This is currently being passed around the internet by conservatives as a ‘look at what pathetic wimps lefties are’. But I’m curious as to the reason this may be the case, if it is the case.
I know that conservatives have a stronger threat response, they notice threats more and respond to them more than liberals.
This is supposedly why conservatives are very pro-military and pro-police, they protect from threats. But are conservatives, who are more aware of and responsive to threats, naturally more prone to engage in weight lifting because they are aware it is a dangerous world and that is how they defend against threats (like other males or predators)?
It kind of ties into gun ownership, does owning a gun make you conservative or are conservatives more likely to own guns? I’d guess the latter, but I really don’t know. Is it just that people who have larger amygdalas and a stronger threat response are more likely to feel the need to own a gun to keep themselves and their families safe?
With this study, I’d guess it is the same. People whose brains make them more aware of how dangerous the world is (aka conservatives) are more likely to engage in strength training to keep themselves safe in a dangerous world.
For what its worth I’m a muscular, gun owning white male and I’m quite liberal.
I don’t know, of course, but in general, I have long noticed that people who CAN do this or that, often favor what they are good at, being declared the official measure of success. Simple selfishness, in other words.
People who are large and physically dangerous, tend to favor rule of the strong. People who are good at getting high grades, tend to favor that as a measure of status. People who were born extra good looking, tend to favor physical appearance as a measurement of value.
I suspect that IF there were a real serious study that concluded that less physically imposing people tended to be somewhat more likely to favor socialism, that it would be due to a side effect. That is, since people who major in phys ed, who focus on military arts, who are born wealthy, don’t usually study the finer details of human interaction over the entire scope of humanity…
…they are entirely unaware of any mode of conducting human affairs which requires anything more than pushing hard for what you want. That would mean capitalism, here in what is commonly called The West.
In short, I’d bet that people don’t support socialism because they aren’t physically imposing. More the other way around.
In the absence of data, I wonder if this might be correlation but not causation. Conservatives have a tendency to live in rural areas, and liberals tend to live in urban areas. It’s my understanding there’s more opportunities for and need for physical labor in urban areas, as opposed to rural areas, so wouldn’t that alone cause a difference in general buffness? I mean I know my own out-of-shape status is more a result of my office job than my liberal leanings.
But if it is, then I would guess that it may have to do with the differing attitudes of weaker and stronger people towards self-reliance versus reliance on society.
In general, people tend to adopt attitudes and life philosophies that work for them.
It’s possible that early on as kids, when might makes right, weaker people might be more likely to buy into the notion that their security depends on “society” defending them from bigger and stronger people out there. This “it takes a village” attitude would then carry over into other aspects of life.
By contrast, people who get used to relying on their own strength are more likely to adopt the attitude that it’s every man for himself. Again, this mindset would then carry over to non-physical strength related matters as well.
No, but a huge portion of the beginnings of socialism came from factory workers and farmers. But maybe it was the weak farmers and factory workers? Dunno.
Eta: and looking at astro’s link, as I suspected all the study participants were university students. Not much of a slice of humanity, imho.
I think** igor frankensteen** has nailed it. Those who are strong, will naturally favor a laissez-faire ‘survival of the fittest’ approach whereas those who are weak want to get equal outcomes and level out the outcomes so they can rise up a bit.
Imagine a zombie apocalypse. Those who naturally already owned an arsenal of guns, will be all in favor of, “My guns are my guns.” Those who don’t have guns, will be like, “Come on now, share some of those shotguns with me!”
But in many socialist/Communist countries, it still eventually turned into a strongmen-at-the-top system - Castro in Cuba, Chavez in Venezuela, Mao in China, the Kims in North Korea, etc.
Note that the study is not looking for correlation just for “strong” men but for strong and attractive men. I am large and quite strong (I am 6’3" and can bench press 290 lbs) and I am more progressive than conservative overall and I have not noticed huge differences between myself and the physical capability of other progressive men or that conservatives are at all stronger. Some younger progressive men tend to be in very good shape.
Though quite strong and potentially intimidating I am currently overweight and I would not consider myself to be attractive right now.
Now if we add “attractive-handsome” to the mix I can say that strong and attractive men do tend (not overwhelmingly but the direction is there) to harder conservative opinions (and aggressive assholery) more than just big, strong guys who are not particularly handsome. IMO this is because someone like this will have been favored, deferred to and sought in life after as is typical with good looking people and these folks seem to develop (again just IMO) a lack of ability to look at a scenario with any degree of “there but for the grace of God empathy”. They are the genetic lottery winners and that forms certain non-empathetic attitudes about how people who need assistance are losers.
Libertarians and ancaps are even manlier. The NAP was actually invented by conservatives so Rothbard, Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises would stop beating the hell out of them.
Pretty sure I’ve seen studies like this floating around for a couple years. I wonder how it works in America, where the South is conservative but has high rates of obesity, and the cities are full of foodie health nuts. Military and police are manly men and conservative, so that checks out. A lot of athletes are libs, or at least the black ones. Heh, I just imagined an alternate world where LeBron was a Trump supporter.