4 ms·

Quoting from Heim & Hursch (1979): "Of 102 sex offenders, only three castrates (2.9%) relapsed into sex offenses. However, in only 41 cases was the period of ob

Quoting from Heim & Hursch (1979): "Of 102 sex offenders, only three castrates (2.9%) relapsed into sex offenses. However, in only 41 cases was the period of observation long (5-10 years). Therefore, there was a maximum of 7% recidivism during this observation period. The recidivism incidence before castration was as follows: Of 102 subjects, 59 (58%) had relapsed." 2.9%/7% vs 58% (this one is on surgical on chemical) Fedoroff, J.P., Wisner-Carlson, R., Dean, S., & Berlin, F.S. (1992): "All patients received equivalent amounts of group psychotherapy. Of these, 17/46 (37%) relapsed. The rate of relapse among subjects receiving treatment with medroxy-progesterone acetate (MPA) was 4 out of 27 subjects (15%) whereas the rate of relapse among subjects not receiving MPA was 13/19 (68%) "[1] 15% vs 68% And since you bring up math professors, there's actually a study showing a single dose of testosterone improved spatial cognition in females [2]. Again I'm not opposed to cultural angles. I don't doubt that culture makes small innate differences look much bigger. But that's more philosophical/anthropological, it doesn't tell us much on whether a drug would or wouldn't work at scale. We could go on and deconstruct every psychiatric drug this way. [0] https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541244 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541244 [1] https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v18n03_10 https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v18n03_10 [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166432815302680 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016643281...

belorn 6y ago
Yes, surgical and chemical castration undoubtedly reduce sexual interest, sexual performance, and have likely a impact on sex offenders. Removing estrogen and testosterone seems to have an effect on sex offenders recidivism, although it does not work on everyone. This does not mean estrogen causes aggression. It mean estrogen is as a sex hormone, and sex hormones are connected to behavior which is relevant for recidivism. > I don't doubt that culture makes small innate differences look much bigger. But that's more philosophical/anthropological, it doesn't tell us much on whether a drug would or wouldn't work at scale. Understanding biology is needed in order to understand whether a drug would or wouldn't work at scale. Take Oxytocin as an example. A great hormone that makes mothers bond with their child. It has shown to improve prosocial, operate like an anti-depressant, improves trust, make people more generous, and even improve wound healing. It have been considered for use in everything from medicine to vitamin supplements. More modern research however find that there is a problem. It improves prosocial behavior for the in-group but it also create anti-social behavior towards the out-group. It increases trust with the in-group, and causes fear with the out-group. It make women increase parental behavior and at the same time increase racist behavior, and it makes perfect sense. It a hormone that is connected to the goal of sexual reproduction. It increase behavior that benefit offspring during the first years and it strengthen the bond between mother and the child nearest blood-relatives so that the child has the best likelihood to survive. It also protect the child against non-related individuals who is an increase risk of being a threat. Understanding what a hormone actually do is critical to understand its medical effect.

belorn 6y ago

Yes, surgical and chemical castration undoubtedly reduce sexual interest, sexual performance, and have likely a impact on sex offenders. Removing estrogen and testosterone seems to have an effect on sex offenders recidivism, although it does not work on everyone. This does not mean estrogen causes aggression. It mean estrogen is as a sex hormone, and sex hormones are connected to behavior which is relevant for recidivism. > I don't doubt that culture makes small innate differences look much bigger. But that's more philosophical/anthropological, it doesn't tell us much on whether a drug would or wouldn't work at scale. Understanding biology is needed in order to understand whether a drug would or wouldn't work at scale. Take Oxytocin as an example. A great hormone that makes mothers bond with their child. It has shown to improve prosocial, operate like an anti-depressant, improves trust, make people more generous, and even improve wound healing. It have been considered for use in everything from medicine to vitamin supplements. More modern research however find that there is a problem. It improves prosocial behavior for the in-group but it also create anti-social behavior towards the out-group. It increases trust with the in-group, and causes fear with the out-group. It make women increase parental behavior and at the same time increase racist behavior, and it makes perfect sense. It a hormone that is connected to the goal of sexual reproduction. It increase behavior that benefit offspring during the first years and it strengthen the bond between mother and the child nearest blood-relatives so that the child has the best likelihood to survive. It also protect the child against non-related individuals who is an increase risk of being a threat. Understanding what a hormone actually do is critical to understand its medical effect.