It stands to reason that men who prefers to have someone else to take care of him would be weaker than a man who insists on providing for himself. But what about physical attributes? Are men who are physically weaker more likely to support Socialism? According to a new study published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, by researchers at Brunel University, London, physically weaker men are more likely to favor socialism than stronger men.
According to the National Economics Editorial – The study sampled 171 men, and looked at their height, weight, bicep circumference, and overall physical strength—then they compared these traits with the men’s views on the redistribution of wealth and income inequality.
They found that physical weakness was correlated to a preference for socialism.
Conversely, stronger men lacked said preference.
Researcher Michael Price suggests that the results can be explained using the logic of evolutionary psychology:
This is about our Stone Age brains, in a modern society… 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 that inequality is pretty good.
Basically, Price says that if you’re a winner, you like being free to win.
Meanwhile, if you’re a loser, your best chance at reproductive success is to mooch off someone successful—every king, or great warrior, always had a large retinue of servants.
Of course, in the past winning and losing was often predicated upon physical strength: bigger, stronger men were less vulnerable in physical confrontations, they were better at hunting, etc.
Therefore, it makes sense that physical strength was linked to success and a preference for independence.
One CEO has actually designed a “snowflake test” to weed out weakling applicants.