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/articl

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.