More Junk Science: “Socialists are wimps”
- This topic has 16 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
From yesterday's Times:
Quote:Weak men more likely to be socialists, study claims
Tom Whipple
Don't tell John Prescott, but maybe socialists are socialists because they are not 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 may boast 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 caveman past had no problems controlling women and resources that 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 Brunei University in London. They assessed 171 men for how well-built they were — looking at strength, bicep circumference, weight and height.
Writing in the journal Evolution and Human Behaviour, the researchers found that those men who looked more formidable were more likely to believe that particular social groups should be naturally dominant. They were also much less likely to back policies that redistribute wealth.
Michael Price, from Brunei, 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."Brunel University researchers should stick to engineering instead of dabbling in the pseudo-science of "evolutionary psychology". Anyway, Socialists are not in favour of redistributing wealth. We are in favour of taking all their wealth off the rich and vesting it instead in the community as a whole — under the macho slogan "Peacefully if we may, forcibly if we must".
Cde Coleman made a similar observation in his contribution to the debate against Albert Meltzerhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/how-can-real-revolution-be-achievedIn any case, the vast majority of workers (a majority of which are women) are in favour of capitalism, redistributing wealth to the rich. Does this make them weak or strong?The Times might be misrepresenting the University, and some of their op-ed writers are hardly tough guys, Michael Gove seems pretty feeble with his aborted leadership campaign and I remember an excoriating review of his book by author William Dalrymple a number of years back. Their 'strong and stable' political leader is running scared of a debate. I seem to recall there was a book review from Saturday's Times I planned to share here for discussion.
ALB wrote:From yesterday's Times:Quote:Weak men more likely to be socialists, study claimsTom WhippleDon't tell John Prescott, but maybe socialists are socialists because they are not that good in a fight.Like Larry Grayson, I woke up this morning feeling as limp as a vicar's handshake. Read what you may into that…I think Brunel need a tug at their coat on this. Their study is unscientific on another level–they fail to define socialism!
Look at Vin! The roughest, toughest, Charles Hawtreyest, He-man stuffest hombre north of the River Wear…and he aint no ginger beer.
Bob Andrews wrote:Look at Vin! The roughest, toughest, Charles Hawtreyest, He-man stuffest hombre north of the River Wear…and he aint no ginger beer.You do always make such a Tw@t of yourself, Sunderland is for the most part South or the River Wear. Geography not your strong point, Bob?
'Bob Andrews' is trolling me and more importantly he is allowed to do so, Admin can identify him but will not reveal who he is.This is in stark contrast to the Mod team who previously declared publicly that they had found out that I was using psuedonym – which for some reason I am not allowed to have – and my integrity was in doubt. I for one do not believe that mod can find out a party members' pseudonym and the exact laptop he is using but he can't remove an obvious shit stirring troll.We all know who 'Vin' is, can we now know who 'bob Andrews' is? If not I would appreciate a PUBLIC explanation from Mod/admin.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:You do always make such a Tw@t of yourself, Sunderland is for the most part South or the River Wear. Geography not your strong point, Bob?He is not just a twat, he is a serial rule breaker and hiding like a coward behind a false front.
Vin wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:You do always make such a Tw@t of yourself, Sunderland is for the most part South or the River Wear. Geography not your strong point, Bob?He is not just a twat, he is a serial rule breaker and hiding like a coward behind a false front.
A waddn' fesh yerse wi the geet glake, marra. He can gan'n poss his dutt, for aall ah mind, A've hockled better things.
Remionder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.
moderator1 wrote:Remionder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.The problem is you are only enforcing the rules against me – nothing new there but I was hoping that your attitude towards me had changed. Clearly it hasn't. I think that you allow the trolls to attack me hoping that I react and you can say "there he goes, I told you so"I am afraid that it is you, Mod1. that is refusing to move on and being deliberately provocative by singling me out for 'moderation'. Who is 'Bob Andrews' ? Why do you not moderate him/her?There are many cases on this forum where you answer quiries, why dont you answer mine?
Vin wrote:moderator1 wrote:Reminder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.The problem is you are only enforcing the rules against me – nothing new there but I was hoping that your attitude towards me had changed. Clearly it hasn't. I think that you allow the trolls to attack me hoping that I react and you can say "there he goes, I told you so"I am afraid that it is you, Mod1. that is refusing to move on and being deliberately provocative by singling me out for 'moderation'. Who is 'Bob Andrews' ? Why do you not moderate him/her?There are many cases on this forum where you answer quiries, why dont you answer mine?
1st Warning 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.
Bob Andrews wrote:Look at Vin! The roughest, toughest, Charles Hawtreyest, He-man stuffest hombre north of the River Wear…and he aint no ginger beer.You are free to express your abuse against me . I am vin maratty from sunderland, who are you? and who is the person about to suspend me , Mod1 ? This sort of secrecy may be OK in your little 'socialist studies' group but it will not be allowed to continue in a DEMOCRATIC organisatrion such as the SPGB. Can we have a modicum of democratic control of this collection of socialists, please comrades?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.