Color blindness prevents full appreciation of visual arts.
Conservatives tend to oppose public funding of arts.
Our study shows there are more color blind conservatives.

'Hmm... interesting' you say, then someone comes by and points out that color blindedness is much more common in men, and that men are much more likely to be conservatives, and by a factor far higher than 'random+color-blind' could account for. So that's an example, it makes just enough sense on the surface that you can kinda see how it might be so until you kick it around and realize that it really doesn't make any sense.

There seems to be a trend in some disciplines of psychology of late to try to come up with genetic reasons for ideology, which I find seriously disturbing. The Mail article you linked leaves some conclusions out covered at Science 2.0's review of this study. The researcher is claiming that we're genetically predisposed to object to redistribution if we're physically stronger, bigger guys gets the bigger share of the meat concept... which is all screwed up anyway since HG cultures that gave the bigger guys a bigger share frequently used logic and reason in the decision too, the beefy guys were the ones who'd acquired the meat, and they needed more food to stay strong, rather than the biggest wolves fighting for first dibs. It also leaves out that your average hunter returning from a failed hunt is likely much less upset about his own empty stomach then the consequences to his tribe and that his entire worldview and ego is built around how he feeds the tribe, not himself... which is redistribution. The logic implied by the study would indicate the hunters weren't almost entirely focused on how all that meat they're carrying validates their view of their own purpose as a provider, a status valued and praised by libs and cons alike.

Now, at Sci 2.0 he is reported saying something else of note besides the redistribution thingy, that more muscles makes for more political assertiveness. That one works fine from a genetic standpoint, its a simple one, more muscles equals more testosterone and less subconscious fear of reprisal if someone disagrees, that's fine and that applies across party lines. It's nothing to do with politics specifically, just assertiveness in general.

The proper way to have studied this would have been to select a bunch of people at random and give them a quiz on their current views and then send them to the gym (or shoot them up with steroids, whichever) and give them another views-quiz after a period of time and see what happens. Short of doing that you haven't really established anything. Even just intercepting people in their first week going to a gym and catching up with them a couple months later wouldn't prove anything since you'd have to factor in the motives for wanting to be stronger and if that effected their ideology at all. Proving conservatives approve of physical strength more - assuming that is the case - wouldn't prove what he was saying, since that would be environmental rather than genetic. If we're being that slipshod in our science you could save time by just pointing out the most soldiers are in relatively good physical condition and prone to be conservative, and I'm pretty sure that ain't genetic.

Anyway, my take on this is the same as most of these genetic or intelligence inclinations to ideology... giant sack of crap