New Study: Girly Men Favor Nanny State

[Alceste]

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.

So you believe the study says something different than the blurb from the press release in your OP, which plainly says poor men with greater upper body strength favour redistribution, and the opposite is true in rich men?

 

[Alceste]

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.

It's the daily mail. What do you expect? Their science section is basically a hodge podge of AGW denial, anti-evolution editorials and random fear mongering about immigrants.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's that noise again.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I'm a scrawny Anarcho-Capitalist. 120 lbs and 6ft tall

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm a scrawny Anarcho-Capitalist. 120 lbs and 6ft tall

Scrawny does not mean weak.

 

[Shermana]

I'm a scrawny Anarcho-Capitalist. 120 lbs and 6ft tall

You sound emaciated. I'm 5'7 and 170 lbs, (mostly muscle of course!) Time to hit the gym.

 

[Alceste]

I'm a scrawny Anarcho-Capitalist. 120 lbs and 6ft tall

Then you're probably not rich.

 

[dust1n]

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.

Not I'm not. I've clearly stuck to judgements and the actual conclusions demonstrated by the quotes you provided. I do not need to see to the study at all to see that the information you provided to back up the notion of weak people favoring the distribution of wealth did not in fact do so. All I need to do is look at the quotes you provided and the conclusion you came to based off of them to make such a judgment.

 

[dust1n]

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.

Without the actual study's data to actually back up the claim, why bother making it anyways?

 

[dust1n]

It's the daily mail. What do you expect? Their science section is basically a hodge podge of AGW denial, anti-evolution editorials and random fear mongering about immigrants.

That's the thing. I don't even need to look at the story or the study to determine that the quote in the OP and then the quote I was subsequently referred to in no way supported the claim they were purported to. The complete denial shifted to all sorts of ad hominems, from how incredibly unfun I must be for pointing an inconsistent to somehow being more my certainty "level" about the study is too high, suddenly.

Though, I will say, my certainty level that the information provided via OP had nothing to do with the claim it say it does, and that has obviously been circumvented many times, leaving the impression for me that the discussion will unlikely continue, than say, anyone is certain what the study itself suggests (apparently).

 

[Alceste]

You sound emaciated. I'm 5'7 and 170 lbs, (mostly muscle of course!) Time to hit the gym.

Probably also not rich, given your leftist leanings.

 

[Alceste]

That's the thing. I don't even need to look at the story or the study to determine that the quote in the OP and then the quote I was subsequently referred to in no way supported the claim they were purported to. The complete denial shifted to all sorts of ad hominems, from how incredibly unfun I must be for pointing an inconsistent to somehow being more my certainty "level" about the study is too high, suddenly.

Though, I will say, my certainty level that the information provided via OP had nothing to do with the claim it say it does, and that has obviously been circumvented many times, leaving the impression for me that the discussion will unlikely continue, than say, anyone is certain what the study itself suggests (apparently).

Yeah. It's funny, really. I've never seen anybody dig in so hard over a clear case of sloppy reading. Most puerile would just go "whoops - I didn't see that, thanks for pointing it out." Not pretend the OP says something else entirely when it's still there for all to see.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's the thing. I don't even need to look at the story or the study to determine that the quote in the OP and then the quote I was subsequently referred to in no way supported the claim they were purported to. The complete denial shifted to all sorts of ad hominems, from how incredibly unfun I must be for pointing an inconsistent to somehow being more my certainty "level" about the study is too high, suddenly.
Though, I will say, my certainty level that the information provided via OP had nothing to do with the claim it say it does, and that has obviously been circumvented many times, leaving the impression for me that the discussion will unlikely continue, than say, anyone is certain what the study itself suggests (apparently).

You're playing the same game as in the IRS scandal thread. You read what you want because it
supports how you feel, but avoid addressing that which conflicts, preferring to fling meta-ad
hominisms. For one who hasn't even read the study, your smug certainty has a shaky foundation.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Then you're probably not rich.

Yessum, correct. That's why I am anarch capitalist.

Also - I do eat quite a bit I just have a fast metabolism

 

[Revoltingest]

Also - I do eat quite a bit I just have a fast metabolism

Oh, how I fondly remember those days!
Enjoy them while you can.

 

[Alceste]

Yessum, correct. That's why I am anarch capitalist.

Also - I do eat quite a bit I just have a fast metabolism

Behold the predictive power of research in action! As a skinny, poor guy, you hesitate to assert your self-interest in your political views, while tough guy Shermana is a socialist. Just as the study says.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Behold the predictive power of research in action! As a skinny, poor guy, you hesitate to assert your self-interest in your political views, while tough guy Shermana is a socialist. Just as the study says.

My self interest is part of why I am Capitalist. The other part is my altruistic interest in others

 

[Alceste]

My self interest is part of why I am Capitalist. The other part is my altruistic interest in others

If you're poor, your self-interest is a robust public sector and well-funded social safety net. Capitalism is only in your own self interest if you're rich. At least that was the perspective these researchers adopted for the study.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If you're poor, your self-interest is a robust public sector and well-funded social safety net. Capitalism is only in your own self interest if you're rich. At least that was the perspective these researchers adopted for the study.

What I mean is - I doubt body shape has anything to do with political leanings

 

[Dirty Penguin]

"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 —"

And this is what I was trying to get at early on.....:sad: