Study: Liberal Men Have Smaller Muscles

[Deleted]

May 18, 2013 10:34:15 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

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

billis,

Sometimes it's hard to prove where is your own source is coming from. It can be your conceived notion from your past experience or you have A fact that supports your own way of thinking. What I mean by that I think each individuals has some degree of biased opinion. I think we all can find a data to supports our own way of thinking from many sources. 

[skweet]

The article has shown the correlation, but offers no conclusive causation.  The study only studies the relationship between strength and opinion on social redistribution of wealth.  American liberals are created by many non related issues, where for instance a big strong gay man may be against wealth redistribution, and be liberal because other rights more directed at his personal lifestyle are better addressed by American philosophy.  

Des upper body strength come from genetics or hard work?  I would argue that men with the greatest upper body strength, know that they got their with a great deal of personal effort.  It is the same with wealth.  People that are wealthy know the personal effort that it takes to get there, people without wealth refuse to accept the relationship between personal effort and reward.  If you accept the relationship, then you don't want to share the reward, and if you do not accept the relationship, then you want others to share the rewards of their efforts.

Upper body strength is result of a self reliant attitude, self reliance is not a result of upper body strength.

[djAdvocate]

May 19, 2013 10:30:06 GMT -5 skweet said:

The article has shown the correlation, but offers no conclusive causation.  The study only studies the relationship between strength and opinion on social redistribution of wealth.  American liberals are created by many non related issues, where for instance a big strong gay man may be against wealth redistribution, and be liberal because other rights more directed at his personal lifestyle are better addressed by American philosophy.  

Des upper body strength come from genetics or hard work?  I would argue that men with the greatest upper body strength, know that they got their with a great deal of personal effort.  It is the same with wealth.  People that are wealthy know the personal effort that it takes to get there, people without wealth refuse to accept the relationship between personal effort and reward.  If you accept the relationship, then you don't want to share the reward, and if you do not accept the relationship, then you want others to share the rewards of their efforts.

Upper body strength is result of a self reliant attitude, self reliance is not a result of upper body strength.

first of all, there are tons of rich people that never broke a nail, or got their hands dirty.

but lastly, i object to the idea that liberals don't consider the idea of self reliance a virtue.

in my own case, i believe in self reliance, but i never thought much of the type of self reliance that requires massive PHYSICAL effort.  i use my head, and save my muscles for when then are needed.

[djAdvocate]

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/#

that is not what the study says.  it says socialists are wimps. 

[billisonboard]

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

The study actually looks at the correlation between upper-body strength and self interest.

If a man is strong and wealthy, they do not support redistribution of their wealth (this being to their self-interest).
If a man is strong and not wealthy, they do support redistribution of other peoples wealth (this being to their self-interest).
If a man is weak and wealthy, they do not indicate strong feelings against a redistribution of their wealth (this not being to their self-interest).
If a man is weak and not wealthy, they indicate less support for redistribution of others wealth (this not being to their self-interest).

The conclusion of the study is that men with more upper body strength support their self-interest. Men with less upper body strength do not support their self-interest.

[billisonboard]

It might be interesting to do a follow-up study that looks at if there is a correlation between upper-body strength and inherited vs. self-made wealth.

[djAdvocate]

May 19, 2013 12:32:02 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

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

The study actually looks at the correlation between upper-body strength and self interest.

If a man is strong and wealthy, they do not support redistribution of their wealth (this being to their self-interest).
If a man is strong and not wealthy, they do support redistribution of other peoples wealth (this being to their self-interest).
If a man is weak and wealthy, they do not indicate strong feelings against a redistribution of their wealth (this not being to their self-interest).
If a man is weak and not wealthy, they indicate less support for redistribution of others wealth (this not being to their self-interest).

The conclusion of the study is that men with more upper body strength support their self-interest. Men with less upper body strength do not support their self-interest.

then the conclusion could just have easily have been "those with muscles tend to use them, rather than their heads".  observable fact.

[billisonboard]

"Our results demonstrate that physically weak males are more reluctant than physically strong males to assert their self-interest -- just as if disputes over national policies were a matter of direct physical confrontation among small numbers of individuals, rather than abstract electoral dynamics among millions," says Petersen.
...
..., the results indicate that an evolutionary perspective may help to illuminate political motivations,... www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130515085514.htm

[djAdvocate]

BOOM!  bills, have i ever taken the opportunity to tell you that i appreciate your analytical nature?  you take nothing at face value, and you ask really probing questions of the "data".  well done.

[billisonboard]

Thanks dj. 

[Robert not Bobby]

LOL

You are kidding me, right. Has it come down to this?

I don't want to go there...but...trust me.

And we liberals are also freaky, and do it every which way....

And a good time was had by all.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

May 17, 2013 15:38:27 GMT -5 Angel! said:

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

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?

When I first saw the thread, I figured somebody had too much time on their hands to even do such a study. However the intelligence studies are just as bunk. As for prejudice being linked to conservative vs. liberal....I guess it would also have to include politically correct or politically convenient bigotry to actually compare the two...either way, I've learned there are two kind of fools when it comes to education level:  Those who think the don't need it and those that think their education makes them smarter than everybody else.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 19, 2013 18:34:10 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

May 17, 2013 15:38:27 GMT -5 Angel! said:

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



Or is Gordon Hodson also a quack?

When I first saw the thread, I figured somebody had too much time on their hands to even do such a study. However the intelligence studies are just as bunk. As for prejudice being linked to conservative vs. liberal....I guess it would also have to include politically correct or politically convenient bigotry to actually compare the two...either way, I've learned there are two kind of fools when it comes to education level:  Those who think the don't need it and those that think their education makes them smarter than everybody else.

These correlations can result from literally anything. I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts we could do an analysis comparing upper body strength to preferred cereal type and come out with r > 0.7 for some partition. Then we could map out red states and blue states by cereal preference and declare cereal to be the missing link.

The analysis is pseudoscientists hocking their pet theories to pop science magazines. The goal is to create public awareness and the illusion of significance.

[zdaddy]

It's an interesting study and adds a little levity to Humpday. I'd like to counterpoint a few things:

1. I'm a bit of a "runt" of a working class family. My dad fully endorsed me going into white collar work, and while I'm not a wimp by any means I'm also not an ironworker like several of my relatives. I will say this though - from my obersvations, upper body strength does not always equal great health. A bunch of the working class guys I know may have big biceps - but they also have giant guts and would be hard-pressed to sprint a mile. A lot of these guys also have high cholesterol and heart problems.

2. You can be in great shape and not have giant biceps. I know plenty of liberal friends/co-workers here in Seattle who have a runner's build but still can finish marathons at a 6 minute/mile clip or faster. Please tell me with a straight face those guys are weaklings.

3. For every Ahrnulld and Paul Ryan, there is a Chris Christie. Actually, Christie seems to represent the average Republican, since Red States tend to have higher obesity rates than Blue States. Conservative bastions like Alabama have close to a 40 percent obesity rate, making them the fattest places on the planet.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/obesity-rate-by-state_n_1774356.html

[thyme4change]

I just saw this thread, and I need to say "WTF?!"  

I hope this study wasn't government funded.

[mmhmm]

May 22, 2013 11:47:10 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I just saw this thread, and I need to say "WTF?!"  

I hope this study wasn't government funded.

LOL!  Me, too, thyme! 

[zdaddy]

May 22, 2013 11:47:10 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I just saw this thread, and I need to say "WTF?!"  

I hope this study wasn't government funded.

I think it was govt funded - but fortunately not by the American government.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

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. 

Clever retort.  But that's all it is.  Can you back it up with data as I did in the OP?  Or would you prefer not to have to *think* about it... 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 19, 2013 13:01:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 19, 2013 12:32:02 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

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

The study actually looks at the correlation between upper-body strength and self interest.

If a man is strong and wealthy, they do not support redistribution of their wealth (this being to their self-interest).
If a man is strong and not wealthy, they do support redistribution of other peoples wealth (this being to their self-interest).
If a man is weak and wealthy, they do not indicate strong feelings against a redistribution of their wealth (this not being to their self-interest).
If a man is weak and not wealthy, they indicate less support for redistribution of others wealth (this not being to their self-interest).

The conclusion of the study is that men with more upper body strength support their self-interest. Men with less upper body strength do not support their self-interest.

then the conclusion could just have easily have been "those with muscles tend to use them, rather than their heads".  observable fact.

Subjective, and anecdotal.  Hardly fact.

[zdaddy]

May 22, 2013 14:03:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP 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. 

Clever retort.  But that's all it is.  Can you back it up with data as I did in the OP?  Or would you prefer not to have to *think* about it... 

I'm not going to call conservatives stupid since IMHO the IQ study is just as flawed as the bicep study. But this study proves - what exactly? I've already given examples that big biceps do not automatically equal good health. Furthermore, guys who are into extreme distance sports like biking or marathon running often have smaller biceps but have a lot of endurance and are in excellent shape. So there goes the theory that they are all 90-pound weaklings.

Also not sure where you came to the conclusion that upper body strength automatically makes you a better provider/defender of your family. I'd like to introduce you to my 5 foot 2 inch tall karate sensei if you think pure brawn wins a fight. For that matter, the average American was much bigger than the average Vietnamese soldier - but who won the war? 

[billisonboard]

May 22, 2013 14:03:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... Can you back it up with data as I did in the OP? ...

What exactly do you think you backed with data? It certainly wasn't the claim made in the title/OP.

[djAdvocate]

May 22, 2013 14:06:19 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 19, 2013 13:01:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

then the conclusion could just have easily have been "those with muscles tend to use them, rather than their heads".  observable fact.

Subjective, and anecdotal.  Hardly fact.

i was referring to the study, Paul.  so, you now believe that it's conclusions are subjective and anecdotal?

[djAdvocate]

May 22, 2013 14:03:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP 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. 

Clever retort.  But that's all it is. 

really?  i thought it followed from the (dubious) conclusions presented.  people tend to utilize their strengths.

Can you back it up with data as I did in the OP?  Or would you prefer not to have to *think* about it... 

the study didn't even mention liberal men, so you have not presented ANY data.  what is there to THINK about?

[djAdvocate]

May 22, 2013 14:16:52 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 22, 2013 14:03:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... Can you back it up with data as I did in the OP? ...

What exactly do you think you backed with data? It certainly wasn't the claim made in the title/OP.

precisely.