# Weak men more likely to be socialists, what is the cause **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2017, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447 "2017-05-25T22:09:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/21 "2017-05-26T06:35:33Z")
Counterpoint: [China](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/China_Mieville.jpg/220px-China_Mieville.jpg) [Miéville’s](https://www.biblioimages.com/macmillanaus/getimage.aspx?class=person&assetversionid=284236&cat=default&size=original&id=1069) [gunshow](https://couldtheybeatupchinamieville.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/china_mieville_21.jpg). Which is the name of my Steampunk Dead Kennedies tribute band. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/22 "2017-05-26T06:51:36Z")
This is what science should be about: trying to find ad hominems. I think we should survey mens’ opinions on various topics while also measuring their penis length and girth, and counting the number of hairs on their chest. Then we can find the opinions it’s valid for a true man to hold. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/23 "2017-05-26T08:27:31Z")
How do Scandinavians fit into todays thread on socialism? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/24 "2017-05-26T10:26:15Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Abstract and study here > > [Is sociopolitical egalitarianism related to bodily and facial formidability in men?](http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30390-7/fulltext) In which I note that the words socialism and socialist do not appear even one time. In other words, some Right leaning blogger or commentator has ignored the actual study that discusses personal interactions of Dominant vs Egalitarian approaches to life among individuals and substituted an interpretation of political leanings that has nothing to do with the study. How quaint. ETA: Yes, I recognize that the study begins with the word “sociopolitical,” but I wonder, given the nature of the medium, if “sociopolitical” has a specific meaning in the context of such studies. All of the further references throughout the study are of personal human interaction with no references to politics or economics in the larger community. In fact the phrase “sociopolitical egalitarianism” is always used as a single term as though it carries a specific meaning with no indication that there is any connection to politics. (The words politics and political are also absent from the entire abstract.) ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/25 "2017-05-26T14:02:23Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > People who are large and physically dangerous, tend to favor rule of the strong. The study says exactly the opposite. It’s saying that it’s weak men who favor rule by a strong state, one with lots of powers to take things from one person and give them to another. I have no idea whether the study is valid or not, but let’s not mischaracterize socialism as anything other than rule by the strong. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/26 "2017-05-26T14:24:36Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The study says exactly the opposite. It’s saying that it’s weak men who favor rule by a strong state, one with lots of powers to take things from one person and give them to another. I have no idea whether the study is valid or not, but let’s not mischaracterize socialism as anything other than rule by the strong. True socialism (as opposed to Social Democracy common in Europe) has been shown to only be possible in a one-party, totalitarian state. Given the choice, people always vote that system out. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/27 "2017-05-26T15:00:27Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > 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!” That is an inapt analogy. If I have thirty guns, I can shoot, at most, two of them at once. If there are a hundred zombies on the move and twenty people at risk, it would very quickly become obvious to me that hoarding my guns is less effective in defeating the zombies than handing them out to the brainful. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/28 "2017-05-26T15:39:29Z")
FWIW [their previous year’s study](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491501300109). The hypothesis they were wanting to test: > [@](#): > > … If relatively attractive/formidable people were disadvantaged ancestrally by egalitarian norms, then selection may have favored psychological mechanisms that calibrated one’s “egalitarianism”—that is, one’s support for norms promoting equality, and aversion to norms promoting competition and inequality—to one’s own attractiveness/formidability. Therefore, relatively attractive/formidable people may exhibit reduced egalitarianism in modern environments (Price, Kang, Dunn, and Hopkins, 2011)—even in modern environments in which the relationship between attractiveness/formidability and social bargaining power is weaker than it probably was ancestrally. … In accordance with the above expectations, in previous studies, negative formidability-egalitarianism relationships have been found among men only, and negative attractiveness-egalitarianism relationships have been demonstrated more consistently among men than among women. These studies suggest that men with more formidable and attractive upper bodies exhibit reduced egalitarianism (Price et al., 2011) on measures such as social dominance orientation (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, and Malle, 1994) and social value orientation (Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin, and Joireman, 1997), and that stronger men perceive themselves as more entitled to special treatment (Sell et al., 2009). Studies also suggest that men who possess traits that are judged as more attractive by others tend to be less generous in economic games … Hypotheses. We investigated whether attractiveness and formidability were related to sharing behavior in an economic “dictator” game, to scores on an “equity sensitivity” index, and to political egalitarianism (i.e., preference for a relatively redistributive political system). Based on the above theoretical considerations, we predicted that lower egalitarianism on these measures would be associated with higher formidability among men and higher attractiveness among both sexes (but especially among men) … The findings: > [@](#): > > … Among men, observed egalitarianism was related negatively to attractiveness, but not to formidability. … It was a borderline significance finding on “attractiveness” (defined by “Waist-to-chest Ratio and Rated Attractiveness”) and there were in fact no significant findings in regards to “formidability” (as defined by “Upper Body Size and Grip Strength”). So this time they looked for different measures of “formidability” that might support their hypothesis? Last time they found that male attractiveness correlated and strength did not and this time the opposite. As they are honest enough to discuss in the conclusion of the more recent article: > [@](#): > > These relationships have not always been found—for example, Price et al., 2015 found no significant relationship between egalitarianism and bodily formidability, and the current study found no significant relationship between egalitarianism and bodily attractiveness. Nevertheless, when significant relationships between bodily attractiveness/formidability and egalitarianism have been found in men, they have usually been negative. An exception is Petersen et al. (2013)), which found that bodily formidability and egalitarianism were related negatively among wealthier men but positively among less-wealthy men. The current study did find this negative association among wealthier men, but did not find this positive association among less-wealthy men. Pretty confident that if they did a meta-analysis of just their own work they’d find no statistical significance at all. In short, a pretty weak and conflicting body of work that does not support drawing any conclusions to speculate about. ---
**Author:** ![JR\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JR\_Brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JR_Brown)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/29 "2017-05-26T20:20:21Z")
The thread title, and the article the OP is pulling it from, are quite misleading. First of all, the study does not correlate anything to strength as such. The closest thing they use is “body formidability”, which they define as “taking the mean of shoulder [circumference], chest [circumference], bicep [circumference], grip strength, and arm/chest strength measurements” (after a normalization procedure). So this is a metric that gives 3/5 of its weight to _bulk_ rather than _strength_. They report that this metric is highly correlated with “time in gym”, so in part it’s reflecting how much work men are willing to put in to look muscular, which, unsurprisingly, has been found to be related to a variety of personality characteristics in prior studies. Secondly, they do not ask about socialism, ever. They use questionnaires for “Social Dominance Orientation” (example questions: “Inferior groups should stay in their place” and “Increased social equality is beneficial to society”) and “Support for Redistribution” (example questions: “High incomes should be taxed more than is currently the case” and “The government spends too much money supporting the unemployed”); they consider the latter a measure of support for egalitarianism. Their reported findings are all over the place, but they report that, when looking at all subjects together, “body formidability” correlates with “Social Dominance Orientation” scores but NOT with “Support for Redistribution” scores. They do report that “body formidability” correlates negatively with “Support for Redistribution” _among wealthy men only_; the effect for non-wealthy men was not significant. One conclusion that they offer: “[…] the negative relationship between formidability and support for redistribution may be due to the fact that men who work out more are also more likely to oppose redistribution.” ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_lining](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Silver\_lining](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_lining)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/30 "2017-05-26T23:58:16Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > So I came across this article on another forum, but the quality of debate on this forum is higher so I figured I’d ask about it here. > > I am having trouble finding the original article, it is behind the paywall. Also the study is hard to find too. > > [http://www.dailywire.com/news/16850/study-weak-men-more-likely-be-socialists-amanda-prestigiacomo](http://www.dailywire.com/news/16850/study-weak-men-more-likely-be-socialists-amanda-prestigiacomo) > > 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. > > [Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives' Political Attitudes | Psychology Today](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes) > > 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. Well if you look at Bernie Sanders or Karl Marx, you don’t this is a manly man. More research is needed. How about some current presidents for data? Jimmy Carter and Barrack Obama were very liberal, each were physically weak looking. Meanwhile Ronald Regan and George Bush jr, were pretty in shape, healthy type of guys. Trump is mostly conservative, in his youth he was an athlete, and pretty big guy. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2017, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/31 "2017-05-27T00:40:08Z")
> [@JR\_Brown](#): > > The thread title, and the article the OP is pulling it from, are quite misleading. First of all, the study does not correlate anything to strength as such. The closest thing they use is “body formidability”, which they define as “taking the mean of shoulder [circumference], chest [circumference], bicep [circumference], grip strength, and arm/chest strength measurements” (after a normalization procedure). So this is a metric that gives 3/5 of its weight to _bulk_ rather than _strength_. They report that this metric is highly correlated with “time in gym”, so in part it’s reflecting how much work men are willing to put in to look muscular, which, unsurprisingly, has been found to be related to a variety of personality characteristics in prior studies. > > Secondly, they do not ask about socialism, ever. They use questionnaires for “Social Dominance Orientation” (example questions: “Inferior groups should stay in their place” and “Increased social equality is beneficial to society”) and “Support for Redistribution” (example questions: “High incomes should be taxed more than is currently the case” and “The government spends too much money supporting the unemployed”); they consider the latter a measure of support for egalitarianism. > > Their reported findings are all over the place, but they report that, when looking at all subjects together, “body formidability” correlates with “Social Dominance Orientation” scores but NOT with “Support for Redistribution” scores. They do report that “body formidability” correlates negatively with “Support for Redistribution” _among wealthy men only_; the effect for non-wealthy men was not significant. > > One conclusion that they offer: > “[…] the negative relationship between formidability and support for redistribution may be due to the fact that men who work out more are also more likely to oppose redistribution.” I think I only continue to waste time on this board because I want to see an analysis like this posted and then every participant in the thread recognize how silly it is to continue to discuss the topic. More often than not, this type of completely damning analysis will be completely ignored. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2017, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/32 "2017-05-27T01:37:20Z")
In terms of the hypothesis the authors were wanting to test they were reasonable items to measure. Just not meaningful results in aggregate. Indeed though what they tested and what their hypothesis was and how the linked media coverage is describing it have very little to do with each other. In regards to men their hypothesis is that men who perceive themselves as relatively stronger and are thought of as better looking will show less “support for norms promoting equality” because in ancient times in particular such norms would erase some advantages they may have had. If the collection of studies they did showed significant results on both perceived attractiveness and perceived formidability being associated with performance on the Dictator game and on measures associated with social equality then it would have been some slight support for their hypothesis. Interesting though as to how such a single and weak study becomes embraced in a distorted fashion when some thinks it supports their own self-image. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2017, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/33 "2017-05-27T01:51:54Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > Well if you look at Bernie Sanders or Karl Marx, you don’t this is a manly man. > > More research is needed. How about some current presidents for data? > > Jimmy Carter and Barrack Obama were very liberal, each were physically weak looking. :dubious: > **[Quali lavori si possono fare con la terza media? - imgrum.org](https://www.imgrum.org/quali-lavori-si-possono-fare-con-la-terza-media/)** > > È indispensabile avere una laurea per accedere al mercato del lavoro? Forse no. L’università non è per tutti, ma non conseguire la laurea non significa rinunciare a un lavoro ben pagato. La nostra lista dei migliori lavori senza una laurea comprende... ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2017, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/34 "2017-05-27T02:03:56Z")
I suppose if you subscribe to the “Little Lotta Theory of Body Mass = Physical Strength” then you would see a lard ass like Trump being a strong man. Modern physiology, though, tends to disregard Harvey Comics-based science. ---
**Author:** ![RedAntz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d6d6ee/32.png) [@RedAntz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedAntz)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2017, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/35 "2017-05-27T02:08:14Z")
You have to consider the source of the article–Amanda Prestigiacomo writes for the Daily Wire, a Conservative website and the article itself cites no sources or even a correct title–and as ‘weak’ vs ‘strong’ are purely subjective terms with no way of measurement, I seriously doubt there is any validity to it at all if indeed it were actually a legitimate study or not. One seriously has to doubt ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2017, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/36 "2017-05-27T03:08:38Z")
Sounds like some kind of alt-right beta-male bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![john\_b\_2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9a28c/32.png) [@john\_b\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/john_b_2)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2017, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/37 "2017-05-27T07:32:56Z")
There are bewildering variables in all this it seems to me. How are strong and weak defined, physically, mentally, via education, wealth? As has been mentioned already, the Scandanavian and northern European countries tend to be socialist or more leftist, depending on how one chooses to define these terms; and these are mostly very affluent societies; their populations are on the average physically large and tend to be athletic, which is to say maybe more properly, outdoorsy. I do think that people who have defects (or “defects”, to be pc) are more socialist by inclination. This is a personal view based on my experience. Based on my reading, Franklin Roosevelt, crippled by polio in early middle age, is an excellent example of what I mean. Many people I’ve known who were physically smaller than average or lacking in athletic abilities have been more to the left politically. Chronic medical conditions are, again, based on observation and experience, contributing factors as well. Yet a small, physically unimpressive person can get very rich without having to lift weights, and be quite edgy, competitive and free market oriented. Happens all the time. Then there are all those cultural factors that would likely favor, say, a sickly Mormon for conservative political views even if impoverished due to people of that faith tending to be to the Right politically. I know someone, a person I grew up with, who comes from a conservative, upwardly mobile family whoses siblings are quite well off and, expectedly, conservative, who himself suffers (terribly) from major mental illness, two, actually, bipolar and schizophrenia; and yet when lucid his political and social views are identical to those of the rest of his family. There are so many issues that factor into why some of us are more to the Left, others to the Right, politically, I hesitate to generalize. I have no doubt that there is someone,–probably a whole lot of someones–who are similarly afflicted who are way to the Left politically. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2017, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/38 "2017-05-27T13:17:58Z")
> [@john\_b\_2](#): > > Many people I’ve known who were physically smaller than average or lacking in athletic abilities have been more to the left politically. I’ve also seen a phenomenon I call “camo conservatism”. People who are not well-suited for competition (whether it’s low physical prowess, not very bright, lazy, poverty, etc.) who (consciously or unconsciously) seem to have adopted right-wing beliefs in an attempt to hide their shortcomings. A current example: people who are relying on government benefits, who decry the government spending money on said benefits. To quote Roy Blount, Jr.: “In an actual system of limited government, like the Old West, Rush Limbaugh would be the fat boy who danced when you shot at his feet”. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2017, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/39 "2017-05-27T15:52:21Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > Well if you look at Bernie Sanders or Karl Marx, you don’t this is a manly man. > > More research is needed. How about some current presidents for data? > > Jimmy Carter and Barrack Obama were very liberal, each were physically weak looking. > > Meanwhile Ronald Regan and George Bush jr, were pretty in shape, healthy type of guys. > > Trump is mostly conservative, in his youth he was an athlete, and pretty big guy. Are you smoking powerful herb? Obama is one of the fittest, strongest Presidents in modern memory. He was certainly larger and stronger than “brush clearing” Bush the younger or 70’ish Reagan when POTUS. So no. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Sanchez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19adc/32.png) [@Rick\_Sanchez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Sanchez)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447/40 "2017-05-27T17:45:40Z")
How do the researchers square these findings with the fact that the reddest states in America also have, by quite a significant margin, the highest rates of morbid obesity? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-what-is-the-cause/787447.md?page=3)