IOW, Walmartians…
Not just in the imaginations of cartoonists…
http://www.funnycaptions.com/img/110584/j-ds-bacon-lipbalm-murica/
I thought it was taken for granted that [del]all[/del] a lot of sociological studies are bullshit, but it’s more fun to pretend they’re true and wisecrack about stereotypes.
This highlights another weird phenomenon: Both the political right and left despise beta males.
Many make the mistake of thinking that civilization and the rules of society are meant to protect the weak from the strong. This is a very naive and biased way of looking at it. No matter how big you are, there will always be someone bigger.
The rules of society are to protect the ethical from the unethical. Without these rules, if your neighbor is bigger and stronger than you, he can just take what he wants from you, with no consequence. Society ensures that no matter how big you are, we are bigger, and that there can be consequences for anti-social behavior.
As to why those of a smaller physical stature may prefer the protections of a society that imposes consequences upon those who prey upon those weaker than themselves, I suppose it makes sense. But this study only shows a very small correlation to the idea, so that means that there are plenty who are strong who still favor a stronger society. This tells me that not all strong people are without empathy and ethics, but those lacking empathy and ethics tend to be strong.
If I were to speculate, I would say that those who are less ethical, and wish to prey upon those who are weaker than themselves would do what they can to improve their physicality, as the unethical need to be more self reliant, as no one will have your back after you shown that you are not to be trusted, and you cannot expect others to behave ethically towards you. Those who are ethical expect most others around them to behave ethically, and for those who do not, they expect society to protect them, in general if not in particular, so they don’t need to be as reliant upon their own strength.
Each faction seems to have their own definition of what constitutes a “beta” male.
Φ on the betas – and the alphas, φ on them all.
100% correct re Obama.
Jimmy Carter was neither tall nor strong, or not particularly athletic to the best of my knowledge. He was also, however, a farmer, and farm work takes physical strength; and yes, even in the modern world. Also, he was an Annapolis grade and held a doctorate in physics. WTF is weak about him? :rolleyes:
Going back a way, JFK and LBJ, while both had health problems, were robust men; vigorous physically, with Kennedy also athletic in the bargain. Brother Bobby, also a lib, was even more healthy than his bro.
The blog Put A Number On it just posted a good takedown of this study.
As already pointed out above, one of the problems is that the sample consisted almost entirely of college students, with a median age of 21 – a group that is not very representative of the general population in either politics or physique.
The other problem with the study is that it is a textbook example of p-hacking: measuring so many different variables, and testing so many different hypotheses, that you are pretty much guaranteed to get a “statistically significant” result through random chance. When a proper Bonferroni correction is performed on the data, the statistical significance disappears.
In fact, the blog author points out that you can take the study’s data set and find a combination of variables which suggests the opposite result just as easily – with a much higher level of statistical significance. It turns out that hand-grip strength in men correlates positively with increased support for economic redistribution, with a p-value of 0.0086, much smaller (hence more significant) than the p=0.04 of the originally reported correlation between “body formidability” and “social dominance orientation”.
Carter was also a submarine crew member. I have seen the training those guys got, plugging a hole (a simulated one with real water coming in) in a wall on a submarine with gallons of cold water coming in with other crew members working as a group to control a leak, is not a job for weaklings.
Agree 100% about Obama. But Dubya was a damn good runner for his age.-IIRC, he ran three miles at under a seven-minute clip before his knees gave him trouble and he switched to cycling.
Carter does not hold a doctorate in physics. He studied engineering at Georgia Tech before switching to Annapolis, and after graduating, he was involved with nuclear submarines.
If farmers are supposed to be manly you could point to The Populist Party, which was was a left-wing agrarian movement in the Great Plains. Labor unions also had a lot of manly men of the greasy blue collar persuasion. The history of the American labor movement is remarkably violent.
It is all bullshit. Those guys, the ones I disagree with, they are <insert putdown here>. Because, you know, those people fit a mold, and they are icky.
No, see, I have friends I disagree with. One of my best friends voted in an inappropriate way, because “A was just as bad as B”, but that does not make me want to stop being friends. Others I got along with like to listen to Mr. OxyContin, but once we skated past that, we got along fine.
So, you know, screw this us v. them thing. Not only can you not profile bleeding-hearts or hammerheads effectively, you should not, because finding common ground and compromise has more potential for good than digging in.
So, just knock it off.
In other words this board is overwhelmingly made up of the weak and ugly type?
Thanks for the informed post, when I posted this all I was seeing on other boards were conservatives saying ‘liberals are wimps’ and liberals saying ‘nuh uh’, but nobody even really looked at the study to see if it had any validity, and if so, why that would be the case. So I posted it here, and I got a few good points about the study.
I suspect your political views may be coloring your perception of these people. Reagan was probably the least physically imposing POTUS we’ve had in recent years. Obama is up there with Gerald Ford on the other end of the scale.
Political views are coloring the entire mess.
Some guys publish a flawed discussion of personal behavior.
Some Right wing net nerds (deliberately?) misinterpret it as an analysis of the psychology of people holding political views.
Multiple people, ignoring the fact that politics has nothing to do with the actual (if flawed) study, jump in to voice their political views on the imaginary psychological “findings” in ways that promote their political views.
- [ ::: shrug :::] *
The word ‘political’ does appear in the full text of the study: “SDO [Social Dominance Orientation] scores are positively correlated with real-world political attitudes such as conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism, and opposition to policies which promote equality”.
SDO is one of the two variables used in the study to measure sociopolitical egalitarianism. The other one is “support for redistribution”, which is described as “i.e., the belief that the government should redistribute wealth from richer to poorer”.
From reading the full text, it seems quite clear that the authors use “sociopolitical egalitarianism” in the way that most people would normally interpret those words. I don’t think it would be a misinterpretation to say that the study is an analysis of the psychology of people holding political views.
Comparing presidents is ridiculous, because, if ever there were outliers, presidents would most certainly have to be them.
The basic hypothesis that they wanted to test was not crazy, and while it included a political aspect it was not primarily political.
It was simply an extension of hypothesizing that those who perceive themselves to potentially be the beneficiary of inequalities within a system are going to be less likely supportive of policies that reduce inequalities and in contrast those who see themselves as being disadvantaged by inequalities are going to be more likely to support policies that reduce inequality.
There are plentyof polls that support for policies to address inequality are higher among the poor and lower among the wealthier. Not a huge shock.
Their schtick was to hypothesize that such personal political beliefs and behaviors also follow a perception of advantage (even if not explicitly held or even rational for today’s world) based on “attractiveness” in both men and women and “formidability” in men.
Positive results would not have been shocking. But instead they have two studies that contradict each other and neither one designed in a manner that holds up to critical review.
Interesting that that this not make it into the abstract.
So, instead of a flawed study being politically grabbed by some Right wing flakes (and politically attacked by their Left wing equivalents), we have some Right wing analysts using fatally flawed techniques, (incredibly undersized population, vague bases of comparison (e.g., bulk instead of strength), p-hacking, and other errors to make silly claims.
This still leaves us with a silly “report” that has no bearing on reality. That the original authors were as dumb as the people fighting over the results does not elevate the report to a worthwhile endeavor.