New Study: Girly Men Favor Nanny State

[dust1n]

Your quote of the story seems to suggest that poor people of equal strength with rich people tend to support the distribution of wealth. So what's this have to do with girly men? It seems to suggest to me that the wealthy seek no distribution of wealth while they poor do. Is that suppose to be surprising or something?

Let's look at the quote I pulled in my first post....

In line with their hypotheses, the data revealed that wealthy men with high upper-body strength were less likely to support redistribution, while less wealthy men of the same strength were more likely to support it.

Strong = manly man
Weak = girly man
It's really quite simple for those who aren't desperate to gainsay with semantics & other trickery.
It's about the correlation between strength (men only) & views on the nanny state...fascinating
subject. I'd like to see more info from the actual study.

LOL, you are serious!? The quote we are mentioning is comparing wealthy men to poor men who have THE SAME strength! Look again:

"In line with their hypotheses, the data revealed that wealthy men with high upper-body strength were less likely to support redistribution, while less wealthy men of the same strength were more likely to support it."

So, I ask again. How does wealthy men with high strength not supporting redistribution and poor men with the SAME STRENGTH supporting redistribution translate into "Weaker men favor nanny state."? In line with their hypotheses, it seems to suggest that POOR MEN favor distribution of wealth.

Post #63 yields more....

"Men with low upper-body strength, on the other hand, were less likely to support their own self-interest. Wealthy men of this group showed less resistance to redistribution, while poor men showed less support. “Our results demonstrate that physically weak males are more reluctant than physically strong males to assert their self-interest —"

And this suggests that men who are physically weaker and are poor are more likely to show less support for wealth distribution. What this is saying (rather clearly) is that men with less upper body strength are less likely to be adamant about their own view, that they are more likely to swing one way or another. Amongst poor men, the stronger you are, the more likely you are to support the distribution of wealth, according to the quote your provided from Post #63.

So again, still failing to understand how your original statement in the title of this thread or in the OP in the thread ("Weaker men want government to take care of them.") is anyway supported by the study you are providing...

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's focus on this....

"Men with low upper-body strength, on the other hand, were less likely to support their own self-interest. Wealthy men of this group showed less resistance to redistribution, while poor men showed less support. “Our results demonstrate that physically weak males are more reluctant than physically strong males to assert their self-interest —"

The article is rife with awkward constructions, but in the summary of the results (2nd sentence), they eliminate the "wealthy" qualifier.

 

[Alceste]

Let's focus on this....

The article is rife with awkward constructions, but in the summary of the results (2nd sentence), they eliminate the "wealthy" qualifier.

That's because self interest for the poor IS wealth redistribution. Self interest for the rich is the rejection of wealth redistribution. If both groups are asserting their self interest by supporting opposite political positions, the "wealth" qualifier is no longer needed.

I didn't find the original article awkward or ambiguous, personally, but the Mail article was a total mess that completely misrepresented the conclusions of the study.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's that noise again.

 

[dust1n]

Let's focus on this....

The article is rife with awkward constructions, but in the summary of the results (2nd sentence), they eliminate the "wealthy" qualifier.

"Men with low upper-body strength, on the other hand, were less likely to support their own self-interest. Wealthy men of this group showed less resistance to redistribution, while poor men showed less support. “Our results demonstrate that physically weak males are more reluctant than physically strong males to assert their self-interest —"

You're going to have to elaborate, because I don't know what you mean. This is what I've gathered from the two statements.

• Rich men with upper body strength are more likely to resist the redistribution of wealth.
• Rich men without as much upper body strength "showed less resistance to redistribution."
• Poor men with upper body strength are more like to support the redistribution of wealth.
• Poor men without as much upper body strength "showed less support."

So the conclusion that weaker men favor the redistribution or wealth is incorrect. The conclusion is more plainly stated right there in the quote:

“Our results demonstrate that physically weak males are more reluctant than physically strong males to assert their self-interest —"

 

[Alceste]

There's that noise again.

The awful screech of basic reading comprehension.

 

[Aquitaine]

There's that noise again.

The awful screech of basic reading comprehension.

opcorn:

 

[Revoltingest]

opcorn:

Yeah, some are dragging a really fun thread downhill.
Looks like it's done for, eh? Perhaps the noise will die down now.
But I thank the manly men, girly men, girlies, manlets & all others who contributed their thoughtfulness & mirth.

 

[dust1n]

Yeah, some are dragging a really fun thread downhill.
Looks like it's done for, eh? Perhaps the noise will die down now.
But I thank the manly men, girly men, girlies, manlets & all others who contributed their thoughtfulness & mirth.

I mean, I'd join in on the mirth and all, if that was at all what the study stated. I'm sorry calling out your misrepresentation is "dragging the fun downhill." But I don't find misrepresenting research particularly fun or humorous. Please, excuse my prudence and diligence in examining your post and enjoy your party.

 

[Alceste]

I mean, I'd join in on the mirth and all, if that was at all what the study stated. I'm sorry calling out your misrepresentation is "dragging the fun downhill." But I don't find misrepresenting research particularly fun or humorous. Please, excuse my prudence and diligence in examining your post and enjoy your party.

That's what I find fun. We can still have a party. We could play "misrepresent the study" and come up with all kinds of different headlines that the study would support if you didn't read it very carefully, or if you only wanted to use it to affirm your own bias. "Wealthy men are selfish", for example, or "Poor men are strong" or "Socialism is most popular with geeky billionaires."

 

[Revoltingest]

I mean, I'd join in on the mirth and all, if that was at all what the study stated. I'm sorry calling out your misrepresentation is "dragging the fun downhill." But I don't find misrepresenting research particularly fun or humorous. Please, excuse my prudence and diligence in examining your post and enjoy your party.

It's hard to analyze a study when all we have are summaries in the news.
But we did see a statement that strength correlates with eschewing the nanny state. (I even underlined it for convenience.)
It would be to misrepresent the article to claim that other language in the same article which seems to conflict with that
statement would over-ride it. But we're just revisiting what we've already covered, accompanied by that intermittent noise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It would be to misrepresent the article to claim that other language in the same article which seems to conflict with that
statement would over-ride it.

We have a press release from the organization that did the study and a newspaper article based on the press release. When the two disagree, why wouldn't we accept the press release over the article?

 

[Revoltingest]

We have a press release from the organization that did the study and a newspaper article based on the press release. When the two disagree, why wouldn't we accept the press release over the article?

One must use one's judgement.

 

[dust1n]

It's hard to analyze a study when all we have are summaries in the news.
But we did see a statement that strength correlates with eschewing the nanny state. (I even underlined it for convenience.)
It would be to misrepresent the article to claim that other language in the same article which seems to conflict with that
statement would over-ride it. But we're just revisiting what we've already covered, accompanied by that intermittent noise.

Only in wealthy men. In poor men, the opposite is true, according the quotes you posted in the OP and in the reference to the later post.


I haven't even looked at the article or the study, I was just examining the quote in the OP and the one I was referenced to. If there is something else in the article or in the study, that actually supports what you said, I would use those, or reference me to them, and not to ones that seem to suggest something quite different.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One must use one's judgement.

And what, in your judgement, suggests to you that the article is more reliable than the press release? Do you think the journalist who wrote the article was privy to information that the writer of the press release wasn't?

 

[Revoltingest]

And what, in your judgement, suggests to you that the article is more reliable than the press release? Do you think the journalist who wrote the article was privy to information that the writer of the press release wasn't?

I made a judgement which served the purpose of putting "girly men" in the thread's title.
The actual study might be an interesting read, don'cha think? The complexities of evolution
& current manifestations of ancient traits is fascinating.

 

[Titanic]

I made a judgement which served the purpose of putting "girly men" in the thread's title.
The actual study might be an interesting read, don'cha think? The complexities of evolution
& current manifestations of ancient traits is fascinating.

manly men favor YMCA state.

 

[dust1n]

That's what I find fun. We can still have a party. We could play "misrepresent the study" and come up with all kinds of different headlines that the study would support if you didn't read it very carefully, or if you only wanted to use it to affirm your own bias. "Wealthy men are selfish", for example, or "Poor men are strong" or "Socialism is most popular with geeky billionaires."

A guess our idea is fun is far mundane for most.

But, really, the last thing we need is further misrepresentation of facts by the media, especially on current issues, and that is significantly more important than being able to jest from them.

 

[Revoltingest]

A guess our idea is fun is far mundane for most.

But, really, the last thing we need is further misrepresentation of facts by the media, especially on current issues, and that is significantly more important than being able to jest from them.

If you claim that your selective culling of convenient statements (while ignoring others)
isn't "misrepresentation", then there's a whole lotta irony splattering around. Without
access to the actual full study, you're exhibiting greater certainty than is appropriate.

 

[Revoltingest]

And what, in your judgement, suggests to you that the article is more reliable than the press release? Do you think the journalist who wrote the article was privy to information that the writer of the press release wasn't?

Without the actual study's data, argument, & results to examine, it doesn't seem worth
it to spend so much effort to argue over it. And you're not covering any new ground.