Study: Physically Weaker Hollywood Stars More Likely to be Left Wing

An paper entitled "The Importance of Physical Strength to Human Males" finds a link between how physcially imposing Hollywood action stars are and how left or right wing they are.



The paper states

If physical strength in men leads to more positive views of the utility of war, then even in a population with predominately leftist attitudes, such as Hollywood actors, those actors known for their physical strength and formidability should be more likely to be supportive of military action.

If physical strength in men leads to more positive views of the utility of war, then even in a population with predominately leftist attitudes, such as Hollywood actors, those actors known for their physical strength and formidability should be more likely to be supportive of military action.

More than half of Hollywood action stars in our sample (56.3%) were right-wing according to our categorization process. These included such imposing figures as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, Sylvester Stallone, Dwayne Johnson ( “ the Rock ” ), and Charlton Heston.

Consistent with the hypothesis that physical strength is linked to positive views of the utility of warfare, many of the action stars categorized as left-wing were indeed physically less imposing than their right-wing counterparts.

For example, Nicholas Cage, Tom Cruise, Pierce Brosnan, and Keanu Reeves are prominent left-wing action stars but do not appear to have the same physiques as Schwarzenegger, Stallone, or Chuck Norris.

Furthermore, several of the right-wing comedic and dramatic stars were also physically formidable, such as Matthew McConaughey and Vince Vaughn.

ScienceDaily
SpringerLink

Physically stronger Hollywood stars are more likely to be right wing, while physically less robust males are likely to be liberals.



In could be observed that stronger males are more likely to favour physically defending their group from aggression, while weaker males are more likely to favour traditionally female characteristics such as talking about a problem, negotiation and compromise.

It could also be argued that such a liberal approach is of questionable effectiveness when a physically weaker males who wishes to negotiate is faced with a physically aggressive male from another group who does not.

Interestingly, the report states that psychically stronger males are preferred as leaders in times of conflict.

It seems like an incredibly idiotic study but interesting nonetheless. The picture of Woody Allen had me cracking up when I scrolled down. Well played.

In other words..... The Men are right and the wimps are liberals!

Sorry.. Sorry.. I couldn't resist. It was TOO tempting to walk by. Really it was.

In all seriousness though I'd suggest an explanation that makes a bit more sense than political labels for it. Conservative men would be more apt to be the hunter/dirt biker in the desert type where the liberal minded would be more the anti- of those things. Not always..and stereotypes ARE what this study is all about, so as much as I try to avoid them myself...I think that would be a logical way of looking at how they could find such patterns.

They just got cause and effect a little backward for how I'd imagine it plays out in reality.

Maybe it has to do with being intimidating and knowing that intimidation is a useful tool to get your way (may not be right but it works)

When your physically intimidating rather you mean to or not people react differently to you, perhaps this is a result of observing what that type of reactions causes their entire lives?

I am a pretty big dude, and when I shave my head (im going bald so might as well) I am down right intimidating (dont mean to) and I can see people react differently.

reply to post by ollncasino


Priceless......



Well,Paul Newman (RIP),and George Clooney,and I would even think Brad Pitt would disagree.

Give any liberal actor steroids,and it equals out.

seems more like a genetic disposition then anything else,
of course the brutish male figures with bulging muscles will support war, it's some sort of defense mechanism I wouid bet.

Originally posted by benrl
When your physically intimidating rather you mean to or not people react differently to you, perhaps this is a result of observing what that type of reactions causes their entire lives?

I am a pretty big dude, and when I shave my head (im going bald

so might as well) I am down right intimidating (dont mean to) and I can see people react differently.

The study makes the point that weaker people tend to reject violence as a strategy and rely on the Police to resolve physically aggressive situations.

Presumably we can only hope that when they need others to fight for them, the policemen who arrive are not also physically less impressive liberals!

Arnold is an idiot.
Instead of expanding is brain, he pumped his body full of steroids.

I strengthen my body and mind,

Does this make me an Independent?

reply to post by ollncasino



Many liberal actors play tough guy,killing machines,in their movies.

Its just art...........

Originally posted by yourmaker
of course the brutish male figures with bulging muscles will support war, it's some sort of defense mechanism I wouid bet.

Physically stronger males are also presuambly more likely to defend family and friends from the aggression of others.

I have had the misfortune to be involved in a few physical incidents with aggressive males, and wanting to talk about a problem, negotiation and compromise don't seem to be a very useful approach.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Many liberal actors play tough guy,killing machines,in their movies.

Its just art...........

Interestingly, the study found that the less physically imposing action stars such as Tom Cruise, Pierce Brosnan, and Keanu Reeves were more likely to be liberals.

Even with action stars, the physically more imposing ones are more likely to be right wing and the physically less imposing action stars are likely to be liberals.

reply to post by ollncasino

I think it's bull. I know a big guy and he's the biggest baby in the world. Fits right in with Obama and even far left-wingers. There're other examples. I think this study is biased. Why? Because hollywood men are mostly paper-men underneath their brawn. They know they're fake and lack manhood. They know this, so they overdo their toughness factor by projecting their feelings of inferiority onto others and attacking them. It acts like a shield and preserves their own sense of self-confidence. I think if this study were performed on the general population this signal or tendency would not be seen.

I've seen studies that propose city-dwellers are oftentimes liberal in stance, but I think this also suffers from bias since liberals are probably more attracted to living in cities where others can provide for them. The thought of living outside cities scares them and brings to mind the horror stories they've read about or seen in movies. So the act of living in a city won't make a conservative liberal.

reply to post by ollncasino


the weakest 10 year old can kill the strongest man in the world.... with a gun.

Originally posted by ollncasino


Even with action stars, the physically more imposing ones are more likely to be right wing and the physically less imposing action stars are likely to be liberals.

But "imposing" is all in the eye,of the beholder .

In a real world of physical combat, men like Arnold and Sylvester would be big slow moving targets, and get themselves killed quickly.

It is the quick and the dead, not the big and strong and the dead, and it will always be that way.

Most conservatives I know personally are pudgy balding guys.

This would seem to be a back lash against a "macho" man because they are not and they want to be in control,that and they are well paid by unseen hands who keep them in line,STUDIOS.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
the weakest 10 year old can kill the strongest man in the world.... with a gun.

Is that why liberals want to ban gun ownership?

Analyzed unemotionally and with the full range of animal species in mind, aggression is the disordering of another organism ’ s functional machinery — typically in a manner that disrupts that other organism ’ s ability to pursue its fitness interests at the expense of theaggressive animal.

SpringerLink

Surely a gun would be a leveler for weaker people?

Why would liberals then support banning gun ownership?

reply to post by ollncasino


because there dangerous sometimes,,, and there are a lot of idiots in the world,,, idiots, a liberals biggest enemy

its funny you even think about this kind of stuff in terms of a battle and war...... rights vs lefts... war.... who wins... strong vs. weak....

reply to post by ollncasino


No true liberal supports banning gun ownership.

Those are conservatives who pretend to be liberals.

Originally posted by sonnny1
But "imposing" is all in the eye,of the beholder .

The study used upper body strength as a measure.

Physically stronger Hollywood action stars are more likely to be right wing.

Physically weaker Hollywood action stars are more likely to be liberals.