mean, and I said as much, that all liberals are gay. And while there are sources that confirm that gay men tend to be slighter in build and shorter, hence smaller muscles, there are numerous sources that speak of the fact that gay men have body image issues and tend to want to be slim with well defined, not necessarily large, muscles. Again, I never said that there were no gays with large muscles. I was basically "spoofing" the oped by illustrating how "data" can be interpreted. I think the others got it. Sorry you didn't.

[billisonboard]

May 18, 2013 10:22:54 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

May 18, 2013 10:14:24 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

billis,
Great answer!
But everyones facts can be little bit close toward to their own belief. 

Which is why it is great to have them provide links to support their facts so others can consider where they are coming from. For example, doing my own research, I found a couple of what I would consider excellent sources to support frankq's claim that gays are, on average, of smaller build than heterosexual males. Yahoo! Answers was not one of them.

[frankq]

Which is why it is great to have them provide links to support their facts so others can consider where they are coming from. For example, doing my own research, I found a couple of what I would consider excellent sources to support frankq's claim that gays are, on average, of smaller build than heterosexual males. Yahoo! Answers was not one of them.

So if you found better sources that support what I said, what the hell is your beef? I threw out the Yahoo one because it was the first example I saw after you asked me about it. I didn't spend much time over it. The fact is, this subject really isn't worth much time cataloging sources. Interesting that you didn't post the sources you just mentioned, yet it seems that I committed a mortal sin by not doing so. Rest assured that if we ever discuss an actually serious topic, I will provide all the info you desire.

I would be interested in seeing what research you used in determining this "fact".

Well, I guess you have indeed satisfied your "interest". See, not that hard to check it out was it? You know the old saying? "Give a man a fish, and he eats today. Teach a man to fish, and he eats every day". Enjoy your fish....

[billisonboard]

May 18, 2013 10:40:07 GMT -5 frankq said:

.... Rest assured that if we ever discuss an actually serious topic, I will provide all the info you desire.
....

Thank you. That is all I ask. It will provide a good guide for me to use when determining if I should take what you are posting seriously or not.