posted May 16, 2013 11:09 AM            

Weaker men more likely to support welfare state and wealth redistribution

There is no link between women’s physical strength and political views

Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing political stance, while weaker men are inclined to support the welfare state, according to a new study.

Researchers discovered political motivations may have evolutionary links to physical strength.

Professor Petersen and Professor Sznycer hypothesised that upper-body strength – a proxy for the ability to physically defend or acquire resources – would predict men’s opinions about the redistribution of wealth.

The findings were published in the journal Psychological Science.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 16, 2013 11:30 AM            

Men with larger amounts of testosterone have more ease with gaining muscle and so are stronger (and also more agressive ) and will probably have right wing (also agressive) views.

posted May 16, 2013 06:25 PM            

It's possible this is true, but I'm recalling one gym I used to belong to that loved FOX. Many of them, especially the uber-conservatives, were military, prison guard, or cop (currently or from before) who would naturally be encouraged to become (and then remain) physically fit, and such occupations are much easier found among political conservatives than liberals. Meanwhile, those with very progressive minds tend to be mental (spending too much time in books instead of physical activities) and/or into things like vegetarianism (wishing to live lightly on the earth and/or as compassion) which would discourage building muscle mass. Granted, many on welfare (not counting the many conservatives who are on farms and in corporations) aren't likely to be physically fit as many will be too busy keeping their heads above water, have bad habits, or already be disabled.

posted May 16, 2013 06:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Correlation doesn't equal causation.

It's possible this is true, but I'm recalling one gym I used to belong to that loved FOX. Many of them, especially the uber-conservatives, were military, prison guard, or cop (currently or from before) who would naturally be encouraged to become (and then remain) physically fit, and such occupations are much easier found among political conservatives than liberals. Meanwhile, those with very progressive minds tend to be mental (spending too much time in books instead of physical activities) and/or into things like vegetarianism (wishing to live lightly on the earth and/or as compassion) which would discourage building muscle mass. Granted, many on welfare (not counting the many conservatives who are on farms and in corporations) aren't likely to be physically fit as many will be too busy keeping their heads above water, have bad habits, or already be disabled.

That said, the gym I go to now seems to lean liberal with a lot of gay people wanting to look good and/or remain healthy. But politics there isn't as overtly displayed as the last gym I went to and I couldn't say for sure how most people lean, it's just an impression I get.

---

There was a cute picture of FB of a buff guy on a motorcycle and a skinny guy on a bike with a helmet.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 17, 2013 05:28 AM            

Thus, the Fuhrer was most upset when a Black man named Jesse Owens burst his bubble

Weak Bill Gates and very weak Warren Buffet support wealth distribution. Strong Ted Bundy was very much right wing, and could choke a girl to death in nanoseconds using his amazing upper body strength.

Thus, it is more likely that Strong Minds support clever wealth re-distribution due to their knowledge of World History [Especially 1792 French Revolution where the poor people showed the rich what happens when they get neglected], but the strong bodied men feel they need not redistribute just because their grip is stronger than a couple of weak guys....

posted May 17, 2013 06:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
Nazism was a far right political movement.
The Germans who supported the Fuhrer believed that Might is right. Weak babies and babies with defects were finished off as Hitler wanted only the best genetics for Germany.

Thus, the Fuhrer was most upset when a Black man named Jesse Owens burst his bubble

Weak Bill Gates and very weak Warren Buffet support wealth distribution. Strong Ted Bundy was very much right wing, and could choke a girl to death in nanoseconds using his amazing upper body strength.

Thus, it is more likely that Strong Minds support clever wealth re-distribution due to their knowledge of World History [Especially 1792 French Revolution where the poor people showed the rich what happens when they get neglected], but the strong bodied men feel they need not redistribute just because their grip is stronger than a couple of weak guys....

---

posted May 17, 2013 06:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
Strong Ted Bundy was very much right wing, and could choke a girl to death in nanoseconds using his amazing upper body strength

---

Interesting. Thinking this might actually be a non sequitor I looked it up and he was actually a Republican:
http://crime.about.com/od/serial/p/tedbundy.htm

quote:

---

Bundy worked on the re-election campaign of Washington's Republican Governor Dan Evans. Evans was elected and he appointed Bundy to the Seattle Crime Prevention Advisory Committee. Bundy's political future seemed secure, when in 1973 he became assistant to Ross Davis, chairman of the Washington State Republican Party. It was a good time in Bundy's life. He had a girlfriend, his old girlfriend was once again in love with him, and his footing in the political arena was strong.

---

Still, Evans was moderate. (More, and dang, he even won the confidence of psychology professors!) That doesn't necessarily mean Bundy was, but he may not have been "very right wing" either. Wait, he's referred to as a Rockefeller Republican here:
x

http://www.olympiapowerandlight.com/2011/07/bezango-the-not-so-secret-politi cal-life-of-ted-bundy/

posted May 17, 2013 07:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
Nazism was a far right political movement.
The Germans who supported the Fuhrer believed that Might is right. Weak babies and babies with defects were finished off as Hitler wanted only the best genetics for Germany.

Thus, the Fuhrer was most upset when a Black man named Jesse Owens burst his bubble

Weak Bill Gates and very weak Warren Buffet support wealth distribution. Strong Ted Bundy was very much right wing, and could choke a girl to death in nanoseconds using his amazing upper body strength.

Thus, it is more likely that Strong Minds support clever wealth re-distribution due to their knowledge of World History [Especially 1792 French Revolution where the poor people showed the rich what happens when they get neglected], but the strong bodied men feel they need not redistribute just because their grip is stronger than a couple of weak guys....

---

Very true IQ
Too far right is as bad as too far left. Tyranny can come from either and the ideology really does not matter when the tyranny sets in.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 17, 2013 01:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
Very true IQ
Too far right is as bad as too far left. Tyranny can come from either and the ideology really does not matter when the tyranny sets in.

---

posted May 17, 2013 02:43 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 18, 2013 11:58 AM            

If I had a motorized one, I'd like a Vespa (scooter), because they're not obnoxiously loud, and they convey a style I prefer (over looking like ZZTop). Both choices are more dangerous, and less intelligent than driving a car, though.

posted May 18, 2013 12:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
A bike.

If I had a motorized one, I'd like a Vespa (scooter), because they're not obnoxiously loud, and they convey a style I prefer (over looking like ZZTop). Both choices are more dangerous, and less intelligent than driving a car, though.

Are you a Harley gal? Is this something that's going to round out your persona here?

---

I wouldnt be surprised if she rides a tank

posted May 18, 2013 05:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MoonWitch:
I find it curious that some people consider conservative views as aggressive?

---

Which are considered aggressive, conservative views or conservatives themselves?

Of course it depends, on both the conservative and the ones aware of the conservative.

posted May 18, 2013 08:37 PM            

quote:

---

I find it curious that some people consider conservative views as aggressive?

---

posted May 19, 2013 02:02 AM            

My husband is conservative. He's fairly soft-spoken and one of the most laid back people I know. He doesn't go to the gym. Lots of upper body strength but that's genetic and he's naturally built that way so I wonder if the gym has less to do with the findings than genetic make-up does? Who knows.

posted May 19, 2013 03:17 AM            

That said, one would think by the many hostile, even menacing (as in casual death threats), comments online that conservatives are especially belligerent whereas it seems rare to me that liberals are so belligerent (snarky, yes, and sometimes equally contemptuous, but not death threats and twisting every comic and news story into preaching Republicanism). I'm not sure why that is and I wish I'd been paying closer attention back when Bush was POTUS. I know it gave the illusion that there were a lot more of them than there actually are.

And I'm not sure what it means, but I've seen A LOT of spam for Ron Paul in the last few years, even where it had little or nothing to do with anything, but despite he and most of his supporters being conservative they don't seem to be belligerent or threatening about it (though sometimes very annoying). Likewise, when mainstream Republicans CHEERED at the thought of someone without insurance dying untreated in a hospital Ron Paul, who agreed with the principle, said cheering was uncalled for and disturbing. And he's right, perhaps the glee people took in the idea of someone dying (ie, instead of, "That's too bad, you don't take precautions don't come crying to me," it was more like, "DIE! DIE! DIE! YAAAYYY!") show a disturbing amount of anger and thus belligerence.

posted May 19, 2013 02:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
A bike.

If I had a motorized one, I'd like a Vespa (scooter), because they're not obnoxiously loud, and they convey a style I prefer (over looking like ZZTop). Both choices are more dangerous, and less intelligent than driving a car, though.

Are you a Harley gal? Is this something that's going to round out your persona here?

---

No, Harley for me. I am afraid to drive a car

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 19, 2013 06:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
I recall reading an article from National Review where one complained about "anger becoming a Republican virtue" (and why this was bad for both the Republican Party and America), and he ended up becoming the focus of that anger himself as a result (and later joining in the anger himself, perhaps to keep his job). I'll try to look that up again later, but as it was years ago I don't know if I'll be able to find it.

---

I found it, though it wasn't NRO:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/10/why-the-right-hates-mitt-romney-and-his-2012-presidential-bid.html

quote:

---

Why do so many prominent pundits and politicos on the right who embraced Mitt Romney as their champion in 2008 reject him now as a gutless, unprincipled moderate and unworthy standard-bearer for the conservative cause?

---

quote:

---

In other words, a moment of aspiration has given way to an era of anger, while hope and change morphed into rage and paranoia. Some measure of the sad state of the nation, and of the conservative movement, can be gathered from the desperate weeks that the preening demagogue Donald Trump actually received serious consideration as a presidential possibility.

In this atmosphere Romney looks suspect to many activists on the right not because he isn’t conservative enough but because he isn’t angry enough. His real problem isn’t a question of ideology, it’s a matter of attitude. Mitt can’t keep himself from looking self-possessed and unflappable, cool and collected, reasonable and restrained. Rage isn’t part of his emotional repertoire: even when visibly frustrated by Rick Perry’s boorish disregard of all rules of debate in the Las Vegas slugfest, he came across as more pained and perplexed than infuriated.

Like most seriously successful businessmen, Mitt is a pragmatic problem solver, a sensible fixer, a technocrat. It’s easy to imagine him rolling up his carefully cuff-linked sleeves to begin a process of cooperative, institutional repair in Washington, but it’s tough to visualize the perfectly poised governor at the head of an avenging conservative army, laying waste to the opposition in a merciless effort to smash the remaining redoubts of their power.

Four years ago, Mike Huckabee delighted his many admirers with a wonderful line that seemed to capture the more hopeful spirit of that time. “I’m a conservative,” he liked to say, “but I’m not angry about it.”

The fact that Mitt Romney’s lack of anger and indignation has become a disqualifying attribute to many of his conservative critics isn’t just a problem for Romney or for Republicans. It’s an alarming development for the United States of America.

---