I still stick by the: "I want to bone hot gold diggers psychological link". But it still remains to be proven. Even if though there is plenty of evidence out there.
Larger genitalia necessitates wider legroom. Wider legroom means a bigger vehicle. Bigger vehicle means more weight and wind resistance - negative factors against car speed. As penis size approaches infinity, comfort in speed-optimized cars decreases.
Which is where it falls apart. If we're going with generalizing and stereotyping people based on their cars, then in my experience people who feel the need for giant vehicles are even more insecure than the fancy car folk. Huge trucks and Hummers absolutely give off small dick energy. It just screams "I'm overcompensating", while a lot of the fast/exotic car people are older and it seems like they just like to show off their wealth. They both tend to drive like assholes, but the needlessly oversized truck/SUV crowd are far more common on the roads.
"needlessly oversized" and then "SUV" and "truck" (by which I assume is meant regular pickup)" seems to be the opinion that can only be held by someone who never/rarely actually does transport beyond oneself/few passengers :)
pssst.. there are a great many legitimate activities beyond going to purchase pumpkin spice latte or to the microbrewery
(no, I dont own, nor have I ever owned such a vehicle)
Wouldn’t “needlessly” exclude the ~5-10% of people who regularly need those vehicles to do something a smaller vehicle cannot? Driving around the U.S. is really weird because there are so many people driving pickup trucks which are twice as big as their 90s counterparts, and they’re almost always in pristine condition but once you get far enough away from the wealthy suburbs you find non-cosplay farmers driving either much smaller vehicles (which get 2-3 times the mileage) or battered trucks which are clearly heavily used.
(I’m obviously biased here but that’s from having gone furniture shopping at IKEA a couple hours ago and watching some guy with an $80k truck with a lift kit & extended cab who was struggling to tie some boxes in the short bed with the gate down, which would’ve fit in my Subaru without any thought at all.)
If someone has a genuine need for a pickup truck then by definition it's not a needlessly large vehicle. I've known large dog owners, farmers, and handymen who had good reason for their large SUVs and pickup trucks. I also know someone who had no reason for a truck but got it for free as a "Hand me down". Stereotypes don't always apply, but sometimes they're true often enough to persist regardless.
I'm fine with making snap judgements about the anonymous ass on the highway who cuts me off dangerously to get an extra car or two ahead, but I'm a lot more careful about the assumptions I've made when dealing a person for more than just a "passing" moment.
What if you like sports cars not for the status but because you find them more fun to drive and we're scarred during youth when you received an incredibly frustratingly slow first vehicle?
I suppose it's only a link, not a hard and fast rule (bad pun intended).
Also, are people really so dimwitted / easily manipulated / insecure they can be reliably made to question their manhood based on a single data point, and while participating in a study, no less? This aspect seems a bit suspicious to me. For those who are concerned with such matters, extensive comparative information is abundantly available on the Internet.
> What if you like sports cars not for the status but because you find them more fun to drive and we're scarred during youth when you received an incredibly frustratingly slow first vehicle?
Sounds fun!
But they're trying to find connections that happen in large groups, not proclaiming that every purchaser of something had the exact same reasons.
1. Isn't the result based on perception of size, with randomized groups?
2. Saying "X people feel shamed so they buy Y" is not itself body shaming.
3. By "good" do you mean "competent"? If so citation needed that scientists that body shame are incompetent or fraudulent.
Jeez, when you called them "frauds" and this a "pseudoscience website" I thought you were attacking the methodology or knew something about the scientists or site!
"Cruel" (which body shaming arguably is), while widely considered to be unethical, does not equate to "fraud" or automatically invalidates the research. While the Milgram experiment is considered to be unethical, the results do hold scrutiny and as such has been critical in understanding how humans follow authority and obedience. There are many things that we take for granted that was a result of unethical research.
>Also, are people really so dimwitted / easily manipulated / insecure they can be reliably made to question their manhood based on a single data point
Yes. Why do you think people buy expensive cars, believing it says something about them. Yes they'll rationalise it as something else, but ultimately it's just trying to project an image.
Ultimately we're all part of the tribe, trying to fit in while trying to make our way up the pecking order.
It wasn't a bad car at all, actually pretty luxurious. Except it was heavy and had a 5 cylinder "turbo" diesel engine which could do 25-60MPH in something like 30-45 seconds. This made merging onto the freeway problematic and anxiety inducing for a newer driver.
I've come around and appreciate practical vehicles, but the first car I bought in college (and still own!) was a powerful halo model of AWD sports car.
As much as I try to avoid the topic of Tate (and all other so called influencers), from what I gather he's a 6'2" African kickboxer that had 2 or 3 serious girlfriends living with him simultaneously.
Attention whore sure but I have a feeling he's the opposite of any "smalldick" formula.
