Left-wing men tend to be physically weaker than right-wing men

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by tali89, Jan 31, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    The OP is not about arguments, it is about attitudes. They aren't the same thing.

    The other thing that's refreshing is seeing the left wing here whipped up into a tizzy trying to explain away by attack, what would (if true) be a not very positive thing about the left.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    So you don't think right wingers would be in a tizzy if a left winger made a similar unsupported slanderous statement about right wingers?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,113
    Yes, they have deluded themselves into thinking they're Daniel Boone.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,962
    And the replies, similarly, have featured discussion of attitude rather than argument. As you may note, most people agree with the general point - in the US, rightwing men tend to be physically stronger than leftwing men -

    but: with the caveat that in the study these big strong men are Danish rightwingers we're talking about, not at all the same people that you, for example, would characterize as rightwing (I am a rightwinger, in Denmark terms, and also physically strong - far above average upper body strength - so I would fit the study pattern. But you and Tali have repeatedly referred to me as a leftwing poster, so I would conflict with your pattern.)

    Probably, most of those big strong Danish rightwing men would be leftwing on this forum. The neofascistic rightwing lunatic fringe in Europe - what we call standard "conservative" or "T Party" in the US - looks pretty weedy and thin-boned, in the news pictures anyway (media bias?). http://gdb.voanews.com/3CDD8C1E-3D31-4293-9844-E1D8CD645466_mw1024_s_n.jpg So you guys might want to take a bit of care in extrapolating into US sociology.

    Obesity, in the US, would be an especially significant confounding variable, as would addictions of various kinds.

    And this kind of stuff - notice the upper body strength, the competent masculinity: http://www.gettyimages.fr/detail/ph...r-freedom-chairman-photo-dactualité/115855124
    Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann's husband, Geert Wilders, Karl Rove, Donald Trump - this is a type.

    So is Bernie Sanders, Paul Wellstone (who may still own the pullup record for the US Senate Secret Service guard station),

    When the OP starts wandering off into speculations about liberal ideology and physical fragility, their proposed basis in that study seems to be more of a personal fantasy they have managed to slot that study into.
    Yet another repetition of that tired old bs about "the left" and "tizzy" and "attack" and so forth trotted out one more time, like half of the wingnut posting here. Lack of imagination?
    Joke? This type of "information" is a plague and a blight here, it's "shared" all over the place.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2016
  8. tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    343
    Apparently you haven't read the article. Just to clarify for the audience, the study also included Argentinian and American men.

    Assuming this is true, what is your point exactly? After all, the study didn't compare your ideology and musculature with the men of Denmark.
     
  9. tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    343
    LOL! "Unsupported"? The basis of my initial post was a scientific study, so for you to claim that I'm making unsupported statements is yet another example of the willful ignorance I find to be common among liberals. But don't mind me, just go back to sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming 'LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!'
     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Well, when you finish laughing, how about coughing up a reference to this supposed "scientific study"?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Maybe you can point out where you referenced the "scientific study" and identified it. But then again, it's kind of difficult to cough up something that doesn't exist.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2016
  11. tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    343
    Why? The lefties on this forum have always been willing to accept a second-hand source from news agencies far less biased than the one I gave, so what's changed all of a sudden?
     
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Well, you haven't even gotten to the second hand stage yet.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You didn't actually read the study, did you?

    It was very bad. It tries really hard to justify this hacknied view of evolution and fails to address all the confounding factors that might influence why certain characteristics might get grouped together. Plus, this is one study of limited effect: it doesn't largely change attitudes based on socioeconomic position. This one paper is not even cited widely, let alone replicated.

    This is the problem when one relies on the Daily Mail for "scientific study".
     
    joepistole likes this.
  14. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Here is the actual study: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/7/1098.abstract

    It is unfortunately behind a paywall for most.

    Here is a review of that paper and another: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/05/what_those_bicep_size_and_poli045011.php
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,962
    Because the first thing that comes to mind when I hear the word "conservative" is real men, masculine men, men with upper body strength:

    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/02/AP829329970505-640x480.jpg
    http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/jindal-CPAC-620x437.png
    http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Tom-Cotton-CPAC-668x501.jpg
    http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/2013/03/163770556_1.jpg
    http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2014/03/06/Bolton-CPACjpg.jpg
    http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/conten...t/image.img.2000.jpg/1426072133502.cached.jpg
    https://d1jn4vzj53eli5.cloudfront.net/mc/_external/2015_02/scott-walker-1.jpg?h=204&w=320
    http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/daniel-hannan-cpac2014-600x421.jpg
    https://d1jn4vzj53eli5.cloudfront.n...3/back-to-joisey-christie-bio.jpg?h=350&w=350
    https://d1jn4vzj53eli5.cloudfront.net/mc/ngillespie/2013_03/washingtonguy.jpg?h=253&w=350
    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ShzcR1odL-c/hqdefault.jpg
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5Oy5Xc1-yAQ/TVpVGggboPI/AAAAAAAAHhE/lKrDpN8acHI/s400/SANY0035.JPG

    And the second thing is well put together women, brains and beauty, none of that slovenly hippie feminism here:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/anne-coulter-no-apologies-conservatism.jpg
    http://www.truthdig.com/images/avboothuploads/palingreeneggs_360.jpg
    http://www.politicalresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/16048559923_eff6222b83_z-600x400.jpg
    https://lobelog.com/wp-content/uploads/Carly_Fiorina_at_ACU_CPAC-290x166.jpg
    https://lemmingfarm.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/bachmann-cpac.jpg?w=400&h=266

    Two-fers: http://image.nj.com/home/njo-media/..._impact_celebrities/photo/13746412-mmmain.jpg
    http://assets.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/no-slug/107ff692952a9c8c8f97b7849dd11be7.jpg
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2016
  16. tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    343
    So in attempting to dispel the claim that right-wing men tend to have a higher upper body strength, you post some pictures that only show their faces? And the photos of the right-wing women you supplied show well-groomed and trim individuals? Um, OK, you're not exactly helping your argument, but hey, I'm not complaining!
     
  17. tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    343
    By the by, this woman makes Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin look like supermodels (although admittedly that is setting the bar pretty low):

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,278
    The boyfriend gets into a lot of fights?

    From this moronic statement, I take it you did not really read the actual study itself?

    For example, had you read it, you would have found that one's wealth was an important factor in the study.

    It was an evolutionary scientific study. Not a political one. Well, it becomes a political one when the Daily Mail, the site you are sourcing in your OP, decided to turn it into one. This is not really surprising when one considers that the same website also found that right wing supporters are less intelligent than left wing supporters. Should we take this just as seriously, do you think? Tell me, do you favour brain over brawn?

    What the study actually looked at was the socio-economic status and support for redistribution based on physical strength. Surely you understand what this means from an evolution standpoint, yes?. Not left or right as you are trying to paint it here. For example, the study found that men with large biceps but with lower socio-economic status (ie, they were not wealthy) were more likely to favour redistribution, whereas wealthy men with large biceps did not favour redistribution. They also found that men with smaller biceps but were wealthy were more open to redistribution, and men who were not wealthy and had smaller biceps were less open to redistribution. Do you actually understand what this means in evolutionary terms? How this correlates with understanding human evolution?

    For example, are you able to explain or discuss why 'stronger men' who are below average socio-economic status support redistribution (ie, in your parlance, are more left wing) as opposed to 'stronger men' who have above average socio-economic status, who do not support redistribution?

    At a guess, well, a fairly strong guess given how you have decided to word your OP, you do not quite understand the evolutionary science behind the actual study and what they found in regards to the socio-economic status and physical strength in evolutionary terms. If you wish for this thread to be taken seriously, then perhaps you should read the actual study and discuss the evolutionary implications of what they were looking at.

    If you fail to actually try to discuss the science behind the study and its actual findings, instead choose to make it a political one, I will Cesspool your thread.

    This is not supported in the actual study this thread is based on.

    Do you have anything of actual scientific substance to add?

    Based on the study you are referring to by misrepresentation via the Daily Mail (*chortle*), poor "weak" men tend to be "right wingers", along with rich "strong" men. Whereas poor "strong" men tend to be "left winger", as are rich "weak" men.

    So the study you are citing does not really support whatever contention you are trying to push here.

    Wow, you really did not read the study, did you? And really, these kind of statements without any supporting evidence, is why you are banned so often and you are teetering on the verge of a permanent ban. I would suggest you try and stick to the science and leave your ridiculous and unsupported hypothesis out of it.

    I have to ask, do you even understand evolution? I would suggest you read up on human evolution and pay particular attention to aspects like asserting one's self interest and what brute force and strength have to do with it and also read up on the evolutionary benefits of weaker people not physically asserting one's self interest and then apply it to how we have evolved over time and then consider what this study actually represents in evolutionary terms.
     
  19. tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    343
    *sigh* You didn't even bother to read the abstract that was posted.

    http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/7/1098.abstract

     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,278
    Well, you have actually misrepresented the study.

    Completely.

    Because the study was quite clear. Men with "higher upper body strength" from a lower socio-economic status, tended to be "left wing". And men with 'lower upper body strength' from a lower socio-economic status, tend to be "right wing".

    So why have you misrepresented the study in your OP and continue to do so?

    Oh the study exists, but the OP has misrepresented it entirely.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,962
    No, it didn't. Maybe they have self respect.

    You did.
    No, actually, I was agreeing with you that in my experience rightwing men tend to have higher upper body strength. It's a pattern I found in my work history, which involved heavy physical work done by strong men.

    As far as the photos, of the politicians most favored by rightwing men in the US:
    It's not that easy to find pictures of pencil neck geeks and angry obese slobs with their shirts off.

    But hey, it's possible to find conservative heroes of the Republican Party showing off the bod. Here, just for you:
    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02691/Putin_fishing_bare_2691634b.jpg
    http://alt-f4.org/b.php?id=364 (warning: nsfw - W's special invited journalist, the one with the phony press credentials, the one he had sit up front at his official White House press briefings and called on frequently)

    Why, you may have a point - many of the real men of American conservative favor do seem to have strong upper bodies.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2016
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,278
    Yes I do and I have read past the Abstract. You clearly have not.

    The evolution discussion takes place throughout the actual study. Had you bothered to get past the Abstract and read the actual study itself, you would find clear evidence of this. Hell, it's even clearly addressed in the introduction. Here are the first few paragraphs of said introduction:

    Given the ubiquitous presence of aggression among animal species, it is highly probable that human ancestors engaged in aggression for tens of millions of generations, possibly from the origin of the vertebrates. In contrast, the human transition from small-scale conflict to state politics involving millions of players took place with extraordinary abruptness, from 3 to 250 generations ago, depending on the region and its population (Hibbs & Olsson, 2004). This means that despite the technological and demographic changes associated with agriculture and the industrial revolution, any evolved decisionmaking system that navigates political conflicts in modern contexts must have been designed by natural selection to operate in small-scale social ecologies such as those faced by human ancestors (Petersen, 2012).

    What effect would these intense, long-enduring selection pressures have had on the subset of decision-making machinery that evolved to regulate conflict? The asymmetric war of attrition (AWA) is one of the best validated models in behavioral ecology (Hammerstein & Parker 1982; Maynard Smith & Parker, 1976), and it is supported by scores of empirical studies across all major vertebrate classes (Kelly, 2008). Its central premise is that greater fighting ability leads animals to bargain for a disproportionate share of contested resources (Huntingford & Turner, 1987; Kelly, 2008; Smuts, Cheney, Seyfarth, Wrangham, & Struhsaker, 1987). Lesser fighting ability leads animals to more readily cede resources they cannot cost-effectively defend. It is a fitness error for weaker contestants to attempt to seize resources when they cannot prevail and for stronger ones to cede what they can cost-effectively defend. Although human social evolution incorporated an unusually strong cooperative dimension (Cosmides & Tooby, 1992; Trivers, 1971), converging evidence from archaeology (Gat, 1999), human evolutionary ecology (Chagnon, 1988; Hess, Helfrecht, Hagen, Sell, & Hewlett, 2010; von Rueden, Gurven, & Kaplan, 2008), and psychology (Archer & Thanzami, 2007; Sell, Hone, & Pound, 2012; Sell, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2009; Price, Kang, Dunn, & Hopkins, 2010; Thomsen, Frankenhuis, Ingold-Smith, & Carey, 2011) indicates that asymmetries in fighting ability were nevertheless a socially relevant variable in ancestral human populations. These asymmetries helped determine the outcomes of conflicts and hence predicted the payoffs of making alternative decisions. In short, this regime would have selected for neural machinery that assessed relative fighting ability and used these assessments as inputs to regulate people’s decisions about whether to attempt to take resources from others and, reciprocally, about whether to cede one’s own resources to others.

    In small-scale societies, a man’s upper-body strength was one of several key components of his fighting ability with or without weapons (Sell, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2009; von Rueden et al., 2008). Even in developed and wellpoliced societies in which individual violence is rarely used to settle important resource conflicts (Pinker, 2011), people nevertheless accurately assess men’s upper-body strength from visual and auditory cues, spontaneously base their assessment of others’ fighting ability on upperbody strength, and accurately assess their own strength (Archer & Thanzami, 2007; Sell et al., 2010; Sell, Cosmides, et al., 2009; Sell, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2009). Consistent with the argument that these abilities have an evolved basis, previous research has shown that 10- to 13-monthold preverbal infants make predictions of social outcomes between agents on the basis of relative physical size (Thomsen et al., 2011).

    Are you still going to argue that this is not really about understanding human behaviour and evolution? You should try reading the actual study and not sticking to just the abstract.

    Now, can you please explain why you have chosen to misrepresent the whole study in your OP?
     
  23. tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    343
    So why did you bring it up?

    I never commented or inquired about your musculature. Your defensiveness on the issue is rather telling, though.

    So since it's not easy for you to provide evidence that is relevant to your assertion, you'll just supply images that have no bearing on what you are trying to claim.

    Uh, Putin looks pretty damn good. He'd kick the ass of any liberal man I know. Are you trying to lure me into some sort of trap where you go "He's actually a leftist! Gotcha!"?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page