Do Bodybuilders Disfavor Socialism?





Researchers found that stronger, more muscular (“formidable”) men were less likely to support large-scale economic redistribution than weaker, less muscular men.





By Rick Collins, Esq.





Q: It seems like most of my gym buddies are to the Right on economics. Do you find that?





A: In a study published in Evolution and Human Behavior, researchers assessed 171 British men aged 18 through 40 based on markers of strength and muscularity and asked them about their political and socioeconomic views, including their thoughts on the government redistribution of wealth from richer to poorer (“economic egalitarianism,” a key tenet of socialism).1 The researchers found that stronger, more muscular (“formidable”) men were less likely to support large-scale economic redistribution than weaker, less muscular men.





The researchers looked at human evolutionary history to interpret the results – more formidable Stone Age men would have been able to take more of the lion’s share of resources and thus benefit more from resource inequality over weaker men. One theory of why today’s more formidable men are less likely to favor wealth redistribution is that evolution wired them to calibrate their economic egalitarianism to their physical advantage. In other words, big guys want to get and keep the most resources for themselves.





But that theory is challenged by the study’s data about time spent in the gym. The study participants who spent a lot of time working out were less likely to favor wealth redistribution regardless of how small, weak, big, or strong they were. Conversely, those physically formidable men who spent little or no time working out (i.e., naturally big guys) showed no significant correlation to attitudes about wealth redistribution. In other words, even smaller, aspiring bodybuilders who are working out a lot disfavor socialism, while untrained big guys don’t care one way or the other.





The literature in this area bears some mixed results, so a research team from Aarhus University in Denmark looked at whether physical strength and formidability influences attitudes on egalitarianism by using a larger, more diverse set of 12 different samples from six different countries.2 Their results, published in Political Psychology, focused on five laboratory studies that specifically looked at support for wealth redistribution. The researchers found that formidability as measured by upper body strength was correlated with disfavoring wealth redistribution. Interestingly, the correlation existed regardless of the respondent’s own wealth – even “poor males” who are strong support economically conservative policies. The researchers theorize that this “is seemingly because they expect to be able to rise in status by themselves” so they don’t feel that they need help.





Both studies also looked at social issues, not just economic ones, including whether formidability was correlated with social dominance orientation (SDO). High-SDO individuals are predisposed to favor competition and accept inequality between social groups. Most studies show that formidable men are more likely to be high-SDO. Predictably, some media voices wasted no time in mocking bodybuilders as selfish narcissists: “No time to worry about socioeconomic inequality when you've got to finish your reps, brah!”3





My point here isn’t to address or judge the sociopolitical elements of these studies, but just to theorize about why bodybuilders appear to be more economically conservative. I suspect it’s in part because those who pursue bodybuilding in the first place are more likely to be self-reliant types who connect work output to rewards (“self-made”). Nobody gets a ripped, 18-inch muscular arm without enormous expenditures of time and effort. You embark on your journey as a bodybuilder accepting that your success will largely be tied to how much you invest into the endeavor. Sure, there are certain physical inequities – some guys have genetic advantages that may seem unfair (e.g., the dude with massive calves who never trains them!). The same is true of certain economic inequities – the world isn’t fair. But the hardworking bodybuilder who’s grinding it out every day looks around the gym at the less inspired guys playing games on their smartphones and is less likely to feel that rewards should be equally shared. That sentiment is probably even stronger about those who aren’t going to the gym at all. And, right or wrong, I think that the “if I can do it, you can do it” mindset transfers to economics among those whose personalities are predisposed to bodybuilding, regardless of how far along the bodybuilding journey they are.





Rick Collins, Esq., CSCS [https://rickcollins.com/] is the lawyer who members of the bodybuilding community and dietary supplement industry turn to when they need legal help or representation. [© Rick Collins, 2021. All rights reserved. For informational purposes only, not to be construed as legal or medical advice.]



References:





1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...90513816303907





2. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...111/pops.12505





3. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j...ience-confirms “To all you gym-bro haters amongst us, come, be seated. This one's for you. Science – objective, empirically tested science … has confirmed what many of us have long suspected: Gym bros are right-wing jerks.”





DISCUSS ON OUR FORUMS

SUBSCRIBE TO MD TODAY

GET OFFICIAL MD STUFF

VISIT OUR STORE



ALSO, MAKE SURE TO FOLLOW US ON:



[*]FACEBOOK

TWITTER

INSTAGRAM

YOUTUBE







Top




Click here to view the article.