3 ms·

> Is it still ok to say that men take more risks than women in general? Unless you're so woke that you think testosterone is a social construct, yes it's still

> Is it still ok to say that men take more risks than women in general? Unless you're so woke that you think testosterone is a social construct, yes it's still very ok https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653580/#:~:text=(2008)%20found%20that%20endogenous%20testosterone,women%2C%20but%20not%20in%20men https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653580/#:~:tex.... https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0907352106 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0907352106

baron816 3y ago
This is legit. A lot of people want to treat men and women as having no biological differences. But the distribution of men’s risk tolerance is shifted well to the right of women’s. And it means that more men end up as entrepreneurs than women, but also in jail, addicted to drugs and gambling, dead in an accident, etc.
impomura 3y ago
the second link you pasted is a study made by economists, not real scientists, strike that. The first one you really didn't read, did you? "In contrast to received wisdom regarding testosterone and risk, the present data provide the first robust evidence for a nonlinear association between economic preferences and levels of endogenous testosterone." "Despite the common view that high testosterone levels lead to risky decisions across numerous domains, we found that testosterone has a quadratic relationship with economic risk preferences: Individuals with low and high levels of testosterone (within their gender) were risk and ambiguity neutral, whereas individuals with intermediate levels of testosterone were risk and ambiguity averse."
- gruez 3y ago
  > the second link you pasted is a study made by economists, not real scientists, strike that. I find it funny how you're willing to offhandedly dismiss a paper because "economists, not real scientists", but seemingly have no problems with the field psychology which had the replication crisis and "experiment on a bunch of freshmen psychology students and extrapolate to the whole population" studies.
  - impomura 3y ago
    the other paper is penned by neuroscientists lmao, does noboy open the links anymore?
- lm28469 3y ago
  Economy and psychology aren't too dissimilar when it comes to being "real" science. People can think whatever they want about genders, dismissing hormones is a bit harder, especially when people fight to get said hormones to affirm their gender, if it was all "the same" and interchangeable it wouldn't be the case
  - ryan-c 3y ago
    I've been surgically modified such that my body doesn't produce sex hormones in any significant quantity on its own. As a substitute, I use separate transdermal gels containing testosterone and estrogen, which have relatively short metabolic half life in my body. I normally target an estrogen level similar to an average woman and a testosterone level between the female and male reference ranges. I'm able to adjust the mix on the order of days when it suits me, and there absolutely is a difference. People who know me well can usually tell what mix I'm running.
  - impomura 3y ago
    the other paper is penned by neuroscientists lmao, does noboy open the links anymore?

baron816 3y ago

This is legit. A lot of people want to treat men and women as having no biological differences. But the distribution of men’s risk tolerance is shifted well to the right of women’s. And it means that more men end up as entrepreneurs than women, but also in jail, addicted to drugs and gambling, dead in an accident, etc.

impomura 3y ago

the second link you pasted is a study made by economists, not real scientists, strike that. The first one you really didn't read, did you? "In contrast to received wisdom regarding testosterone and risk, the present data provide the first robust evidence for a nonlinear association between economic preferences and levels of endogenous testosterone." "Despite the common view that high testosterone levels lead to risky decisions across numerous domains, we found that testosterone has a quadratic relationship with economic risk preferences: Individuals with low and high levels of testosterone (within their gender) were risk and ambiguity neutral, whereas individuals with intermediate levels of testosterone were risk and ambiguity averse."

gruez 3y ago
> the second link you pasted is a study made by economists, not real scientists, strike that. I find it funny how you're willing to offhandedly dismiss a paper because "economists, not real scientists", but seemingly have no problems with the field psychology which had the replication crisis and "experiment on a bunch of freshmen psychology students and extrapolate to the whole population" studies.
- impomura 3y ago
  the other paper is penned by neuroscientists lmao, does noboy open the links anymore?
lm28469 3y ago
Economy and psychology aren't too dissimilar when it comes to being "real" science. People can think whatever they want about genders, dismissing hormones is a bit harder, especially when people fight to get said hormones to affirm their gender, if it was all "the same" and interchangeable it wouldn't be the case
- ryan-c 3y ago
  I've been surgically modified such that my body doesn't produce sex hormones in any significant quantity on its own. As a substitute, I use separate transdermal gels containing testosterone and estrogen, which have relatively short metabolic half life in my body. I normally target an estrogen level similar to an average woman and a testosterone level between the female and male reference ranges. I'm able to adjust the mix on the order of days when it suits me, and there absolutely is a difference. People who know me well can usually tell what mix I'm running.
- impomura 3y ago
  the other paper is penned by neuroscientists lmao, does noboy open the links anymore?