Study finds weaklings are more likely to be socialists

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-study-claims-rsnc3l8mk

Don’t tell John Prescott, but maybe socialists are socialists because they aren’t that good in a fight. Conversely, free marketeers may not actually have a sincere belief in the power of Adam Smith’s unseeing hand - and instead have a justified belief in the power of their clenched fist.

A study has found that weaker men are more likely to be in favour of redistributive taxation. The strong on the other hand, who in their cavemen past had no problems controlling both women and resources they had no intention of sharing, are far less likely to see the virtue of egalitarian social policies.

That is one interpretation of research by academics from Brunel University, who assessed 171 men for how buff they were – looking at strength, bicep circumference, weight and height.

Writing in the journal Evolution and Human Behaviour, they found that those men who looked more formidable were more likely to believe particular social groups should be naturally dominant. They were also much less likely to back policies that redistribute wealth.

Michael Price, from Brunel University London, said that this fitted with some of the predictions of evolutionary psychology. “This is about our Stone Age brains, in a modern society,” he said. “Our minds evolved in environments where strength was a big determinant of success. If you find yourself in a body not threatened by other males, if you feel you can win competitions for status, then maybe you start thinking inequality is pretty good.”

The question was which way did the relationship go? Were men who were naturally strong also more likely to be less egalitarian – calibrating their morals to fit their abilities? Or was it that men who were less egalitarian felt more need to go to the gym, unconsciously believing they needed the strength in order to reach a better place in a red-in-tooth-and-claw social hierarchy? When Dr Price factored in time spent in the gym some, but not all, of the link disappeared – implying some truth to the second explanation.

He said that whatever the factors, the fact it still persisted today was fascinating. “Of course this isn’t rational in modern environments, where your ability to win might have more to do with where you went to university. Lot of guys who are phenomenally successful in modern societies would probably be nowhere near as successful in hunter gatherer societies.”

Warren Buffett, the American billionaire, made a similar point. “I happen to have a talent for allocating capital,” he said once. “But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I’d been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless.”

That quotation ties into another finding of Dr Price’s work. He discovered that the relationship between physical strength and a belief in the virtues of inequality was almost entirely accounted for by those men from better off backgrounds.

This may go some way to explaining the philanthropy of Buffett and Bill Gates, neither noted for their formidable physiques, versus Donald Trump, who has an imposing build and less of a reputation for charitable endeavour.
Click to expand...

This explains why antifa lost the battle of Berkeley
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Broseph Stalin, Male Idiot, Tim Buckley and 12 others
Click to expand...
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Male Idiot, Munchingonfish, Sargent PoopyFace and 3 others
http://www.dailywire.com/news/16850/study-weak-men-more-likely-be-socialists-amanda-prestigiacomo
Surprise, surprise. Men who are physically weak are more likely to favor socialist policies.

An academic study from researchers at Brunel University London assessed 171 men, looking at their height, weight, overall physical strength and bicep circumference, along with their views on redistribution of wealth and income inequality. The study, published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, found that weaker men were more likely to favor socialist policies than stronger men.

Exhibit A:

via GIPHY


Brunel University's Michael Price believes this may be a product of evolutionary psychology.

"This is about our Stone Age brains, in a modern society," said Dr. Price. "Our minds evolved in environments where strength was a big determinant of success. If you find yourself in a body not threatened by other males, if you feel you can win competitions for status, then maybe you start thinking inequality is pretty good."

Taking his assessment one step further, Price wanted to factor in gym time to see if he could determine the relationship flow between strength and socialistic leanings. Are men who are naturally strong more inclined to hold capitalistic views, or are men with capitalistic views driven to go to the gym?

"When Dr Price factored in time spent in the gym some, but not all, of the link disappeared," notes The Times, suggesting there may be something to men with capitalistic views hitting the gym.

"Of course this isn’t rational in modern environments, where your ability to win might have more to do with where you went to university. Lot of guys who are phenomenally successful in modern societies would probably be nowhere near as successful in hunter gatherer societies," added Price.

Other studies in the past have also suggested stronger men are more right-wing than physically weaker men. "Researchers found that men's opinions on redistribution of wealth could be predicted by their upper body strength, with powerful men more likely to take a conservative stance of protecting their own interests," noted The Telegraph of a 2013 study from Aarhus University in Denmark.

Anyone with two eyes would be hard-pressed to refute such findings.


lmao
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
  • Feels
Reactions: Male Idiot, Literally Hitler, Cato and 1 other person
Anyone who has ever looked at nature could tell you this. Notice how ants are team players and grasshoppers are usually solitary?

However, when some grasshoppers outbreed their environment, they not only change shape and colour, they change into creatures capable of cohesive behaviour as swarms, and when that happens they fuck shit up. And that's why I am a brocialist, or as I prefer to be known, a swolectivist.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Informative
Reactions: Daughter of Cernunnos, DangerousGas, Coster and 3 others
Well in modern society a gun is a great equalizer to physical strength, unless you are carrying around a machine gun and need that strength

I saw this one dude in highschool years back that wore a CCCP shirt, and when I asked him about it he said he was communist, he was also pretty ripped tho. If I remember correctly he was probably the type of person that was getting ready for a civil war or some shit, like some paranoid extremists of all types do.

Besides it's not the fact that antifa are physically weak that explains why they keep losing, it's the fact they are utterly exceptional and don't know how to plan anything correctly.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Daughter of Cernunnos
vtlec.jpg


AnOminous said:
Tell the Nazis at Stalingrad that.
Click to expand...
The socialists in question are more of the Trotskyite variety, which would have been obliterated assuming Stalin wasn't in power.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Male Idiot, Ravelord and AnOminous
CWCchange said:
vtlec.jpg



The socialists in question are more of the Trotskyite variety, which would have been obliterated assuming Stalin wasn't in power.
Click to expand...
I just don't see the founder of the Red Army just sitting and watching an obviously hostile neighbor build up an army, Trotsky wasn't French.
 
Reddit rees as usual. But this is mostly true for white western liberals nowdays. But not true for their "coloured" pets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back