Men who are physically weak are more likely to be socialists.
The study, conducted in 2017 and published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, found that the weakest men of the group favored socialism.The physically stronger males had less interest in socialist policies.-Source
Much of the article goes on with the author speculating whether the chicken or the egg came first.
One view is that physical fitness is part of a bundle of attributes that spell "success" and successful people don't want to have their money stolen by the State"
Another view is that successful men are more likely to take care of themselves by exercising.
A theory that does not get discussed in the article is that people who are weak are forced to rely on collective effort or intercession by the State to achieve results. That forced dependence morphs in their minds into thinking that collective effort is a virtue.
The study, conducted in
2017 and published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, found
that the weakest men of the group favored socialism.
READ MORE: https://neonnettle.com/features/1628-physically-weak-men-are-more-likely-to-be-socialists-study-shows
© Neon Nettle
READ MORE: https://neonnettle.com/features/1628-physically-weak-men-are-more-likely-to-be-socialists-study-shows
© Neon Nettle
Men who are physically weak are more likely to be socialists, according to an academic study.
READ MORE: https://neonnettle.com/features/1628-physically-weak-men-are-more-likely-to-be-socialists-study-shows
© Neon Nettle
READ MORE: https://neonnettle.com/features/1628-physically-weak-men-are-more-likely-to-be-socialists-study-shows
© Neon Nettle
Men who are physically weak are more likely to be socialists, according to an academic study.
READ MORE: https://neonnettle.com/features/1628-physically-weak-men-are-more-likely-to-be-socialists-study-shows
© Neon Nettle
READ MORE: https://neonnettle.com/features/1628-physically-weak-men-are-more-likely-to-be-socialists-study-shows
© Neon Nettle
It's almost like personal responsibility is a thing . . . hmmm.
ReplyDelete