I think people automatically jump to the conclusion that studies like this are linking the development of innate physical characteristics with political allegia

I think people automatically jump to the conclusion that studies like this are linking the development of innate physical characteristics with political allegiance. I can understand why this line of enquiry is troubling; as it obviously ties in with branches of science in the 20th century that were immoral. Logically, some physiology will affect our reasoning from a pretty deferred position. Our genetics predespose our brain chemistry. I'm led to believe the development of certain hormones has been shown to have an affect on our physical features; for instance, increased testosterone, providing a more prominent browline. It doesn't feel proposterous that such physiology might have _some_ bearing on the way we align our worldview. It also doesn't surprise me that these factors might be able to be used to infer correlation when used with a very large dataset. People are nuanced though, and I struggle with the concept that we are total slaves to bodies we're born with. I believe choice (through nurture) allows us a high degree of freedom to counterbalance the initial physiological stack our genetics encourages. If this is true, how is this model's reasoning able to successfully predict political allegiance? I'm imagining the way we present ourselves provides subtle nods to prominent figures we respect and cues towards our politics. We leak information through body language, dress, expression. Is this where the extra inference comes from?