Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, incase you don't get your news from TheBlaze (read: don't want your news to just tell you what you want to hear), here is the link to the actual study (a link that was not provided by TheBlaze):http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S10...fulltext#s0070
In the conclusion, it states that "bodily traits associated with greater bargaining power in social interactions (i.e., attractiveness and/or formidability) tend to relate negatively to egalitarianism." Neither the word capitalism or socialism appeared in the study at any point. Wile I didn't read through the entire study, and instead just read the conclusion and skimmed some other parts, no exact definition of egalitarianism was found. Worth noting, we can assume egalitarianism does not mean "socialist" and instead can refer to both economic and social policy and attitudes.
The study found that the negative correlation was stronger among wealthy men, but that there still was no positive correlation between less wealthy men.
So, to be clear, the study does not state that "stronger men are capitalists" as TheBlaze says or that "weaker men are liberal" as the OP says. Neither statement is actually supported by the study. The study states that having more "social bargaining power," which includes physical size and attractiveness (the study notes that studies examining these traits individually have largely been inconclusive, immediately disproving both the OP and TheBlaze), result in less egalitarian views. That's it. It's not a strength/weakness thing.
Funnily enough, one of the psychologists working on this study states in an interview with the Times (link provided on TheBlaze's website) that this correlation is the result of a "primitive mind" and has less relevance in modern society.
So I'm not sure what battle the OP believes himself to be winning... but he definitely didn't win.
A study of over 100,000 people found Libertarians are smarter than either Liberals or Conservatives. Not surprising to me. A lot more thought goes into become a libertarian. The other two its mostly just peer pressure.
In a project led by Ravi Iyer, we analyzed data from nearly twelve thousand self-described libertarians, and compared their responses to those of 21,000 conservatives and 97,000 liberals.
On this and other measures, libertarians consistently come out as the most cerebral, most rational, and least emotional. On a very crude problem solving measure related to IQ, they score the highest. Libertarians, more than liberals or conservatives, have the capacity to reason their way to their ideology.
[url=http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/25/study-physically-weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialist-strong-men-more-likely-to-be-capitalist/]Study: Physically weak men more likely to be socialist, strong men more likely to be capitalist – TheBlaze[/url]
And the STRONGEST men are more likely to despise both communism AND capitalism. 2 sides of the same coin.
A study of over 100,000 people found Libertarians are smarter thaneither Liberals or Conservatives. Not surprising to me. A lot more thought goes into become a libertarian. The other two its mostly just peer pressure.
In a project led by Ravi Iyer, we analyzed data from nearly twelve thousand self-described libertarians, and compared their responses to those of 21,000 conservatives and 97,000 liberals.
On this and other measures, libertarians consistently come out as the most cerebral, most rational, and least emotional. On a very crude problem solving measure related to IQ, they score the highest. Libertarians, more than liberals or conservatives, have the capacity to reason their way to their ideology.
I can believe this. Libertarians tend to be free-thinkers and skeptical of leftist or rightist doctrine. This requires independent thought and a little effort. It's easy to join some club (liberal, conservative, etc.) and have all of your thinking already done for you.
Having worked with statisticians for a number of years it became obvious they could make numbers tell you what you wanted to hear.
Lets say you have 20 thousand data points but half of them are not favorable to the point you are trying to make. Toss em. Chalk it up to human error, faulty testing, bad equipment, what ever. There are lots of reasons not to use part of the data in order to 'make it more accurate".
Now you have 10 thousand data points. They probably even make a nice bell curve with some marginal results that make it look good.
Now you publish a study of 10 thousand data points. People say "Wow, ten thousand, that's a lot, it must be true!"
In the mean time, there are still 10 thousand failures out there that never see the light of day.
Having worked with statisticians for a number of years it became obvious they could make numbers tell you what you wanted to hear.
Especially when they come from TheBlaze, where they don't even honestly explain what the numbers are saying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
