"Strong men more likely to vote Conservative"

[RedWorker]

I just came accross this trash: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html

"Physically strong men are more likely to hold right wing political views because they believe society should be geared to personal struggle and self-preservation, an academic study claims."


Lead researcher Aaron Sell said men were 'designed for fighting' and the tougher they are, the more this influences their behaviour and attitudes."Designed". Designed by who? God? They would distance themselves from creationism, but this is the same fucking kind of nonsense. What the fuck is "the purpose of men's design" supposed to mean? Any purpose is subjectively assigned. This is fucking moronic. How the fuck can science claim to discover e.g. the 'meaning of life' - an ENTIRELY human concern, not something that exists in nature - let alone a gender, which is somehow "designed"? What a fucking moronic conception of social science and gender that is underlying this.


Men are better designed to respond rapidly to threats, avoid something that is thrown at them or be able to catch it, and are better at taking a punch, he said.Here's who's better at responding quickly to a stimulus: whoever practices the most. The skinny kid playing Counter-Strike 10 hours per day is more likely to have a lower reaction time than your "macho man". But, no. "Design". LMFAO.

Why is gender the arbitrary category here? Why are they not finding correlations between e.g. "race" - a classification that would be articulated in this context in the same manner as gender and sex, it is of no difference here whether it is a social construct - and ability to respond directly to threats? You could find a correlation between a thousand categories and reaction time, not just sex and gender. But yeah. This is philistine shit we're dealing with. A correlation between gender/sex and physical parameter X has been found, gender roles and kindergarten social science confirmed! Pa-fucking-thetic.

HOW THE FUCK can you be "better" at "taking a punch"? You fucking take a punch, it causes the same damage whether you're a man or a woman. This is moronic. No, no talk about tolerance of negative stimulus, ability to adapt, the meaning and context of this, etc. Just "being better at taking a punch". Moronic.


"Despite the steady decline in physical aggression and violent deaths that have accompanied Western civilization, the human mind is still designed for ancestral environments."Oh my fucking God.
Philistine as fuck.

Then why is violence by women so low compared to violence by men? Right, their mind is designed to be "weak" and not suited towards aggression. But why is violence by upper class so low compared to violence by lower class? CAPITALIST MASTER RACE! THEIR GENES ARE SUPERIOR AND DESIGNED FOR 21ST CENTURY, NOT ANCESTRAL ENVIRONMENT!

[Antiochus]

Even if men were more geared for combat, they would have been more geared in the paleolithic, before the advent of the most primitive weapons. Notice how, these studies never mention the "fact" that women have higher white blood cell counts, which partially explains their relatively higher life expectancy. Gee, I guess women should have more power given that clearly, whoever designed them, wanted them to live longer.

[Rudolf]

wait a minute the sample is Arnie, Chuck Norris and Sly Stallone?


Btw, the lead researcher is Aaron Sell of Griffith Uni... he's an evolutionary psychologist

[Youarenotyouridentity]

"Physically strong men are more likely to hold right wing political views because they believe society should be geared to personal struggle and self-preservation, an academic study claims."

"Designed". Designed by who? God? They would distance themselves from creationism, but this is the same fucking kind of nonsense. What the fuck is "the purpose of men's design" supposed to mean? Any purpose is subjectively assigned. This is fucking moronic. How the fuck can science claim to discover e.g. the 'meaning of life' - an ENTIRELY human concern, not something that exists in nature - let alone a gender, which is somehow "designed"? What a fucking moronic conception of social science and gender that is underlying this.

Here's who's better at responding quickly to a stimulus: whoever practices the most. The skinny kid playing Counter-Strike 10 hours per day is more likely to have a lower reaction time than your "macho man". But, no. "Design". LMFAO.

Why is gender the arbitrary category here? Why are they not finding correlations between e.g. "race" - a classification articulated in the same manner as gender and sex, it is of no difference whether it is a social construct - and ability to respond directly to threats? You could find a correlation between a thousand categories and reaction time, not just sex and gender. But yeah. This is philistine shit we're dealing with. A correlation between gender/sex and physical parameter X has been found, gender roles and moronic pseudo-social science confirmed! Pa-fucking-thetic.

HOW THE FUCK can you be "better" at "taking a punch"? You fucking take a punch, it causes the same damage whether you're a man or a woman. This is moronic. No, no talk about tolerance of negative stimulus, ability to adapt, the meaning and context of this, etc. Just "being better at taking a punch". Moronic.



Oh my fucking God.
Philistine as fuck.

Then why is violence by women so low compared to violence by men? Right, their mind is designed to be "weak" and not suited towards aggression. But why is violence by upper class so low compared to violence by lower class? CAPITALIST MASTER RACE! THEIR GENES ARE SUPERIOR AND SUITED FOR 21ST CENTURY, NOT ANCESTRAL ENVIRONMENT!


Kek has ratiq started making sockpuppets? Is this like the junior one, the one he uses trying to dissapate his rage before starts posting properly because too many people have been laughing at him.


Anyway:

The eminent scientist is claiming that men have been 'designed' by evolution to be better at fighting. Stuff like 'the purpose of men's design' is clearly meant metaphorically, as well you know given that people often use such metaphors when discussing evolution - nobody is suggesting that evolution has a mind.

Your bleating about 'purpose' being subjective is laughable. Let us make an analogy --

''It looks like this the purpose of a bird's wings are to fly'
''hahahaha what? Who is this philistine?! Don't they know purpose is subjective.'

Jesus christ man pull your head out of your ass.



[/U]Here's who's better at responding quickly to a stimulus: whoever practices the most. The skinny kid playing Counter-Strike 10 hours per day is more likely to have a lower reaction time than your "macho man". But, no. "Design". LMFAO.

Do you know this? Do you know that the only way to get better at responding to a stimulus is practise? Are you sure that men aren't innately better at it than women. Have you read any studies on this? Are you supposing to be of an expert in this field than the scientists who publish such results? Of course you aren't.

Blithely shitting on people because you want to signal virtue is Philistine as fuck.


HOW THE FUCK can you be "better" at "taking a punch"? You fucking take a punch, it causes the same damage whether you're a man or a woman. This is moronic. No, no talk about tolerance of negative stimulus, ability to adapt, the meaning and context of this, etc. Just "being better at taking a punch". Moronic.

You honestly believe that there are no grounds to believe that some people are better at taking a bunch than another person. ''It does the same damage whether you are a man or a woman..'' Huh, does punching a blue whale do the same damage as punching a human? Okay, presumably not. Does punching a silverback? Okay, presumably not. We know why this -- thicker and denser and larger material tends to be able to withstand more pressure without deforming.. So if men have larger and thicker bones it stands to reason that they'd be better at taking a punch. You already know this.

Now I know why I wrote this, but the shame at responding has already started to hit me before I click reply.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm not sure if this is the same research, the date of publishing suggests it is. But this is phrased somewhat differently. In the 'scientific journalist' article I recall reading, stronger men tended to be more right-wing because of "self-interest", but a closer reading suggested this also related to socio-economic status. The lower the income, the more left-wing they tended to be, (and vice versa), but the journalistic distillation was, unsurprisingly, suggestive, which worded it as if stronger men tended to be right-wing in general.

As for men, women, etc. In science, you seek to have all variables the same, with the only variable you want to explore its causality. So you say, a counter-strike kid will have slower reaction time. But it's conceivable that if you measure men and women, and let them put into the same hours into the same activities, the men will have a faster reaction time on average. The only different variable would be their sexual physiology. I don't know if this is true, but it's conceivable and not unreasonable and we should of course be open to it. Men and women, or males and females I suppose, are physiologically different. The fastest of women are slower than the fastest of men.

As for my personal experience. I do notice the far-left activists tend to be kinda nerdy and 'beta', the far-right kinda hooliganistic and 'alpha'. Moderate right-wingers, also kinda nerdy but posh nerdy. (and as the far-left grows, it becomes more representative of the general population so the nerdy activist type is drowned out I guess). Kinda stereotypes I guess.Take from that what you will.

Having said that, there do appear to be biases.

[Rudolf]

Anyway:

The eminent scientist

Scientist my arse. Evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience.




is claiming that men have been 'designed' by evolution to be better at fighting. No, they're claiming strength corresponds to conservative politics because... evolution!

[RedWorker]

As for men, women, etc. In science, you seek to have all variables the same, with the only variable you want to explore its causality. So you say, a counter-strike kid will have slower reaction time. But it's conceivable that if you measure men and women, and let them put into the same hours into the same activities, the men will have a faster reaction time on average. The only different variable would be their sexual physiology. I don't know if this is true, but it's conceivable and not unreasonable and we should of course be open to it.

Why are sex/gender the selected categories? There are a thousand categories. There would be correlations with all these categories. But these categories are used because of the obsession about "confirming" or "denying" gender roles, as if these were innate, the result of eternal laws and immutable.

It's conceivable that such a study would be made, but that would be rare. Usually the case is that a bunch of men and women are taken (each having been socialized as their genders and having had completely different experiences), they're given one test and then it's reported on the press as "gender roles confirmed".

Of course we should be "open" to such differences existing, but should the direction and social meaning of the whole enterprise not be questioned? Why are such small differences over arbitrarily selected categories being obsessed about, as if these results proved something?


Men and women, or males and females I suppose, are physiologically different.

So are "Europeans" and "Negroes". So are people of any categories. These categories are human-created classifications, whether based on observation of biology or not.

[Rafiq]

making sockpuppets?

Before we go about convincing others of being sockpuppets, youarenotyouridentity, let's actually take a moment to appreciate the fact that not only are you a sockpuppet, you were made solely for me.

I don't know whether to be flattered or creeped out. In any case, try not to mention "sockpuppets" as it may blow your cover.



The eminent scientist is claiming that men have been 'designed' by evolution to be better at fighting. Stuff like 'the purpose of men's design' is clearly meant metaphorically, as well you know given that people often use such metaphors when discussing evolution - nobody is suggesting that evolution has a mind.

It is not only a metaphor, it is misleading. When people use these kinds of "metaphors" to discuss evolution, they are speaking to people in theological terms. Don't you dare try and fucking tell us this was so innocent - that men were "designed" by evolution somehow isn't supposed to emanate some kind of meaning. And unlike speaking of the 'purpose' of birds having wings, men just happen to have direct relavence as far as actual, real social controversies among humans.

What is even more painfully fucking stupid is that all of the "metaphors" used, for example, in saying "What is the purpose behind X" stem directly from conceiving theological, natural, etc. purpose in the development of humans physiologically. All talk of evolution ultimately goes back to its implications for humans - the key to understanding the anatomy of an ape, is understanding the anatomy of a man. There is no evidence, absolutely no evidence, that men were designed to be "better" at fighting. Men might generally have higher pain tolerances, or might be stronger, but this sais absolutely nothing about these as being adaptations to fighting. So saying men were "designed" by evolution for fighting assumes that they developed those physical characteristics specifically because they were beneficial in fighting other men, but not only is this an unproven statement, it is highly fucking unlikely. Every physical characteristic that was not adapted for in subordinating humans to their social totality is a vestigial triviality (Much like the physical reflexes infants are capable of).


Are you sure that men aren't innately better at it than women. Have you read any studies on this? Are you supposing to be of an expert in this field than the scientists who publish such results? Of course you aren't.

We do not give a fuck about experts. The studies are largely publicly accessible, and you don't need to have any kind of superstitious totem of status to criticize methodology. At any rate, claiming that men are "innately better than women" in this regard is a positive, affirmative claim that requires evidence. And frankly, the claim is highly dubious. Even if it was true that men were better capable of "responding rapidly to threats", this sais nothing about selection for fighting. But you're wrong, any bumfuck idiot can understand that practice greatly improve's one's "reflexes". Reflexes such as these, after all, are by nature trained, there are few "natural" reflexes and few have anything to do with survival. If someone throws a ball at you, for example, your propensity to dodge it has nothing to do with some kind of innate mechanism that was adapted for dodging balls, but because of a conscious (or subconscious) prerogative to not get hit by one, to not feel pain, or whatever you want. That is not to say you cannot perform actions without immediately thinking about them, but that they are all trained, deeply embedded in one's consciousness.

In consideration of gender and socialization, the differences between men and women, if they existed, are trivial and barely relevant. The physiological differences between men and women in general, save for the genitalia, are also ambiguously defined - definitely a gray area.


You honestly believe that there are no grounds to believe that some people are better at taking a bunch than another person.

If you're as much of a coward in real life as you are intellectually, we might have grounds to believe that you have no notion of the matter at all.

At any rate, some people are better at taking punches then others, that is true. But again, pain tolerance is something that can be trained, and it is largely not reducible to bone thickness or what have you. Sure, bone thickness and size will perhaps allow you to avoid the trauma of a blow better, i.e. in getting damaged, but as far as pain tolerance goes, there are too many factors one has to take into account. Two people who are physiologically identical as far as the factors in question, one who plays counter-strike 10 hours a day and the other living in the Ghettos, are you going to tell me that the former person will have the same pain tolerance as the latter person?

Saying this literally emanates a lack of real world experience.


Now I know why I wrote this,

I know too, it's because the specter of Rafiq haunts your soul, its because you can't sleep at night thinking of me. You're obsessed with me. Why else does your sudden desire to make a post coincide with yet another "Have you seen your therapist" private message?

Listen, for someone who has made it his sole prerogative to rescue Rafiq from his narcassism, self-obsession and inflated ego, you sure do a hell of a job making me think I'm special here.

[Rafiq]

As for men, women, etc. In science, you seek to have all variables the same, with the only variable you want to explore its causality. So you say, a counter-strike kid will have slower reaction time. But it's conceivable that if you measure men and women, and let them put into the same hours into the same activities, the men will have a faster reaction time on average. The only different variable would be their sexual physiology. I don't know if this is true, but it's conceivable and not unreasonable and we should of course be open to it. Men and women, or males and females I suppose, are physiologically different. The fastest of women are slower than the fastest of men.

Sure, but this is irrelevant because those differences do not account for the disparities in gender. As you probably recognize.


As for my personal experience. I do notice the far-left activists tend to be kinda nerdy and 'beta', the far-right kinda hooliganistic and 'alpha'.

This largely has little to do with innateness, however, but the personality implications of one's politics. Just look at the article:


Researchers cite muscle-bound Hollywood action heroes like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chuck Norris and Sylvester Stallone as evidence that aggression is linked to conservative politics.

Lol. I really do think the telegraph is simply marketed towards the ignorant masses. Who actually swallows this nonsense? "Aggression is linked to conservative politics". I think it becomes stupid when you introduce a historic dimension. For most of human history where "conservative" meant anything (since the French revolution), would stronger people actually be more susceptible to "conservative" politics? No, they wouldn't. End of story.

[Antiochus]

More importantly it really has 0 bearing on reality. So, as Rafiq mentioned, the French revolution. Your average nobleman in France was an "effiminate" (by modern qualifications), that wore powdered wigs, never worked, seldom exercised and performed virtually no physical tasks. They would LITERALLY be overpowered by the women who stormed the palace of Versailles. And your average male farmer or artisan, despite their shit diet, would certainly be 'stronger'.

Also I fail to see how Chuck Norris, who isn't strong, he is an actor for fucks sake who has some martial arts background; Sylvester Stallone, a 5'7 guy who had a terrible physique until he began taking steroids and Arnold, who is so far above the mean of your average male muscle mass that including him is about as relevant as including the local gorilla from the zoo and quizzing him about how 'conservative' he is.

[BIXX]

Man revleft just gets more and more insane

[Rudolf]

Lol. I really do think the telegraph is simply marketed towards the ignorant masses. Who actually swallows this nonsense? "Aggression is linked to conservative politics".

Im not sure how familiar you are with the telegraph, what with you being in detroit, but it's basically the daily mail for people who think they're clever.

[Redistribute the Rep]

So if men have larger and thicker bones it stands to reason that they'd be better at taking a punch.

Depends on where they're being punched...

Which brings up an interesting point: the idea that a stronger, more masculine physique is superior is based on circular reasoning. There's plenty of instances where other body types are more useful. For instance:

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/09/10/they-hunted-the-cave-people/

[RedWorker]

The eminent scientist is claiming that men have been 'designed' by evolution to be better at fighting. Stuff like 'the purpose of men's design' is clearly meant metaphorically, as well you know given that people often use such metaphors when discussing evolution - nobody is suggesting that evolution has a mind.

Your bleating about 'purpose' being subjective is laughable. Let us make an analogy [...]

Jesus christ man pull your head out of your ass.

They are arguing that this "purpose" is a determining element in the society of today, i.e. that men are "designed" for fighting therefore certain gender roles are inevitable. That there is something "innate", "natural" about this. But no, that is an entirely subjective justification made in the today. Anything could be argued in that manner, including that men are "designed" to be more dominant, etc.

Let us think of this: are women not "designed" for fighting? Obviously women, like men, have evolved characteristics to be able to offend and defend. Yet it is argued that men are "designed" for fighting, whereas women are not. This evidently goes towards justifying gender roles, towards finding justifications for behaviours of today in biology and in what happened thousands of years ago.

"Men" and "women" are human-created classifications, much in the same way "European" and "Black" are. Someone may find actual differences between "European" and "Black". Perhaps "Black" people could be argued to be "designed for fighting", whereas Europeans are not. This would not be innocent. If such differences are found, they would be meaningless. It has nothing to do with social phenomena of today. Everyone can easily find a thousand things that confirm the gender roles. E.g. "women are physically weaker on average" -> supposedly, that's why women are submissive today. But if women were the dominant ones, philistines could also find a thousand reasons for this in their physical differences.


Do you know this? Do you know that the only way to get better at responding to a stimulus is practise? Are you sure that men aren't innately better at it than women. Have you read any studies on this? Are you supposing to be of an expert in this field than the scientists who publish such results? Of course you aren't.

I never said it is the only way. The point is that whatever differences may exist physically, practice is a much greater determining factor. Such physical differences cannot account for the social phenomena of today.


Now I know why I wrote this, but the shame at responding has already started to hit me before I click reply.

Yes, I understand why you're embarrassed.

[Hatshepsut]

Lol. I really do think the telegraph is simply marketed towards the ignorant masses. Who actually swallows this nonsense?

A name for it is “tabloid.” The Telegraph used to decorate some larger supermarket counters in the USA for 25¢ a copy, alongside the Globe which is still there if pricier. The days of getting a print paper for much less than $6.50 are sadly over, but hey, it’s free online!


Scientist my arse. Evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience. No, they're claiming strength corresponds to conservative politics because... evolution!

Meanwhile, we’ll go on to guess that it’s the Telegraph sensationalizing. Their article has no byline and doesn’t even say whether their anonymous reporter interviewed the researchers instead of just logging on to U. California Santa Barbara and looking at the abstract.

Given Thatcherite conservatism hardly twinkled in eyes at the time male upper bodies were undergoing pressure from natural selection, Aaron Sell et al. could not have advanced such a conclusion in a serious journal on evolutionary science, and they did not. Darwinists will never tell you the trapezius muscle evolved “for” fist fighting when sexual display just as well explains this trait. In fact, mating assignments in known human societies have always come via negotiated social alliances, not combat.

Instead, Sell observes that within the upper class, physically stronger males are more likely to vote Right, while in the lower class they are more likely to vote Left. Both choices are self-interested. This correlates with the “Asymmetric War of Attrition” model in vertebrate biology, where stronger organisms in a social setting should not cede access to resources to weaker colleagues for free, that is, if they can defend those resources cost-effectively, while weaker organisms would be foolish in attempts to fight over resources against stronger opponents. This rule is perhaps better called “Avoiding Combat Based on Initial Assessment of Relative Strength.”

But in the journal piece, note that whether one lives in Denmark versus Argentina or the USA actually has more effect on the pattern; the curve is much flatter in the Denmark we take is a “consensus” society.

Sell et al. freely acknowledge that voting and wealth redistribution are functions of modern states that base on numbers, not individual strength, which makes one wonder why they did the study to begin with. They well know that correlation isn’t causation—so they propose further study. Of such stuff is a career made.

Petersen, Sell et al., 2013. Upper body strength & attitude toward wealth redistribution
http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/papers/2013Petersen_PsychologicalScience.pdf

[Comrade Jacob]

Bro, I'm, like, so strong m8, so I'm gunna be, like, a fucking dick to the poor