Studies, where would we be without them?

Almost pure cognitive pollution but it does give an entertaining headline: Weak men more likely to be socialists, study claims by Tom Whipple.

This is an uncontrolled, under-powered, non-pre-registered, study conducted by an academic with clear framing biases. It isn't worth anything other than to feed biases and assumptions.

Don’t tell John Prescott, but maybe socialists are socialists because they aren’t that good in a fight. Conversely, free marketeers may not actually have a sincere belief in the power of Adam Smith’s unseeing hand - and instead have a justified belief in the power of their clenched fist.

A study has found that weaker men are more likely to be in favour of redistributive taxation. The strong on the other hand, who in their cavemen past had no problems controlling both women and resources they had no intention of sharing, are far less likely to see the virtue of egalitarian social policies.

That is one interpretation of research by academics from Brunel University, who assessed 171 men for how buff they were – looking at strength, bicep circumference, weight and height.

Writing in the journal Evolution and Human Behaviour, they found that those men who looked more formidable were more likely to believe particular social groups should be naturally dominant. They were also much less likely to back policies that redistribute wealth.

Michael Price, from Brunel University London, said that this fitted with some of the predictions of evolutionary psychology. “This is about our Stone Age brains, in a modern society,” he said. “Our minds evolved in environments where strength was a big determinant of success. If you find yourself in a body not threatened by other males, if you feel you can win competitions for status, then maybe you start thinking inequality is pretty good.”

The question was which way did the relationship go? Were men who were naturally strong also more likely to be less egalitarian – calibrating their morals to fit their abilities? Or was it that men who were less egalitarian felt more need to go to the gym, unconsciously believing they needed the strength in order to reach a better place in a red-in-tooth-and-claw social hierarchy? When Dr Price factored in time spent in the gym some, but not all, of the link disappeared – implying some truth to the second explanation.

He said that whatever the factors, the fact it still persisted today was fascinating. “Of course this isn’t rational in modern environments, where your ability to win might have more to do with where you went to university. Lot of guys who are phenomenally successful in modern societies would probably be nowhere near as successful in hunter gatherer societies.”

Primitive self-serving biases dressed up in academic garb.