> I think a lot of people think that men are naturally aggressive and can't get over. How high or low male aggression is is certainly an interesting discussion

> I think a lot of people think that men are naturally aggressive and can't get over. How high or low male aggression is is certainly an interesting discussion, but I think is missing the most important point. All other things being equal, a man with a higher testosterone level may tend to be more aggressive and less docile than the same man with a lower testosterone level. If chemicals/plastics are reducing testosterone, the average man today might be less aggressive than he otherwise would have been. > Furthermore, I think countries that have exceptionally low violence from males (like Scandinavian and (some) European countries) point out what -can be- and that this violence that we see in America and a lot of 3rd worlds countries is more societal and learned than innate. Do Scandinavian immigrants come to America and start a crime rampage either in the first, second, or third generation? Have any American newspapers made note of the Scandinavian crime problem? If the American experience was the biggest variable in American crime, then the crime rate from American immigrants from Scandinavian countries should be noticeably higher than the crime rate in Scandinavian countries? You need to isolate for the right variable and compare the same kind of apples-to-apples populations to make the determination. > Aka nature affects it more than nurture. You can have any opinion you want of course, but I think you meant to say that nurture matters more than nature because you're making the argument that violence is societal and learned.