6 ms·

Testosterone is linked to violence, in that stronger people tend to have higher testosterone levels and people with higher testosterone levels tend to be more a

Testosterone is linked to violence, in that stronger people tend to have higher testosterone levels and people with higher testosterone levels tend to be more aggressive. I think the whole idea of toxic masculinity is bullshit, but we shouldn't ignore obvious correlations just because they upset our ideas about how things should be.

eeZah7Ux 6y ago
[citation needed] There is plenty of scientific research on the topic. "Testosterone == violence" is plain wrong. In some papers, partial correlation was indicated. The belief that testosterone is some sort of "manly warrior hormone" is an example of cultural bias that has been researched as well (see google scholar) and fits very well the description of "toxic masculinity".
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  You didn't refute what I said at all. Testosterone levels are linked to violent behavior. This is very clear in the literature. Does it mean everyone with high testosterone levels is violent? Obviously not. And violence is not always a bad trait either. I don't believe in toxic masculinity. Masculine and feminine traits have their place and are obviously adaptive in different situations.
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    > You didn't refute what I said at all. And I don't intend to. The topic is big enough for a degree and specialization in endocrinology. I recommend to read the books from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky or at the very least watch all his lectures on youtube. > I don't believe in toxic masculinity. Masculine and feminine traits have You are confusing "toxic masculinity" with "masculinity is toxic" "toxic work culture" does not mean "work is toxic"
    - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
      I'm not confusing the two. I don't think "toxic masculinity" is a meaningful concept.
- tachyonbeam 6y ago
  It looks like it's more complex than just testosterone, but there is a link between testosterone and risk-aversion: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X17301466 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X1... There's a biological basis for men being less risk-averse than women. If you think about cavemen days, as a woman, if you are pregnant, or could be pregnant, going hunting, making physical threats, or taking unnecessary risks will reduce your chances of reproductive success. It's better to be safe and conservative, because the life of your children could be at stake. As a male, in primitive times, it was the opposite. Obviously it wouldn't be to your advantage to just pick fights with everyone, but there is much more of a competitive dynamic. The men who go out, hunt, and bring the food, will have more success within their tribes. In order to succeed as a caveman, you had to leave the camp in a hunting party and risk getting killed. AFAIK, based on studies on mitochondrial DNA, we have 2-3x female ancestors as males. Meaning most males died childless. This is obviously not a model for how we want modern society to be, but I think it's healthy to understand where we come form, and why males may have more of a tendency for violence, or to get themselves killed in motorcycle accidents. It's not just because of socialization. There is a biological basis.
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    Quoting a single study? And with only 12 citations...
Baeocystin 6y ago
Testosterone is also linked to a greater sense of fair play, both as the recipient and the benefactor. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/testosterones-effect-on-fair-play/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/testosterones-eff... https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12191-hormones-affect-mens-sense-of-fair-play/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12191-hormones-affect... The concept of testosterone=aggression is damagingly simplistic, and should not be held up as a good model.
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  Yes, I'm not in disagreement with this. I also don't think aggression is a negative trait.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  >>Tesosterone is also linked to a greater sense of fair play, both as the recipient and the benefact I speculate that is likely why libertarianism is the most male-dominated political ideology, and its adherents have the highest income levels. Testosterone could also explain why libertarians are the most-rational/least-emotional of the political typologies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22927928/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22927928/
  - deanCommie 6y ago
    Not emotional does not guarantee rational. Rational does not guarantee correct, if you don't consider all the variables. Anecdotally, I find Libertarians are just as susceptible as people of all political parties of being selective with arguments that support their points of view, and ignoring others. What is unique to Libertarians I know is an arrogance about the objective correctness (because of their lack of emotion and rationality) of their philosophy.
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      Libertarians are only slightly more rational than liberals. Both are significantly more rational and less emotional than conservatives. >>Rational does not guarantee correct, if you don't consider all the variables. Of course, but a rational mindset is more likely to base its beliefs on evidence and logically sound suppositions, and thus be correct, than an emotional one. >>What is unique to Libertarians I know is an arrogance about the objective correctness (because of their lack of emotion and rationality) of their philosophy. I think the willingness of adherents of non-libertarian ideologies to use the force of the state to force peaceful people to bend to their will reveals a greater arrogance. I find "live and let live" to show the greatest humility, but I suppose this is all subjective.
belorn 6y ago
I want to first mention that both violence and aggression is defined in term of culture and as such is a difficult subject for researcher to define in studies. The link between aggression and testosterone in modern studies is a complicated one. The theory that testosterone levels can be used as a predictor for violence has been extensively debunked. However violence is a predictor for high testosterone, a finding mostly done on apes. The prevailing theory, as far as I seen in modern research, is the challenge hypothesis. If two males fight, the winner of the two will have raised testosterone afterward. The winner will also be more likely to be more vigorous defending themselves if their new won status is challenged. On a more subtle human experience, place people in a economic game and inject some with testosterone. What ever behavior that the game has in order to defend status will be increased in those injected. If status is preserved by giving money, those injected with testosterone become more generous. A similar study has been done on sport fans. When a team wins a match, male fans of that team will have their testosterone raised afterward. If there is a confrontation between fans of the two different teams, it is more likely that the winning side will react more aggressively. Talking about toxic behavior, there is also a similar finding for women. It is however a bit more complicated and involve multiple hormones. The aggression is also more complicated, harder to define, and is more context sensitive.

eeZah7Ux 6y ago

[citation needed] There is plenty of scientific research on the topic. "Testosterone == violence" is plain wrong. In some papers, partial correlation was indicated. The belief that testosterone is some sort of "manly warrior hormone" is an example of cultural bias that has been researched as well (see google scholar) and fits very well the description of "toxic masculinity".

jeffreyrogers 6y ago
You didn't refute what I said at all. Testosterone levels are linked to violent behavior. This is very clear in the literature. Does it mean everyone with high testosterone levels is violent? Obviously not. And violence is not always a bad trait either. I don't believe in toxic masculinity. Masculine and feminine traits have their place and are obviously adaptive in different situations.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  > You didn't refute what I said at all. And I don't intend to. The topic is big enough for a degree and specialization in endocrinology. I recommend to read the books from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky or at the very least watch all his lectures on youtube. > I don't believe in toxic masculinity. Masculine and feminine traits have You are confusing "toxic masculinity" with "masculinity is toxic" "toxic work culture" does not mean "work is toxic"
  - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
    I'm not confusing the two. I don't think "toxic masculinity" is a meaningful concept.
tachyonbeam 6y ago
It looks like it's more complex than just testosterone, but there is a link between testosterone and risk-aversion: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X17301466 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X1... There's a biological basis for men being less risk-averse than women. If you think about cavemen days, as a woman, if you are pregnant, or could be pregnant, going hunting, making physical threats, or taking unnecessary risks will reduce your chances of reproductive success. It's better to be safe and conservative, because the life of your children could be at stake. As a male, in primitive times, it was the opposite. Obviously it wouldn't be to your advantage to just pick fights with everyone, but there is much more of a competitive dynamic. The men who go out, hunt, and bring the food, will have more success within their tribes. In order to succeed as a caveman, you had to leave the camp in a hunting party and risk getting killed. AFAIK, based on studies on mitochondrial DNA, we have 2-3x female ancestors as males. Meaning most males died childless. This is obviously not a model for how we want modern society to be, but I think it's healthy to understand where we come form, and why males may have more of a tendency for violence, or to get themselves killed in motorcycle accidents. It's not just because of socialization. There is a biological basis.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  Quoting a single study? And with only 12 citations...

Baeocystin 6y ago

Testosterone is also linked to a greater sense of fair play, both as the recipient and the benefactor. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/testosterones-effect-on-fair-play/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/testosterones-eff... https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12191-hormones-affect-mens-sense-of-fair-play/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12191-hormones-affect... The concept of testosterone=aggression is damagingly simplistic, and should not be held up as a good model.

jeffreyrogers 6y ago
Yes, I'm not in disagreement with this. I also don't think aggression is a negative trait.
CryptoPunk 6y ago
>>Tesosterone is also linked to a greater sense of fair play, both as the recipient and the benefact I speculate that is likely why libertarianism is the most male-dominated political ideology, and its adherents have the highest income levels. Testosterone could also explain why libertarians are the most-rational/least-emotional of the political typologies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22927928/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22927928/
- deanCommie 6y ago
  Not emotional does not guarantee rational. Rational does not guarantee correct, if you don't consider all the variables. Anecdotally, I find Libertarians are just as susceptible as people of all political parties of being selective with arguments that support their points of view, and ignoring others. What is unique to Libertarians I know is an arrogance about the objective correctness (because of their lack of emotion and rationality) of their philosophy.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    Libertarians are only slightly more rational than liberals. Both are significantly more rational and less emotional than conservatives. >>Rational does not guarantee correct, if you don't consider all the variables. Of course, but a rational mindset is more likely to base its beliefs on evidence and logically sound suppositions, and thus be correct, than an emotional one. >>What is unique to Libertarians I know is an arrogance about the objective correctness (because of their lack of emotion and rationality) of their philosophy. I think the willingness of adherents of non-libertarian ideologies to use the force of the state to force peaceful people to bend to their will reveals a greater arrogance. I find "live and let live" to show the greatest humility, but I suppose this is all subjective.

belorn 6y ago

I want to first mention that both violence and aggression is defined in term of culture and as such is a difficult subject for researcher to define in studies. The link between aggression and testosterone in modern studies is a complicated one. The theory that testosterone levels can be used as a predictor for violence has been extensively debunked. However violence is a predictor for high testosterone, a finding mostly done on apes. The prevailing theory, as far as I seen in modern research, is the challenge hypothesis. If two males fight, the winner of the two will have raised testosterone afterward. The winner will also be more likely to be more vigorous defending themselves if their new won status is challenged. On a more subtle human experience, place people in a economic game and inject some with testosterone. What ever behavior that the game has in order to defend status will be increased in those injected. If status is preserved by giving money, those injected with testosterone become more generous. A similar study has been done on sport fans. When a team wins a match, male fans of that team will have their testosterone raised afterward. If there is a confrontation between fans of the two different teams, it is more likely that the winning side will react more aggressively. Talking about toxic behavior, there is also a similar finding for women. It is however a bit more complicated and involve multiple hormones. The aggression is also more complicated, harder to define, and is more context sensitive.