Men who are physically strong are more likely to have right wing political views

I will argue that smarter men don't give a flying hoot about American Politics because its all a huge joke, just a performance, its like professional wrestling and the USA is the largest professional circle jerking federation on the planet.

There is better stuff to watch than this, perhaps Nat Geo or Science channel if they haven't gone through network decay like every other channel and their bloody psuedo reality-television.

reply to post by BobM88


I bench 225 in sets of ten and right wing can kiss my ***. But then, so can the rest of politics. The thing is I don't go throwing it around.

I'm convinced right wing-ism is associated with low IQ or just flat out ignorance. The majority of them have absolutely no clue what they are talking about and do not have the capability to read non-right wing propaganda.

reply to post by BobM88


Sounds like B.S. to me.
I'm 57 Working my butt off to survive and i don't swing that way.
LMAO

I think it's all about perception.

Those on the right use terms like;
Rugged individualism
Independent
Self-reliant
Personal responsibility.

Those on the left use terms like;
Dependence
Victim
Protection
Safety
Security

So it may not be physical characteristics as much as how those on either side of the political spectrum are interpreted.

Darn, now I won't be able to think of Beez as anything less then a 6 foot 6 version of Mr Clean...

trouble with the stereo types is I'm pretty sure I saw a post somewhere where it showed the states with the highest welfare were all red states

i can believe body mass but not strength
its probably because right wingers are accustomed to eating more than
their share and left wingers are all about sharing.

maybe its cause they are wealthier and spend more time in a gym
however as an ex drywaller i can tell you muscle DOES NOT mean strength

i have never met a gym hamster that was very stong in a full range of
movements so....

i have to conclude this research is BS.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
Carrot all the cabbage! Curse these weak boney arms that have given me leftist views! If I was a macho man I would be shaking hands with Ronnie Regan.

Funniest thing I've read on here in a while.

Hey...who knew that the solution to understanding each others political views relied on the loss or gain of muscle mass?

Wait, how does this extremely superficial study work for women?
Does it go by cup size?

- Lee

Sun Tzu said "can you image what I would do if I could do all I can?"

I am a National Champion in Collegiate Football, I received an Athletic Scholarship out of high school, and hold bench press records throughout the entire nation in High School football, and hold bench press seconds at the two separate colleges I attended.
I won't state exact numbers, because if you really feel the need to verify my claims, you are more than welcome to, I have nothing to hide.
That said, the reason I began weightlifting was because I lived through the double-standards of bullying. That is, since I was a "bigger" kid in relation to my peers through my entire life, I was subject to what I call reverse bullying. Throughout my entire life, I was forced by people in positions of authority, to allow individuals physically smaller than myself to antagonize, belittle and even physically hit me. However, if I even dared to hold those individuals accountable for the wrongs inflicted on me, I was condemned as a bully and penalized to the fullest extent by hypocrites and those in authority.
So I came to the conclusion that I would use my inherent strength to create a physical body that would act as a deterrent from ever being bullied again. With my physical transformations, painstakingly earned from hard work it wasn't long before baseless rumors of steroid-use emerged. Even this blew my mind because I was constantly being forced to take urine tests administered by the NCAA which always proved my innocence.

So if I'm not a bully, and I don't take steroids, then I must be a stupid jock then huh? Wrong again.
.
The thing that bothers me the most, is the lengths I have underwent to show people I am an individual and not a label. Why did I have to become physically and intellectually exceptional to earn the smallest bit of decency and respect that every living being deserves.

Again being associated with right-wing ideology is putting me in a box and labeling me. I promise you, I will enter into politics and I will win. I will not win because I will bully my way in, but because I have the courage to speak the truth.
Money doesn't exist, war is murder, we have technology that can produce infinite energy. We have the means globally so that no one will ever starve again. Esoteric pyramid-based organizations control our world. It is these very same organizations that have destroyed our collective morality, going so far to literally define what constitutes as a human's life. Who has the right to say what a human life is worth, or what a person is capable of? No one. There is a reason why the top of the pyramid is missing on the dollar's great seal. It represents knowledge, and I intend to give it back. But I won't be able to do it alone.

reply to post by BobM88


Yeah?! Well... then in my experience guys with bigger... er, extremities, lean liberal... guess which I am (strains to lift his coffee cup...)

reply to post by BobM88


Weak people are weak minded. They tend to buy the socialist pitch "the rich is evil, we must confiscate their money and give it to government to spend". While the strong sees the light "the rich provides the jobs"

reply to post by amfirst1


Money doesn't exist. You work for nothing. We have the means that no one ever has to labor to survive in this system of scarcity again. Like I said again, don't label me. A person's only job in life is to find happiness.

The word Capitalism came from the writings of Karl Marx. Funny how that works.

so where do moderates land in this study/?

I read this earlier and the post under it on the drudge report.The author of the articles are morons.They sounded so ridiculous ,if their press agency doesn't have anything better to print then that they should hang it up.

Originally posted by BobM88

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.
Men's upper-body strength predicts their political opinions on economic redistribution, according to the research.

Source

I gotta say that I just don't know about this study. I can think of men that seem to be physically strong that aren't right-wing, and vice-versa. Though there are always exceptions to a rule and this study is simply saying that "most" men fall into either category.

Interesting study though, nonetheless. I wonder how much taxpayer money, if any, was used on the part done at UC.

People used to taking care of themselves and used to hard work to achieve a goal are less likely to depend on government to take care of them.

Well with me it depends what side of the bed I get out of each morning. But there are some simple reasons as to why the op's article makes sense to me, but only as far as a right wing capitalist go.
A right wing capitalist knows you have to be willing to put "yourself first" in order to succeed, as this is the nature of capitalism. This mentality means you will have to walk over whoever gets in your way, because this attitude is bound to make you a lot of enemies, including powerful ones, you need to either have a gang of supporters to back you up or you need to be physically intimidating to dissuade potential attackers.
Also the mind set of a person who is willing to be dominant in order to succeed, is linked to high testosterone levels. The same hormone that builds muscle. Its not hard to make the connection.

Left wingers in a capitalist society, are split into two groups however. Those who are believers in equality and fairness and those who feel disenfranchised from the capitalist model.
Its also be noted that when people feel disenfranchised from the society or political system that governs their lives, that they become apathetic, demotivated and depressed, leading to a drop in testosterone levels...etc.

We often are shown left wing celebrities, Sean Penn, Cloony, Pitt, Jolie...etc, etc, etc ...these are usually people who have the capitalist dream lifestyle, and would not in a million years give it up for lofty principals of equality for all etc...so their true nature is that of a capitalist anyway...

In other countries however, left wingers have been involved in prolonged gurriella warfare as in Colombia. They have used military style planning and organisation and extreme violence and have been matched by right wing terrorist groups. This proves that if you have a person or group that has an objective they are passionate about it will lead to the same dominant mind set and attitude and high testosterone levels of a right winger...remember that high testosterone is also linked to violence.

Originally posted by beezzer
I think it's all about perception.

Those on the right use terms like;
Rugged individualism
Independent
Self-reliant
Personal responsibility.

Those on the left use terms like;
Dependence
Victim
Protection
Safety
Security

So it may not be physical characteristics as much as how those on either side of the political spectrum are interpreted.

I guess I don't share your perception of the left/right semantics (which goes to the perceptions in the 'study' regarding Right v Left, too - not trying to go too far afield of the topic at hand!)

I see "left leaning" people speaking not of Dependence, but Interdependence, not of Victimization but of Justice.
Not to say that left-leaning folks don't want services for the disabled and impoverished, etc., but that left-leaning world view is about Justice and Compassion, creating a "level playing field and fairness" and not "freebies for victims." The "freebies for victims" is a characterization of this by the right-leaning folks. That's one example of how language and perception are so vastly different between R vs. L.

I will say that the words you've chosen clearly state the disconnect about what lefties v righties perceive themselves to be vs what they perceive the Other Side to be. Your choice of language clearly denotes your own bias, not the reality. We all do that, its the human condition and whatnot... BOTH sides have their own sense of nobility, their own righteousness, if you will. (I'm an Independent, btw, and I work hard to be objective and respectful of everyone...)

Further examples: When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, aren't people who are gun owners and "right leaning" using the arguments that it is their right (which it clearly and Constitutionally is) to Protect their family? Isn't wanting build up the Military, another right-oriented desire, all about Safety and Security? The "Security of the Nation?" Don't people with anti-abortion arguments say the unborn are being victimized? And aren't the "war against Christmas" arguments about Christians and Christian values being victimized? What about immigration laws and wanting to Protect against illegal immigrants taking things and "using the system" and to Secure American jobs for Americans - i.e. The Big Wall idea? (Though the jobs seem to be leaking out to other countries no matter how high we build our immigration barriers.) Those are several instances of Protection, Security, and Safety that people on the right use for things they care about.

I'm not arguing with you here - and this really isn't directly about you - its about perception and how The Other is portrayed. A LOT of marketing $$$ went into 'helping' us to see The Other as being a string of negatives. I personally resent the manipulation and divisiveness as it serves no one but the people paying for it, imo, on both sides. Interestingly, BOTH sides speak about "freedom" and use that word a lot, just for different things.

peace to you,
AB

Originally posted by beezzer
I think it's all about perception.

Those on the right use terms like;
Rugged individualism
Independent
Self-reliant
Personal responsibility.

Those on the left use terms like;
Dependence
Victim
Protection
Safety
Security

So it may not be physical characteristics as much as how those on either side of the political spectrum are interpreted.

Perception indeed, You just posted yours. My perception is much different.

CJ

I don't think I have laughed so much at a thread in the nearly nine years I have been a member of this site!

Priceless!!!!

But come on guys, stop it, my sides are hurting!

From personal experience, I would say that people that use physical intimidation to get what they want and manipulate people around them with strength rather than wits are more often right-wingers.

In my region, way more people are left-wingers and prefer to have socialist aspects in society for the good of the majority so, this is only based on my limited personal experience but I would say that this research is close to being right.

"More likely" means a generalization, so don't take it personally guys.