Republican Red: The colour of Champions?

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Everybody is familiar with the Red State / Blue State idea, but this is an interesting article claiming that Red is the colour of winners. With tightly matched opponents, this subtle difference could be the difference between a Bush and a Kerry...

Also, consider this Wiki page (claims are under dispute, but worth noting.) where it shows the colours of past presidental elections as shown on Media networks:
1976 Republican Incumbent (Blue = Ford) (Red = Carter) - winner = Red
1980 Democratic Incumbent (Blue = Reagan) (Red = Carter) - winner = Blue
1984 Republican Incumbent (Blue = Reagan) (Red = Mondale) - winner = Blue
1988 Republican Incumbent (Blue = Dukakis) (Red = Bush) - winner = Red
1992 Republican Incumbent (Blue = Bush) (Red = Clinton) - winner = Red
1996 Democratic Incumbent (Blue = Dole) (Red = Clinton) - winner = Red
2000 Democratic Incumbent (Blue = Gore) (Red = Bush) - winner = Red
2004 Republican Incumbent (Blue = Kerry) (Red = Bush) - winner = Red

To win, see red
Tiger Woods wears it. So do Ferraris, the world champion Boston Red Sox, and English soccer giants Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool. Now scientists say it's no coincidence that winners frequently sport red.

In the first serious study of how colour influences competitive performance, researchers analysed the results of four 2004 Olympic events and found that athletes who wore red frequently triumphed over opponents sporting other hues.

There was one catch: red only seemed to work in contests between closely matched opponents. "If you're hopeless, wearing red is not going to make you a winner," says Robert Barton, an anthropologist at the University of Durham and co-author of the study in today's edition of the journal Nature.

What makes the findings so intriguing, scientists say, is that they appear to draw a direct link between observations of animal behaviour in the field and human behaviour on the playing field.

For example, among mandrills, colourful primates found in the rainforests of western Africa, the most aggressive males typically have the reddest face, genitals and rump. Researchers also found that the redder an animal is, the higher its levels of testosterone.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Some athletes may have subconsciously learned the red lesson. Tiger Woods, for example, traditionally dons a red polo on Sundays, the final day of most tournaments. "We've showed him other colours," says David Hagler, global director of apparel for Nike Golf. "But if it doesn't fit in the red zone, he says, 'Uh-uh.' "

For their study, Barton and colleague Russell Hill analysed the results of four one-on-one events in the 2004 Athens Olympics - boxing, taekwondo, Greco-Roman wrestling and freestyle wrestling.

In each event, combatants are randomly assigned either red or blue jerseys or protective gear. If colour has no effect, the scientists reasoned, the outcomes of the matches should be statistically indistinguishable. But when they excluded forfeits and lopsided matches, scientists found that 16 of 21 rounds in each competition produced more red winners.

The effect may also hold true in team play. In an analysis of results from the Euro 2004 soccer tournament, the researchers found teams scored more goals and racked up more wins when they wore predominantly red jerseys.

Scientists don't know exactly what's going on. Red might boost athletes' testosterone levels or even trip some primordial fear circuit in competitors. Scientists at the University of Bristol, for example, recently showed that mice fear the colour and avoid red cages.
Tiger Woods winning in red.

Not everybody buys into the red scare. US Greco-Roman wrestler Rulon Gardner, who wore blue when he lost his semi-final in Athens, says it had "zero" influence. "It doesn't matter what colour you are," he said. "Everybody can make an excuse about why they didn't win. I just lost."

For the record, Arsenal will wear red in tomorrow night's FA Cup final, leaving Manchester United to wear black, while Liverpool will wear its red shirt in the Champions League final on Thursday morning. AC Milan will wear white.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
"If you're hopeless, wearing red is not going to make you a winner,"

See. It wouldn't have mattered what color Kerry was.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
"If you're hopeless, wearing red is not going to make you a winner,"

See. It wouldn't have mattered what color Kerry was.
Hahahaha :thumbsup::laugh:
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
"If you're hopeless, wearing red is not going to make you a winner,"

See. It wouldn't have mattered what color Kerry was.

Buahahaha - kinda like Carter and Mondale - no?


I wonder why red pen is such a detriment to students(according to psychobabblists) yet red clothing somehow gives an edge to an athlete.

Interesting...

CsG
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
I heard an interview with the guy that made the study. It's interesting. He says further research needs to be done. If I recall it did not have an impact on women.

I hope this has no link to politics and there's no evidence it does. This study is essentially about men getting so physical with each other in a fashion so primitive that it brings up these kind of "appeals to testosterone." You really have to hope non-instinctual decisions are made when it comes to a non-physical competition. Note this study is only talking about physical competitions so far.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
The reason I bring it up is because there was a similar story on the news recently...they drew the conclusion that it was not only physical. They used the Liberal Party of Canada as one of their examples (in power since 1993)...mmmm red liberals :thumbsdown:

Blair's colour is Red too...I should look at all the parties in power in major European countries and see the colours...
So far we have Britain, Canada, US...
 

venk

Banned
Dec 10, 2000
7,449
1
0
The Red Sox are a great example. One world seres victory since 1918 and all of a sudden they are the greatest team in the history of baseball.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
The reason I bring it up is because there was a similar story on the news recently...they drew the conclusion that it was not only physical. They used the Liberal Party of Canada as one of their examples (in power since 1993)...mmmm red liberals :thumbsdown:

Who's they? The media? I wouldn't be surprised if they bastardized the study. Anyway, where's the evidence this applies to non-physical situations? Could be, I just don't see any evidence.

Maybe you could look at past election results, look to see if red wins more often, then control for other factors with regression analysis, and finally ask how the testosterone hypothesis applies to politics.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
I did look at past election results...US results are posted above...
Canadian elections have been under Liberal red for 29 of 42 years...(too lazy to go back past 1962)
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
I did look at past election results...US results are posted above...
Canadian elections have been under Liberal red for 29 of 42 years...(too lazy to go back past 1962)

Are you saying your posting was evidence for an idea? You'd really need regression analysis, which the person in this study actually did. Without it, you don't know whether there is causation behind the correlation. Or whether some other factor is controlling. Could be true, but there is no evidence for it.

EDIT: To be more precise:

Are you saying your posting was evidence for an idea? If so, you'd really need regression analysis, which the person in this study actually did. Without it, you wouldn't know whether there is causation behind the correlation. Or whether some other factor were controlling. Could be true, but there is no evidence for it.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
I'm just throwing a theory out there...Interesting coincidence, I'm not stating this as fact. There could be an ounce of truth behind it, I would support more information on the topic as well.

Am I claiming political parties are won merely on colour alone, hell no.
You are right, there is no evidence of "controlling", but then again, controlling is a word you put in my mouth...:cookie:
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
I'm just throwing a theory out there...
Nothing wrong with that.

You are right, there is no evidence of "controlling", but then again, controlling is a word you put in my mouth...:cookie:
Actually, I didn't put that word in your mouth. Go read it again carefully and look for the part that says "stunt" or "he." Then note how I asked a question when I used the word "you." That is not putting words in your mouth. And if putting words in someone's mouth gets a cookie, you must have crumbs all over your keyboard right now.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Stunt
I did look at past election results...US results are posted above...
Canadian elections have been under Liberal red for 29 of 42 years...(too lazy to go back past 1962)

Are you saying your posting was evidence for an idea? You'd really need regression analysis, which the person in this study actually did. Without it, you don't know whether there is causation behind the correlation. Or whether some other factor is controlling. Could be true, but there is no evidence for it.

 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Stunt
I did look at past election results...US results are posted above...
Canadian elections have been under Liberal red for 29 of 42 years...(too lazy to go back past 1962)

Are you saying your posting was evidence for an idea? You'd really need regression analysis, which the person in this study actually did. Without it, you don't know whether there is causation behind the correlation. Or whether some other factor is controlling. Could be true, but there is no evidence for it.

meh, sorry for the confusion. I meant it the general way. Strictly speaking however, it's true that you don't know that there is causation behind the correlation. That doesn't mean I'm saying you said that. Also note the conditional language in the previous sentence. The context of the post makes it clear I am asking you whether you think you are proving something or not and in the case you are (conditional), then you would be wrong.

Here's my interpretation with bold:

Are you saying your posting was evidence for an idea? You'd really need regression analysis, which the person in this study actually did. Without it, you don't know whether there is causation behind the correlation. Or whether some other factor is controlling. Could be true, but there is no evidence for it.

I think it was clear, but I don't mind being even more clear. So I went back and edited.

 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
I know I would be wrong, I stated that...Fortunately, I did not make those claims, hence the accusation of you putting words in my mouth. I see the discrepancy, I hope you at least enjoyed the read of the article.

Maybe give your opinion on the transition from colours distinguishing Incumbent/Challenger vs. Democrat/Republican.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
I know I would be wrong, I stated that...Fortunately, I did not make those claims, hence the accusation of you putting words in my mouth. I see the discrepancy, I hope you at least enjoyed the read of the article.

Maybe give your opinion on the transition from colours distinguishing Incumbent/Challenger vs. Democrat/Republican.

What accusation am I putting in your mouth? (Feel free to use the edited version that makes it more clear what I was saying).

I said the study was interesting in my first post. I had heard about it on the radio prior to your post.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Sigh...there's a point where you just let misunderstandings go. There was confusion (hence your need to edit), there is no confusion now, the language WAS awkward, not anymore. All is clear and no problems here, thanks for editing.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Sigh...there's a point where you just let misunderstandings go. There was confusion (hence your need to edit), there is no confusion now, the language WAS awkward, not anymore. All is clear and no problems here, thanks for editing.

The language wasn't ackward enough to justify you claiming I was putting words in your mouth. The "topic sentence" was a question. If you think this issue isn't worth pursuing, don't respond.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
Getting back to the topic at hand:

Red might be a winners color, but it seems the GOP had to steal it.
All the time I was growing up the Democrats had red and the republicans had blue. I'm so brainwashed by the BS now I cant quite recall, but I think Clinton had Red states when they were tallying up electoral votes, George Senior had blue and Perot had yellow.

So......... W T F happened !??!
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Getting back to the topic at hand:

Red might be a winners color, but it seems the GOP had to steal it.
All the time I was growing up the Democrats had red and the republicans had blue. I'm so brainwashed by the BS now I cant quite recall, but I think Clinton had Red states when they were tallying up electoral votes, George Senior had blue and Perot had yellow.

So......... W T F happened !??!
I agree, when did they decide on colours? Why did tradition change?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Getting back to the topic at hand:

Red might be a winners color, but it seems the GOP had to steal it.
All the time I was growing up the Democrats had red and the republicans had blue. I'm so brainwashed by the BS now I cant quite recall, but I think Clinton had Red states when they were tallying up electoral votes, George Senior had blue and Perot had yellow.

So......... W T F happened !??!

The wikipedia article in the first post talks about this.