Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This system is picking up on things we don't notice. In the case of men at least some studies have found a correlation between testosterone level and political orientation, something that matches well with my anecdotal observations. It is not outlandish to think this manifests in visual cues in even something as limited as a pic. https://www.mdcthereporter.com/low-testosterone-left/
I have no idea why this comment got downvoted. This is the most scientific explanation possible. In males, more testosterone induces more risk taking, while low testosterone is linked to risk avoidance. Left-wing policies (“nanny state”) cater to people who avoid risks; people who are risk takers prefer right wing policies. Testosterone also affects muscle growth and facial characteristics.
That's one problem with studies like this, as the authors point out. Is Paul Graham liberal or conservative in this binary? I think most conservatives in the US would say liberal, but many liberals, and perhaps even most liberals in his general sphere, might say he's conservative due to "complaining about SJWs and the intolerance of the left on Twitter almost daily, and routinely and proactively arguing in favor of lowering taxes for corporations and very wealthy people".
(The obvious answer is he's neither [http://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html] and it's too hard to fit many people into a one-word binary.)
One could also claim conservatives are by definition averse to change and so risk-averse. They (in this contrived weakman argument) are more likely to want to avoid risks from immigration, the demographics of their community shifting, their industry changing and the possibility of having to find a new kind of job, newly developed vaccines, theological consequences of permitting sinful behavior, etc.
These are all intellectually lazy arguments, but the point is I don't think one can reliably sum up "a conservative" or "a liberal" - whatever that is - as being more or less risk-taking.