"Powerfully Built"

[otolith]

They didn't ask about company directorship, but they may have quantified the PH stereotype!


https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-05-muscular-me...

[Some Gump]

I'd strongly suspect that the causation is the other way round - more people who believe in inequality choose to become muscular by working hard in a gym.

[otolith]

Hmm, thanks mods, but actually it's more about politics than fitness. But whatever.

[LimaDelta]

Some Gump said:

I'd strongly suspect that the causation is the other way round - more people who believe in inequality choose to become muscular by working hard in a gym.

This really. There are those who will actively pursue success, fitness, well-being, happiness, etc., and those who believe it should be handed to them, and that if they are unsuccessful, unfit, unhappy etc. then it is societies fault, and not their own.

[MitchT]

People who've worked hard for good things in "people shouldn't be handed good things on a plate" shocker!

[turbobloke]

LimaDelta said:

Some Gump said:

I'd strongly suspect that the causation is the other way round - more people who believe in inequality choose to become muscular by working hard in a gym.

This really. There are those who will actively pursue success, fitness, well-being, happiness, etc., and those who believe it should be handed to them, and that if they are unsuccessful, unfit, unhappy etc. then it is societies fault, and not their own.

MitchT said:

People who've worked hard for good things in "people shouldn't be handed good things on a plate" shocker!

Aye to all that.

After reading the report at the link, there was a definite feel to it that meritocracy is bad and social equality is good. Period.

Presumably the authors consider the racist who verbally abused a young muslim woman on that Oregon train to be the social equal of the three men who intervened to stop him. Two were stabbed to death for their troubles. If that's social equality in action then I oppose it, and I haven't been to the gym for a week.

I'm also in favour of meritocratic outcomes where equality of opportunity is available but equality of outcome isn't forced by state-sanctioned theft to fund freebies on the road to economic equality. Whatever economic equality might mean in the minds of the authors, it has a totalitarian ring to it in the article. Given I'm already opposed to it, there's no point heading over to the gym so I'll take it easy for the rest of the bank holiday weekend.

[Einion Yrth]

otolith said:

Hmm, thanks mods, but actually it's more about politics than fitness. But whatever.

Seems to be back now, but yes you might think that they'd make some attempt to read and comprehend before hitting the "send to the lower levels of (never read) hell" button.

[otolith]

Yeah, I put it in the lounge originally because it was a bit flippant, but fits here better than the health forum.

I thought it was an interesting bit of research, though I would like to see which socioeconomic factors they controlled. Would be interesting to dig further.

[vonuber]

turbobloke said:

Presumably the authors consider the racist who verbally abused a young muslim woman on that Oregon train to be the social equal of the three men who intervened to stop him. Two were stabbed to death for their troubles. If that's social equality in action then I oppose it, and I haven't been to the gym for a week.

How the hell did you come to that conclusion?

[turbobloke]

vonuber said:

turbobloke said:

Presumably the authors consider the racist who verbally abused a young muslim woman on that Oregon train to be the social equal of the three men who intervened to stop him. Two were stabbed to death for their troubles. If that's social equality in action then I oppose it, and I haven't been to the gym for a week.

How the hell did you come to that conclusion?

Your query illustrates my point.

Firstly because they're playing with the term social equality when there's nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals. Perhaps you disagree with my choice of illlustration regarding essential social inequality, though it was reasonable in my view.

Without a universal definition of what social equality means, what it involves in terms of status and who it can be applied to - which is known and understood by everyone - the study was pointless and the results are meaningless. I missed the bit where this is made clear up front so my conclusion followed along with the illustration as chosen.