16 ms·

Testosterone Administration Induces a Red Shift in Democrats

90 points by jerlendds 1y ago

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
watwut 1y ago
I noticed republicans are more likely to act like a guys who took too much testosterone and now cant handle own feelings and aggression. Or more realistically, lets wait whether it will be reproduced.
- buzzerbetrayed 1y ago
  [flagged]
r9295 1y ago
136 males? Fooled by randomness
Redster 1y ago
I would be interested to see the flip side. For weakly affiliated Republicans, what is the effect, if any? Obviously, 136 is a very small sample size, so I won't be updating one way or another based on this.
- antonymoose 1y ago
  I’m wholly ignorant here, what would make for a respectable sample size?
  - tharne 1y ago
    That's a tough question. There's no one "right" sample size. It depends on the size of the effect you're trying to measure, how much noise is in the data, whether or not you want to analyze subgroups within the data, and many other factors. The sample size here, 136, is not bad at first glance, many studies get published with smaller ones. It's large enough for the purposes here, but you'd definitely want to replicate the experiment a few more times.
  - analog31 1y ago
    The rule of thumb is that signal-to-noise increases by the square root of the sample size. This is a brutal curve, and suggests that simply gathering more data is seldom practical. Another rule that I use myself is, "multiply p by 10." In other words, a p-value of 0.05 is as good as a coin toss. This sounds outrageous, but seems consistent with reality.
  - AaronAPU 1y ago
    Good rule of thumb, if I disagree with the study’s conclusion, it needs a larger sample size.
  - qcnguy 1y ago
    Usually in polling they aim for about 2000 people to represent a country.
- drivebyhooting 1y ago
  The fine article covers that. No effect for strongly or weakly affiliated republicans.
  - Redster 1y ago
    I bounced right over it as I was skimming. Thanks!
amelius 1y ago
Did they measure the IQ shift? https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1lbwkdh/study_on_how_testosterone_levels_relates_to_iq_on/ https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1lbwkdh/...
- lazystar 1y ago
  did some digging - that image is fake, but there is a study with that name. Doesn't contain that data though.
tharne 1y ago
The potential for trolling and general idiocy is high here, so I'll tread carefully. I think this is an uncomfortable truth that the Democratic party has yet to effectively internalize and address; and they will continue to struggle and frustrate themselves until they do. There is very little in current left-wing philosophy that provides any sort of meaningful place or role for masculinity as it is commonly understood. Then, when Democrats or other left wing political parties struggle to win over men, they resort to name calling and try to right off masculinity writ large, causally throwing around phrases like "toxic masculinity". As much as it has gone out of fashion, the masculine and feminine are ever-present parts of the human psyche and human experience, which is why they can be found and understood across cultures, space, and time. Carl Jung and others who explore archetypes and symbols understood this well. You can't ignore a fundamental component of the human experience and expect your philosophy/worldview/politics succeed long term.
- alphabettsy 1y ago
  > current left-wing philosophy that provides any sort of meaningful place or role for masculinity as it is commonly understood I think this strongly depends on your reality and perception. How is masculinity commonly understood and what examples do you have of the left and democrats not making space? On the other side, how can you not see examples of toxic masculinity demonstrated from prominent Republicans including the president?
  - tharne 1y ago
    > How is masculinity commonly understood and what examples do you have of the left and democrats not making space? What would you say is the Democratic or progressive view of masculinity and where does it fit in the progressive or liberal worldview? As a former Democrat, that's not a question I can even begin to answer, because I don't think Democrats,liberals, or progressives see any value in or a role for masculinity. Simply pointing to the other side and saying, "there's some bad guys over there" is not a meaningful retort.
    - alphabettsy 1y ago
TrackerFF 1y ago
Wonder if increased testosterone made some of the subjects seek out hobbies/communities/etc. which in turn influenced them politically. When I was in my 20s, I started really working out. This in turn opened my eyes to bodybuilding, fitness, and such. I became engaged in that, and the bodybuilding/fitness scene / community is (or at least used to be) very right leaning. Echo chamber of bro-science and populistic rightwing ideology.
random9749832 1y ago
Sometimes I wonder if microplastics are a bug or a feature for companies selling us food that contain them. Same with a lot of other products that mess up your hormones.
- HK-NC 1y ago
  As far as I know, the science is settled when it comes to plastics, aerosols and hormones, so it does baffle me that this huge issue that affects us all is fringe and untouched while I see flags representing intersex people (am I evil for not particularly caring about this?) every day in the city.
relium 1y ago
Note this quote from the article: “Weakly affiliated Democrats had basal Testosterone levels 19% higher than strong Democrats and all Republicans.” So it's not as simple as "more testosterone means more Republican".
- 331c8c71 1y ago
  Moreover, the republicans are reported as having lower T on average but the difference is not statistically significant. It looks weird to me they don't report how age behaves across groups and don't correct for age in baseline comparisons.
  - readthenotes1 1y ago
    "but the difference is not statistically significant." So,... Republicans are reported as having basically the same T?
Simulacra 1y ago
A government study… Interesting. And only because it's a government study, had it been a private institution, I would've thrown this away. But it's interesting… That is the NIH.
silexia 1y ago
Why is this flagged?
puppycodes 1y ago
I thought this was surely a joke as it is a hilarious premise for a "scientific" paper not much qualifies as statistically significant from a sample size of 136 men out of roughly 4 billion.
- f33d5173 1y ago
  The validity of a sample size has nothing to do with the size of the set it's drawn from. 136 is a reasonable sample size, 25 is considered the minimum for a yes/no question.
  - puppycodes 1y ago
    sorry but what are talking about? This is why so many studies are impossible to replicate. The sample size has everything to do with the hypothesis here. There is no one size fits all meaningful sample size. When you make a claim about "men" writ large you need enough data to establish significance and account for the multitude of other variables at play which are massive here.
physarum_salad 1y ago
Hilarious and also a great example of how stupid peer review is.
M95D 1y ago
Wow! This is going to be an Ig Nobel Prize winner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize

90 points by jerlendds 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

I noticed republicans are more likely to act like a guys who took too much testosterone and now cant handle own feelings and aggression. Or more realistically, lets wait whether it will be reproduced.

buzzerbetrayed 1y ago
[flagged]

r9295 1y ago

136 males? Fooled by randomness

Redster 1y ago

I would be interested to see the flip side. For weakly affiliated Republicans, what is the effect, if any? Obviously, 136 is a very small sample size, so I won't be updating one way or another based on this.

antonymoose 1y ago
I’m wholly ignorant here, what would make for a respectable sample size?
- tharne 1y ago
  That's a tough question. There's no one "right" sample size. It depends on the size of the effect you're trying to measure, how much noise is in the data, whether or not you want to analyze subgroups within the data, and many other factors. The sample size here, 136, is not bad at first glance, many studies get published with smaller ones. It's large enough for the purposes here, but you'd definitely want to replicate the experiment a few more times.
- analog31 1y ago
  The rule of thumb is that signal-to-noise increases by the square root of the sample size. This is a brutal curve, and suggests that simply gathering more data is seldom practical. Another rule that I use myself is, "multiply p by 10." In other words, a p-value of 0.05 is as good as a coin toss. This sounds outrageous, but seems consistent with reality.
- AaronAPU 1y ago
  Good rule of thumb, if I disagree with the study’s conclusion, it needs a larger sample size.
- qcnguy 1y ago
  Usually in polling they aim for about 2000 people to represent a country.
drivebyhooting 1y ago
The fine article covers that. No effect for strongly or weakly affiliated republicans.
- Redster 1y ago
  I bounced right over it as I was skimming. Thanks!

amelius 1y ago

Did they measure the IQ shift? https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1lbwkdh/study_on_how_testosterone_levels_relates_to_iq_on/ https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1lbwkdh/...

lazystar 1y ago
did some digging - that image is fake, but there is a study with that name. Doesn't contain that data though.

tharne 1y ago

The potential for trolling and general idiocy is high here, so I'll tread carefully. I think this is an uncomfortable truth that the Democratic party has yet to effectively internalize and address; and they will continue to struggle and frustrate themselves until they do. There is very little in current left-wing philosophy that provides any sort of meaningful place or role for masculinity as it is commonly understood. Then, when Democrats or other left wing political parties struggle to win over men, they resort to name calling and try to right off masculinity writ large, causally throwing around phrases like "toxic masculinity". As much as it has gone out of fashion, the masculine and feminine are ever-present parts of the human psyche and human experience, which is why they can be found and understood across cultures, space, and time. Carl Jung and others who explore archetypes and symbols understood this well. You can't ignore a fundamental component of the human experience and expect your philosophy/worldview/politics succeed long term.

alphabettsy 1y ago
> current left-wing philosophy that provides any sort of meaningful place or role for masculinity as it is commonly understood I think this strongly depends on your reality and perception. How is masculinity commonly understood and what examples do you have of the left and democrats not making space? On the other side, how can you not see examples of toxic masculinity demonstrated from prominent Republicans including the president?
- tharne 1y ago
  > How is masculinity commonly understood and what examples do you have of the left and democrats not making space? What would you say is the Democratic or progressive view of masculinity and where does it fit in the progressive or liberal worldview? As a former Democrat, that's not a question I can even begin to answer, because I don't think Democrats,liberals, or progressives see any value in or a role for masculinity. Simply pointing to the other side and saying, "there's some bad guys over there" is not a meaningful retort.
  - alphabettsy 1y ago

TrackerFF 1y ago

Wonder if increased testosterone made some of the subjects seek out hobbies/communities/etc. which in turn influenced them politically. When I was in my 20s, I started really working out. This in turn opened my eyes to bodybuilding, fitness, and such. I became engaged in that, and the bodybuilding/fitness scene / community is (or at least used to be) very right leaning. Echo chamber of bro-science and populistic rightwing ideology.

random9749832 1y ago

Sometimes I wonder if microplastics are a bug or a feature for companies selling us food that contain them. Same with a lot of other products that mess up your hormones.

HK-NC 1y ago
As far as I know, the science is settled when it comes to plastics, aerosols and hormones, so it does baffle me that this huge issue that affects us all is fringe and untouched while I see flags representing intersex people (am I evil for not particularly caring about this?) every day in the city.

relium 1y ago

Note this quote from the article: “Weakly affiliated Democrats had basal Testosterone levels 19% higher than strong Democrats and all Republicans.” So it's not as simple as "more testosterone means more Republican".

331c8c71 1y ago
Moreover, the republicans are reported as having lower T on average but the difference is not statistically significant. It looks weird to me they don't report how age behaves across groups and don't correct for age in baseline comparisons.
- readthenotes1 1y ago
  "but the difference is not statistically significant." So,... Republicans are reported as having basically the same T?

Simulacra 1y ago

A government study… Interesting. And only because it's a government study, had it been a private institution, I would've thrown this away. But it's interesting… That is the NIH.

silexia 1y ago

Why is this flagged?

puppycodes 1y ago

I thought this was surely a joke as it is a hilarious premise for a "scientific" paper not much qualifies as statistically significant from a sample size of 136 men out of roughly 4 billion.

f33d5173 1y ago
The validity of a sample size has nothing to do with the size of the set it's drawn from. 136 is a reasonable sample size, 25 is considered the minimum for a yes/no question.
- puppycodes 1y ago
  sorry but what are talking about? This is why so many studies are impossible to replicate. The sample size has everything to do with the hypothesis here. There is no one size fits all meaningful sample size. When you make a claim about "men" writ large you need enough data to establish significance and account for the multitude of other variables at play which are massive here.

physarum_salad 1y ago

Hilarious and also a great example of how stupid peer review is.

M95D 1y ago

Wow! This is going to be an Ig Nobel Prize winner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize