3 ms·

I think at least some part of the effect for you is placebo for sure. I'm sure not all of it or even the most of it. My wife has lower then normal for women te

by hawski 4y ago

I think at least some part of the effect for you is placebo for sure. I'm sure not all of it or even the most of it. My wife has lower then normal for women testosterone levels, but she always have been a bit less girly then other females (in behavior, not looks). She felt for example that she had little to no maternal instincts after giving birth to our child.

0ct4via 4y ago
What basis do you have for making these assumptions? It seems rather unscientific to make such baseless claims about a very specialised area most people don't have knowledge of, and mentioning anecdotes about your wife is totally irrelevant...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hawski 4y ago
  No basis. OP gave one anecdote, I gave another one. They seem to contradict each other. That's my point - they are both just anecdotes.
  - 0ct4via 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - Wolfenstein98k 4y ago
    No, one is a form of natural experiment (changing the hormone profile of a single person who can compare the causal effects). The other is an assumption that someone's observed characteristics are caused by one particular hormone level, with no evidence to support that. You could attribute her height and preference for fatty fish to her T levels too, if you strained hard enough.
    - naasking 4y ago
      > No, one is a form of natural experiment (changing the hormone profile of a single person who can compare the causal effects). But this is subject to placebo effect, as the OP said, so you can't directly infer a casual influence on behaviour. > The other is an assumption that someone's observed characteristics are caused by one particular hormone level, with no evidence to support that. The OP did not say the lack of maternal instincts was caused by lower than normal testosterone, they simply noted that she had both characteristics.
    - CWuestefeld 4y ago
      It's not a very well-designed experiment. Aside from changing hormone levels, there's a slew of other variables: Relief at having achieved their transition, aging and maturation, actual memory of past feelings and experiences, and so on. Further, simply using one's self-reported perceptions doesn't provide a very secure footing for a serious result. Sure, use it to drive curiosity and do further experiments. But don't believe your deriving too much "truth" at this point.
- chickenimprint 4y ago
  I'm immensely skeptical of anything self-reported. I don't want to invalidate other's feelings, but we constantly hallucinate firm, certain seeming memories and emotions into existence with barely any suggestion. Unless you double blind test HRT there is no way of knowing if it is not entirely socially conditioned. Trans women don't have the same hormonal cycles as women, and I don't thing there's anything inherently feminine about knitting.
TaylorAlexander 4y ago
Well I wouldn’t say placebo, but some things like an interest in sewing and cooking may be more due to the fact that I’m making a lot of changes in my life and I’m interested in trying new things. However testosterone and estrogen (and progesterone) pretty seriously affect the mind. There are very real effects beyond just placebo.
- kypro 4y ago
  I've done a ton of reading and personal experimentation on this topic and I think your account was fairly spot on honestly. Higher levels of estrogen do generally make emotions feel more intense and lower levels of testosterone generally would make someone less likely to engage in a conflict. Hormones don't really change your core personality though. I dbout someone would become less interested in something like tech because of a change in hormone levels. However, you might be more likely to pursue emotionally fulfilling careers and hobbies in the future, and I think in arrogate this could be what accounts for some of the sex differences we see in male / female career paths. As you mentioned, estrogen make emotions more intense and it seems likely to me that this might in part explain why women seem to enjoy social careers more - perhaps because they provide more emotional stimulus. Neonatal levels of hormones probably have a larger role in shaping our core personalities though. One example of this would autism spectrum disorders which tends to make people more interested in "things". There is now some evidence that autism is a product of irregular hormones levels during development.
toxik 4y ago
> She felt for example that she had little to no maternal instincts after giving birth to our child. Do “maternal instincts” exist in the first place, and how do they differ from just parental instincts? Explaining a failure to bond with your child through gender seems very questionable to me.
- Siddarth1977 4y ago
  What? Of course maternal instincts exist and are distinct. The differences in reproduction are the most fundamental basis of sex differentiation in animals. In some mammals, fathers have literally no contact with their offspring while mothers care for them for years (eg, bears). In others, the mother and father both remain as part of a pack, but the mother does all of the direct care and the father is doing hunting or protection. In some, the father may have a minimal role in early life but then become more involved later as their offspring learn to hunt or fight. The social construct of both parents having equal and identical roles in parenting at all stages of child development is very new and very culturally unique to Western, industrialized and affluent societies. Across all primates and all evidence of pre-industrial humans, maternal and paternal roles were very different.
  - toxik 4y ago
    Actually, there are many species who share the burden of child rearing equally. It is often a matter of resource availability, if food is scarce, males become aggressive and patriarchal structures emerge more prominently, and vice versa. Human history has been harsh, so it is not surprising that our ancestors tended to that type of society. So, it is simply not true “across all” anything. I will forego badly parroting what actual experts say, so instead I recommend Robert Sapolsky’s lectures on this in his biology courses at Stanford. They’re available on YouTube. I also notice you just vaguely referred to various animals in instead of humans, which is curious. My position here, to be clear, is that there are gender differences in personality and phenotype, but they are mostly inconsequential for child rearing in a resource-rich society, ie, both genders are equally competent parents. Individual variation outweighs gender differences.

by hawski 4y ago

0ct4via 4y ago

What basis do you have for making these assumptions? It seems rather unscientific to make such baseless claims about a very specialised area most people don't have knowledge of, and mentioning anecdotes about your wife is totally irrelevant...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hawski 4y ago
No basis. OP gave one anecdote, I gave another one. They seem to contradict each other. That's my point - they are both just anecdotes.
- 0ct4via 4y ago
  [flagged]
- Wolfenstein98k 4y ago
  No, one is a form of natural experiment (changing the hormone profile of a single person who can compare the causal effects). The other is an assumption that someone's observed characteristics are caused by one particular hormone level, with no evidence to support that. You could attribute her height and preference for fatty fish to her T levels too, if you strained hard enough.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > No, one is a form of natural experiment (changing the hormone profile of a single person who can compare the causal effects). But this is subject to placebo effect, as the OP said, so you can't directly infer a casual influence on behaviour. > The other is an assumption that someone's observed characteristics are caused by one particular hormone level, with no evidence to support that. The OP did not say the lack of maternal instincts was caused by lower than normal testosterone, they simply noted that she had both characteristics.
  - CWuestefeld 4y ago
    It's not a very well-designed experiment. Aside from changing hormone levels, there's a slew of other variables: Relief at having achieved their transition, aging and maturation, actual memory of past feelings and experiences, and so on. Further, simply using one's self-reported perceptions doesn't provide a very secure footing for a serious result. Sure, use it to drive curiosity and do further experiments. But don't believe your deriving too much "truth" at this point.
chickenimprint 4y ago
I'm immensely skeptical of anything self-reported. I don't want to invalidate other's feelings, but we constantly hallucinate firm, certain seeming memories and emotions into existence with barely any suggestion. Unless you double blind test HRT there is no way of knowing if it is not entirely socially conditioned. Trans women don't have the same hormonal cycles as women, and I don't thing there's anything inherently feminine about knitting.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago

Well I wouldn’t say placebo, but some things like an interest in sewing and cooking may be more due to the fact that I’m making a lot of changes in my life and I’m interested in trying new things. However testosterone and estrogen (and progesterone) pretty seriously affect the mind. There are very real effects beyond just placebo.

kypro 4y ago
I've done a ton of reading and personal experimentation on this topic and I think your account was fairly spot on honestly. Higher levels of estrogen do generally make emotions feel more intense and lower levels of testosterone generally would make someone less likely to engage in a conflict. Hormones don't really change your core personality though. I dbout someone would become less interested in something like tech because of a change in hormone levels. However, you might be more likely to pursue emotionally fulfilling careers and hobbies in the future, and I think in arrogate this could be what accounts for some of the sex differences we see in male / female career paths. As you mentioned, estrogen make emotions more intense and it seems likely to me that this might in part explain why women seem to enjoy social careers more - perhaps because they provide more emotional stimulus. Neonatal levels of hormones probably have a larger role in shaping our core personalities though. One example of this would autism spectrum disorders which tends to make people more interested in "things". There is now some evidence that autism is a product of irregular hormones levels during development.

toxik 4y ago

> She felt for example that she had little to no maternal instincts after giving birth to our child. Do “maternal instincts” exist in the first place, and how do they differ from just parental instincts? Explaining a failure to bond with your child through gender seems very questionable to me.

Siddarth1977 4y ago
What? Of course maternal instincts exist and are distinct. The differences in reproduction are the most fundamental basis of sex differentiation in animals. In some mammals, fathers have literally no contact with their offspring while mothers care for them for years (eg, bears). In others, the mother and father both remain as part of a pack, but the mother does all of the direct care and the father is doing hunting or protection. In some, the father may have a minimal role in early life but then become more involved later as their offspring learn to hunt or fight. The social construct of both parents having equal and identical roles in parenting at all stages of child development is very new and very culturally unique to Western, industrialized and affluent societies. Across all primates and all evidence of pre-industrial humans, maternal and paternal roles were very different.
- toxik 4y ago
  Actually, there are many species who share the burden of child rearing equally. It is often a matter of resource availability, if food is scarce, males become aggressive and patriarchal structures emerge more prominently, and vice versa. Human history has been harsh, so it is not surprising that our ancestors tended to that type of society. So, it is simply not true “across all” anything. I will forego badly parroting what actual experts say, so instead I recommend Robert Sapolsky’s lectures on this in his biology courses at Stanford. They’re available on YouTube. I also notice you just vaguely referred to various animals in instead of humans, which is curious. My position here, to be clear, is that there are gender differences in personality and phenotype, but they are mostly inconsequential for child rearing in a resource-rich society, ie, both genders are equally competent parents. Individual variation outweighs gender differences.