Well for one thing, females are more sensitive to testosterone. According to James McBride Dabbs, 2000, anyways.
But the average adult male has 40 to 60 times the testosterone of an adult female (of course, noting the ranges are extremely wide, some men at the bottom have equivalent amounts to women at the top, etc. But the general average is notable). How much more sensitive are women? That's a lot of testosterone to make up for.
The fact that women undergoing sex changes generally need to TAKE TESTOSTERONE to become men should suffice as indication that it plays a more dominant role in men.
Yes, physically. The study was probably referring to the brain's sensitivity. Likewise, The Cat wasn't mocking you for your assertion that testosterone grows hair, she was mocking you for your total lack of knowledge of how it effects the brain.
I really, really wish people wouldn't confuse "what happens" with "what is wanted."
Male animals usually use VIOLENCE to obtain polygamous situations, and are usually equipped specifically to do so. Even in humans, males have the advantage of more average upper body strength which works rather well with WEAPONS and lack the vulnerabilities of menses, pregnancy, and nursing, making them historically more able to enforce their desires. Violence aside, males are more ABLE to act in a polyamorous way due to a similar lack of vulnerabilities. You cannot begin to judge DESIRE when unequal ABILITY is in the way.
Except there are also studies that indicate cross-culturally men are more likely to desire multiple partners.
And the violence males members might use to prevent/punish females from mating with other males (or more often carrying their offspring to term/past infancy) creates a natural selection for a desire for a single partner in females.
These effects are culture-neutral. It is perfectly understandable for all historic cultures to have these patterns, and even modern cultures, since the same dangers still exist. That doesn't say ANYTHING about gene-influenced desire.
It may create a natural selection pressure, though that's dependant on how often women got caught and how often they and their offspring were killed or mutilated over it and what that did for their other relatives. However, evolution doesn't always "answer" to a pressure. Mutations are random, and "sneaky genes" might be more useful than "monogamist genes."
I really, really wish people wouldn't confuse "what happens" with "what is wanted."
Male animals usually use VIOLENCE to obtain polygamous situations, and are usually equipped specifically to do so. Even in humans, males have the advantage of more average upper body strength which works rather well with WEAPONS and lack the vulnerabilities of menses, pregnancy, and nursing, making them historically more able to enforce their desires. Violence aside, males are more ABLE to act in a polyamorous way due to a similar lack of vulnerabilities. You cannot begin to judge DESIRE when unequal ABILITY is in the way.
Except there are also studies that indicate cross-culturally men are more likely to desire multiple partners.
And the violence males members might use to prevent/punish females from mating with other males (or more often carrying their offspring to term/past infancy) creates a natural selection for a desire for a single partner in females.
These effects are culture-neutral. It is perfectly understandable for all historic cultures to have these patterns, and even modern cultures, since the same dangers still exist. That doesn't say ANYTHING about gene-influenced desire.
It may create a natural selection pressure, though that's dependant on how often women got caught and how often they and their offspring were killed or mutilated over it and what that did for their other relatives. However, evolution doesn't always "answer" to a pressure. Mutations are random, and "sneaky genes" might be more useful than "monogamist genes."
I don't follow the first part. The studies involved asking people about their desires, not the results of those desires.
But they don't, you are now speaking in hypothetical terms. If the sneaky gene was more useful we'd see a much less drastic difference in the variation in the X and Y chromosomes (ie we'd see a more equal distribution of male and female ancestors).
The resistance to the idea that there might be qualitative differences in what a male and female would sexually desire seems to be linked to an irrational resistance to the idea that men and women might have any inherent differences in any aspect of sexuality. While I fully agrees that an important part of the effective differences are cultural and those cultural differences have acted in an oppressing manner on females both historically and presently, I think the evidence that there are at least some differences, including a greater tendency to desire multiple partners in males, that are biological in nature is extremely compelling.
I don't follow the first part. The studies involved asking people about their desires, not the results of those desires.
Human beings shape their desires around the reality around them. That doesn't say anything about the "nature" to their "nurture."
But they don't, you are now speaking in hypothetical terms. If the sneaky gene was more useful we'd see a much less drastic difference in the variation in the X and Y chromosomes (ie we'd see a more equal distribution of male and female ancestors).
This only speaks to the success of the domineering male strategy, it doesn't show you what else was going on. You seem to be failing to understand how complex humanity is.
The resistance to the idea that there might be qualitative differences in what a male and female would sexually desire seems to be linked to an irrational resistance to the idea that men and women might have any inherent differences in any aspect of sexuality.
I never said there is no such genetic trait, only that we don't actually have anything to back the idea up, and that it's idiotic how people are so desperate to do so, and moreso what they do with the idea.
While I fully agrees that an important part of the effective differences are cultural and those cultural differences have acted in an oppressing manner on females both historically and presently, I think the evidence that there are at least some differences, including a greater tendency to desire multiple partners in males, that are biological in nature is extremely compelling.
No, no it isn't. You just want it to be. It is certainly possible and wouldn't be surprising, but the evidence isn't compelling. It's pretty hard to get that kind of evidence for human behavior in general.
This is the exact same crap people used to talk about boys being naturally better at math and such. Then women caught up.
The resistance to the idea that there might be qualitative differences in what a male and female would sexually desire seems to be linked to an irrational resistance to the idea that men and women might have any inherent differences in any aspect of sexuality. While I fully agrees that an important part of the effective differences are cultural and those cultural differences have acted in an oppressing manner on females both historically and presently, I think the evidence that there are at least some differences, including a greater tendency to desire multiple partners in males, that are biological in nature is extremely compelling.
That a trend is extremely common is not necessarily evidence that it is genetic. For example, if a particular practice offered a benefit to agrarian or pre-agrarian cultures, it is possible that this practice was "selected" in a way analogous to natural selection to persist, but passed down culturally rather than genetically.
Evidence that a trend is genetic is not necessarily evidence that it is genetic in a particular way. For instance, if we found that there is a genetic tendency for men to desire multiple sexual partners, this may not actually be in a set of genes that directly controls sex. It is possible, for instance, that men might genetically desire more variety in all areas of life, and that this greater desire for variety expresses itself in sexuality.
In any case, I personally think that the most likely explanation is that yes there is a genetic or developmental tendency towards men desiring more partners, but that this tendency is relatively weak in comparison to cultural and environmental forces.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The resistance to the idea that there might be qualitative differences in what a male and female would sexually desire seems to be linked to an irrational resistance to the idea that men and women might have any inherent differences in any aspect of sexuality. While I fully agrees that an important part of the effective differences are cultural and those cultural differences have acted in an oppressing manner on females both historically and presently, I think the evidence that there are at least some differences, including a greater tendency to desire multiple partners in males, that are biological in nature is extremely compelling.
That a trend is extremely common is not necessarily evidence that it is genetic. For example, if a particular practice offered a benefit to agrarian or pre-agrarian cultures, it is possible that this practice was "selected" in a way analogous to natural selection to persist, but passed down culturally rather than genetically.
I agree that that's a possibility and certainly a likely source of a lot of our common cultural attributes. I just find it far more likely that we inherited this tendency from our genetic ancestors than we evolved away the tendency while simultaneously creating a cultural framework that acts in much the same way. If it evolved away, then it would have been a disadvantageous attribute and thus not embraced and culturally adopted by man/proto-man.
Evidence that a trend is genetic is not necessarily evidence that it is genetic in a particular way. For instance, if we found that there is a genetic tendency for men to desire multiple sexual partners, this may not actually be in a set of genes that directly controls sex. It is possible, for instance, that men might genetically desire more variety in all areas of life, and that this greater desire for variety expresses itself in sexuality.
In any case, I personally think that the most likely explanation is that yes there is a genetic or developmental tendency towards men desiring more partners, but that this tendency is relatively weak in comparison to cultural and environmental forces.
I think this is fair. I know I certainly like to think I'm more than a souped up animal with a delusions of grandeur about how much my gonads effect my decisions. I'm mostly a Rationalist who likes to believe in free will and that my personality, values and drives are more than biological imperatives. But even I have to admit Pope had a point
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of Mankind is
Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his mind and body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much;
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself, abus'd or disabus'd;
Created half to rise and half to fall;
Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest and riddle of the world
Well for one thing, females are more sensitive to testosterone. According to James McBride Dabbs, 2000, anyways.
But the average adult male has 40 to 60 times the testosterone of an adult female (of course, noting the ranges are extremely wide, some men at the bottom have equivalent amounts to women at the top, etc. But the general average is notable). How much more sensitive are women? That's a lot of testosterone to make up for.
The fact that women undergoing sex changes generally need to TAKE TESTOSTERONE to become men should suffice as indication that it plays a more dominant role in men.
Yes, physically. The study was probably referring to the brain's sensitivity. Likewise, The Cat wasn't mocking you for your assertion that testosterone grows hair, she was mocking you for your total lack of knowledge of how it effects the brain.
Due to the encroaching development of testosterone-male contraceptives there has been an influx of studies on the effects of high and supraphysiological levels of testosterone in males through the typical methods (ie. double blind - placebo, etc). Most results that I've looked at have found that while elevated testosterone levels will produce minor, short-term observable changes in temperament (like any fluctuating hormone really) there wasn't any evidence to suggest significant increases in aggression. It has been tentatively proposed in the past that testosterone can influence motivation and self-esteem, producing the "sharks in suits" that you see in the business world rather then raging he-men, but its a pretty contentious belief and one that is hard to study. For the most part, testosterone doesn't appear to have a tangible influence on rage. While it is a fact that a large portion of violent criminals are male, thinking like this has often been used as an attempt to justify violent behaviour, just look at XYY non-disjunction.
Beren39 on
Go, Go, EXCALIBUR! - Trent Varsity Swim Team 2009, better watch out for me Phelps!
Ad hominem is attacking the person. calling someone a douche is attacking the person. I'm pointing out that you don't have sufficient knowledge to make a meaningful contribution to this thread. You are ignorant on this topic. This is not an innate state of being. It can be remedied. Please make an effort to do so, and in the meantime refrain from spraying your ignorance all over the thread. Its terribly, terribly irritating.
How's that? Did I use too many big words, or do you finally get it now?
Actually, you ignored my argument and instead chose (falsely) to assert that I know nothing about biology.
Wrong. As usual. I dismissed your argument because it is based in your very evident lack of knowledge about biology and is therefore entirely fuckin' useless. Since I'm not your biology teacher, I'm not going to waste my time repeating wikipedia and pubmed extracts to you. I'm especially disinclined to deal with your little T-obsession given that you're completely blinkered and wilfully ignoring everything else relevant to this topic.
Ad hominem is attacking the person. calling someone a douche is attacking the person. I'm pointing out that you don't have sufficient knowledge to make a meaningful contribution to this thread. You are ignorant on this topic. This is not an innate state of being. It can be remedied. Please make an effort to do so, and in the meantime refrain from spraying your ignorance all over the thread. Its terribly, terribly irritating.
How's that? Did I use too many big words, or do you finally get it now?
Actually, you ignored my argument and instead chose (falsely) to assert that I know nothing about biology.
Wrong. As usual. I dismissed your argument because it is based in your very evident lack of knowledge about biology and is therefore entirely fuckin' useless. Since I'm not your biology teacher, I'm not going to waste my time repeating wikipedia and pubmed extracts to you. I'm especially disinclined to deal with your little T-obsession given that you're completely blinkered and wilfully ignoring everything else relevant to this topic.
Even though copying and pasting for 30 seconds would take a lot less time than arguing about why you won't do it and whether that is a win for you or for him?
Due to the encroaching development of testosterone-male contraceptives there has been an influx of studies on the effects of high and supraphysiological levels of testosterone in males through the typical methods (ie. double blind - placebo, etc). Most results that I've looked at have found that while elevated testosterone levels will produce minor, short-term observable changes in temperament (like any fluctuating hormone really) there wasn't any evidence to suggest significant increases in aggression. It has been tentatively proposed in the past that testosterone can influence motivation and self-esteem, producing the "sharks in suits" that you see in the business world rather then raging he-men, but its a pretty contentious belief and one that is hard to study. For the most part, testosterone doesn't appear to have a tangible influence on rage. While it is a fact that a large portion of violent criminals are male, thinking like this has often been used as an attempt to justify violent behaviour, just look at XYY non-disjunction.
Hah. I wonder how many of these researchers have ever actually taken testosterone or even hung around people who do. Just because there is no increase of aggressive incidents, doesn't mean you don't feel more aggression. I'd love to see the methodology of these studies, because the idea of an "observable change in temperament" sounds like an oxymoron.
Mostly, it sounds a lot like the researchers who've never done drugs/pot/lsd/x trying to explain what happens when you do those drugs. Where they "prove" it causing anything from brain holes, serotonin deficiencies, Parkinson's, and death to the drugs having no long term effects whatsoever.
Due to the encroaching development of testosterone-male contraceptives there has been an influx of studies on the effects of high and supraphysiological levels of testosterone in males through the typical methods (ie. double blind - placebo, etc). Most results that I've looked at have found that while elevated testosterone levels will produce minor, short-term observable changes in temperament (like any fluctuating hormone really) there wasn't any evidence to suggest significant increases in aggression. It has been tentatively proposed in the past that testosterone can influence motivation and self-esteem, producing the "sharks in suits" that you see in the business world rather then raging he-men, but its a pretty contentious belief and one that is hard to study. For the most part, testosterone doesn't appear to have a tangible influence on rage. While it is a fact that a large portion of violent criminals are male, thinking like this has often been used as an attempt to justify violent behaviour, just look at XYY non-disjunction.
Hah. I wonder how many of these researchers have ever actually taken testosterone or even hung around people who do. Just because there is no increase of aggressive incidents, doesn't mean you don't feel more aggression. I'd love to see the methodology of these studies, because the idea of an "observable change in temperament" sounds like an oxymoron.
Mostly, it sounds a lot like the researchers who've never done drugs/pot/lsd/x trying to explain what happens when you do those drugs. Where they "prove" it causing anything from brain holes, serotonin deficiencies, Parkinson's, and death to the drugs having no long term effects whatsoever.
your anecdotal experience trumps scientific drug studies
your anecdotal experience trumps scientific drug studies
yes sir
I'm not familiar with these particular testosterone studies. I can guarantee you that ecstasy doesn't kill one in five people who take it. Marajuana doesn't cause people to go insane. Cocaine doesn't cause schizophrenia. All of these are claims that were at one time supported by scientific research. Testosterone is a new danger, so it gets new propaganda.
Until such time that the US gets it's head out of it's ass about drug policy and research, you're DAMN RIGHT I'll take anecdotal experience over "research".
your anecdotal experience trumps scientific drug studies
yes sir
I'm not familiar with these particular testosterone studies. I can guarantee you that ecstasy doesn't kill one in five people who take it. Marajuana doesn't cause people to go insane. Cocaine doesn't cause schizophrenia. All of these are claims that were at one time supported by scientific research. Testosterone is a new danger, so it gets new propaganda.
Until such time that the US gets it's head out of it's ass about drug policy and research, you're DAMN RIGHT I'll take anecdotal experience over "research".
It really wouldn't. And I get the feeling it'd just be ignored anyway in the great T-worship crusade of 2009.
T is awesome.
Especially green T.
T
Mmmmmm.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm not opposed to all science. It's just the particular state of current US drug research. It has a long history of being incorrect or even outright lies. Every drug has a history of misinformation, and Testosterone is no different.
your anecdotal experience trumps scientific drug studies
yes sir
I'm not familiar with these particular testosterone studies. I can guarantee you that ecstasy doesn't kill one in five people who take it. Marajuana doesn't cause people to go insane. Cocaine doesn't cause schizophrenia. All of these are claims that were at one time supported by scientific research. Testosterone is a new danger, so it gets new propaganda.
Until such time that the US gets it's head out of it's ass about drug policy and research, you're DAMN RIGHT I'll take anecdotal experience over "research".
hey guess what debunked those claims
was it....was it scientific research
Basically, yes. The distinction between government drug-research and scientific/medical drug-research. Setting out to prove a hypothesis is not science.
Ad hominem is attacking the person. calling someone a douche is attacking the person. I'm pointing out that you don't have sufficient knowledge to make a meaningful contribution to this thread. You are ignorant on this topic. This is not an innate state of being. It can be remedied. Please make an effort to do so, and in the meantime refrain from spraying your ignorance all over the thread. Its terribly, terribly irritating.
How's that? Did I use too many big words, or do you finally get it now?
Actually, you ignored my argument and instead chose (falsely) to assert that I know nothing about biology.
Wrong. As usual. I dismissed your argument because it is based in your very evident lack of knowledge about biology and is therefore entirely fuckin' useless. Since I'm not your biology teacher, I'm not going to waste my time repeating wikipedia and pubmed extracts to you. I'm especially disinclined to deal with your little T-obsession given that you're completely blinkered and wilfully ignoring everything else relevant to this topic.
Pubertal effects
Pubertal effects begin to occur when androgen has been higher than normal adult female levels for months or years. In males these are usual late pubertal effects, and occur in women after prolonged periods of heightened levels of free testosterone in the blood.
... Increased libido and frequency of erection or clitoral engorgement
...
Adult testosterone effects
Adult testosterone effects are more clearly demonstrable in males than in females, but are likely important to both sexes. Some of these effects may decline as testosterone levels decline in the later decades of adult life.
Libido and clitoral engorgement/penile erection frequency.
...
Wiki seems to agree that Testosterone affects libido, and the only reason I'm still posting about this is because you keep making statements that are so generally uncivil and largely incorrect that I'm finding it hard to ignore. Your last post is a prime example.
Not just wiki, but wiki with everything except the part he's obsessing over dot-dot-dotted out. And wiki of testosterone but not of sexual arousal. This conversation is a kirkul.
Not just wiki, but wiki with everything except the part he's obsessing over dot-dot-dotted out. And wiki of testosterone but not of sexual arousal. This conversation is a kirkul.
Probably because our conversation was, you know, about how testosterone affects libido. Or was it? I don't even know what the cat was taking issue with because she never said anything other than "you're don't know biology olol". Did she take issue with me thinking testosterone affects libido? Did she take issue with me thinking that testosterone plays a larger role in male development than female?
EDIT:
Plus I'm really not obsessed with testosterone. I just think it's likely it plays a role in shaping male sexual behavioral trends.
your anecdotal experience trumps scientific drug studies
yes sir
I'm not familiar with these particular testosterone studies. I can guarantee you that ecstasy doesn't kill one in five people who take it. Marajuana doesn't cause people to go insane. Cocaine doesn't cause schizophrenia. All of these are claims that were at one time supported by scientific research. Testosterone is a new danger, so it gets new propaganda.
Until such time that the US gets it's head out of it's ass about drug policy and research, you're DAMN RIGHT I'll take anecdotal experience over "research".
Testosterone is by no means being viewed as 'new' or a 'danger', and it's pretty misleading to lump the study of elevated t-levels within human males in with narcotic research. For too long social views upon the effects of androgens have been incredibly misleading, partly due to popular anecdotal evidence regarding male behaviour, particularly that of individuals with increased musculature. If anything this is scientific research giving fresh perspective to a steroid that has an integral effect on human development. I'm a varsity athlete so I'm often around the weight-lifting culture that you might be referring to and I can tell you from my own experience that any apparent generated aggression is much more dependent upon individual mentality and social conditioning (what you might call a jock attitude) then any hormonal influx.
Beren39 on
Go, Go, EXCALIBUR! - Trent Varsity Swim Team 2009, better watch out for me Phelps!
No, it wasn't. The conversation was about whether or not the claim that only men deal with the problem of feeling guilty about noticing that members of the opposite sex other than their current significant-other could be validated by "ololz testosteronni".
No, it wasn't. The conversation was about whether or not the claim that only men deal with the problem of feeling guilty about noticing that members of the opposite sex other than their current significant-other could be validated by "ololz testosteronni".
Am I silly, or should the question of why does he feel guilty come next?
Not just wiki, but wiki with everything except the part he's obsessing over dot-dot-dotted out. And wiki of testosterone but not of sexual arousal. This conversation is a kirkul.
And considering cats response simply said he didn't know anything about biology, clearly she may have a point, but if Wikipedia disagrees with her then clearly her point is not common knowledge or a universal assumption. As such she cannot simply say "You know nothing about biology" and defend herself on the grounds that its not her job to teach him. Simple research agrees with his statement, not hers, if more complex research reveals that she is correct then its her job to inform.
I'm not opposed to all science. It's just the science that comes to conclusions I don't want to be true or believe
I'd love to believe that T had nothing to absolutely no adverse effects like that study says. It'd be fucking great because then there'd be no reason to have it be a Schedule III controlled substance. I'm wary about trusting the study because the results of those studies have changed every decade, and suspiciously just happen to always support the current prevailing opinion when they're conducted.
Historically, it's been very much believed to be linked to libido. The prevailing wind of research says it's currently not that important, but it remains to be seen if today's research will stand the test of time. My point is that there's good cause to believe that testosterone has significant impacts on libido.
I'm not opposed to all science. It's just the science that comes to conclusions I don't want to be true or believe
I'd love to believe that T had nothing to absolutely no adverse effects like that study says. It'd be fucking great because then there'd be no reason to have it be a Schedule III controlled substance. I'm wary about trusting the study because the results of those studies have changed every decade, and suspiciously just happen to always support the current prevailing opinion when they're conducted.
Historically, it's been very much believed to be linked to libido. The prevailing wind of research says it's currently not that important, but it remains to be seen if today's research will stand the test of time. My point is that there's good cause to believe that testosterone has significant impacts on libido.
You do realize the prevailing winds of research have now been informed by the desperate search of drug companies for "female viagra", of which a major focus has been whether a mild testosterone dose will in fact work?
And that the answer seems to be "not really".
Actually fuck it, why don't you just go ahead and cite some historical studies on this matter because I'm more the averagely certain that they don't say what you think they say, and that they probably get critiqued in later studies which would've been grant funded to build upon them and correct sample issues.
What I'm saying is you're choosing to believe what you want to believe.
EDIT:
Testosterone is only prescribed for decreased libido due to menopause. It is also only used short term and should not be considered a permanent solution, as little research has been done to confirm its effectiveness or safety in women.
No, it wasn't. The conversation was about whether or not the claim that only men deal with the problem of feeling guilty about noticing that members of the opposite sex other than their current significant-other could be validated by "ololz testosteronni".
Am I silly, or should the question of why does he feel guilty come next?
It actually came first. Or the answer to it. And then everyone decided to go ololz testosteronni and nothing intelligent came of the entire discourse. Just people going "oh I'm so smart here's some fake-science" and then backpedaling when it is pointed out to them that their evidence wasn't science and didn't support the claim they jumped in in their shining armor to defend. And then several people decided to have a discussion about The Cat instead of about anything to do with the thread, and now here we are with next to no one having any clue what was even being discussed in the first place which is that for fuck's sake pretty people are still pretty even when you're not single and if your not-singleness-person doesn't get that they're fucked in the head.
I'm not opposed to all science. It's just the science that comes to conclusions I don't want to be true or believe
I'd love to believe that T had nothing to absolutely no adverse effects like that study says. It'd be fucking great because then there'd be no reason to have it be a Schedule III controlled substance. I'm wary about trusting the study because the results of those studies have changed every decade, and suspiciously just happen to always support the current prevailing opinion when they're conducted.
Historically, it's been very much believed to be linked to libido. The prevailing wind of research says it's currently not that important, but it remains to be seen if today's research will stand the test of time. My point is that there's good cause to believe that testosterone has significant impacts on libido.
You do realize the prevailing winds of research have now been informed by the desperate search of drug companies for "female viagra", of which a major focus has been whether a mild testosterone dose will in fact work?
And that the answer seems to be "not really".
Actually fuck it, why don't you just go ahead and cite some historical studies on this matter because I'm more the averagely certain that they don't say what you think they say, and that they probably get critiqued in later studies which would've been grant funded to build upon them and correct sample issues.
What I'm saying is you're choosing to believe what you want to believe.
EDIT:
Testosterone is only prescribed for decreased libido due to menopause. It is also only used short term and should not be considered a permanent solution, as little research has been done to confirm its effectiveness or safety in women.
And most of the worry about roid rage is because excess substances have really fucked up effects on the brain. For example, if you take too many vitamin B12 supplements, you feel like you're playing a video game of your life, and that's not a very fun game.
Exactly - if you OD on anything then hilarious stuff happens, it doesn't mean that it's remotely that important day to day. One of the interesting things I've always heard (which ties into the whole "women are more sensitive to testosterone") is that men are less sensitive - since our levels of it are always a lot higher, the brain simply drops the sensitivity.
Hah. I wonder how many of these researchers have ever actually taken testosterone or even hung around people who do. Just because there is no increase of aggressive incidents, doesn't mean you don't feel more aggression.
But see, that's the argument people like me are making. Hormones may make you feel different, but because we're not mindless robots, there's no reason for us to necessarily act on those feelings.
I'm not opposed to all science. It's just the particular state of current US drug research. It has a long history of being incorrect or even outright lies. Every drug has a history of misinformation, and Testosterone is no different.
erm, there's no current moral panic about testosterone... its certainly not viewed the same way as, say, GHB, or even E.
Posts
Yes, physically. The study was probably referring to the brain's sensitivity. Likewise, The Cat wasn't mocking you for your assertion that testosterone grows hair, she was mocking you for your total lack of knowledge of how it effects the brain.
These effects are culture-neutral. It is perfectly understandable for all historic cultures to have these patterns, and even modern cultures, since the same dangers still exist. That doesn't say ANYTHING about gene-influenced desire.
It may create a natural selection pressure, though that's dependant on how often women got caught and how often they and their offspring were killed or mutilated over it and what that did for their other relatives. However, evolution doesn't always "answer" to a pressure. Mutations are random, and "sneaky genes" might be more useful than "monogamist genes."
But they don't, you are now speaking in hypothetical terms. If the sneaky gene was more useful we'd see a much less drastic difference in the variation in the X and Y chromosomes (ie we'd see a more equal distribution of male and female ancestors).
The resistance to the idea that there might be qualitative differences in what a male and female would sexually desire seems to be linked to an irrational resistance to the idea that men and women might have any inherent differences in any aspect of sexuality. While I fully agrees that an important part of the effective differences are cultural and those cultural differences have acted in an oppressing manner on females both historically and presently, I think the evidence that there are at least some differences, including a greater tendency to desire multiple partners in males, that are biological in nature is extremely compelling.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Human beings shape their desires around the reality around them. That doesn't say anything about the "nature" to their "nurture."
I never said there is no such genetic trait, only that we don't actually have anything to back the idea up, and that it's idiotic how people are so desperate to do so, and moreso what they do with the idea.
No, no it isn't. You just want it to be. It is certainly possible and wouldn't be surprising, but the evidence isn't compelling. It's pretty hard to get that kind of evidence for human behavior in general.
This is the exact same crap people used to talk about boys being naturally better at math and such. Then women caught up.
That a trend is extremely common is not necessarily evidence that it is genetic. For example, if a particular practice offered a benefit to agrarian or pre-agrarian cultures, it is possible that this practice was "selected" in a way analogous to natural selection to persist, but passed down culturally rather than genetically.
Evidence that a trend is genetic is not necessarily evidence that it is genetic in a particular way. For instance, if we found that there is a genetic tendency for men to desire multiple sexual partners, this may not actually be in a set of genes that directly controls sex. It is possible, for instance, that men might genetically desire more variety in all areas of life, and that this greater desire for variety expresses itself in sexuality.
In any case, I personally think that the most likely explanation is that yes there is a genetic or developmental tendency towards men desiring more partners, but that this tendency is relatively weak in comparison to cultural and environmental forces.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think this is fair. I know I certainly like to think I'm more than a souped up animal with a delusions of grandeur about how much my gonads effect my decisions. I'm mostly a Rationalist who likes to believe in free will and that my personality, values and drives are more than biological imperatives. But even I have to admit Pope had a point
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Due to the encroaching development of testosterone-male contraceptives there has been an influx of studies on the effects of high and supraphysiological levels of testosterone in males through the typical methods (ie. double blind - placebo, etc). Most results that I've looked at have found that while elevated testosterone levels will produce minor, short-term observable changes in temperament (like any fluctuating hormone really) there wasn't any evidence to suggest significant increases in aggression. It has been tentatively proposed in the past that testosterone can influence motivation and self-esteem, producing the "sharks in suits" that you see in the business world rather then raging he-men, but its a pretty contentious belief and one that is hard to study. For the most part, testosterone doesn't appear to have a tangible influence on rage. While it is a fact that a large portion of violent criminals are male, thinking like this has often been used as an attempt to justify violent behaviour, just look at XYY non-disjunction.
Even though copying and pasting for 30 seconds would take a lot less time than arguing about why you won't do it and whether that is a win for you or for him?
Hah. I wonder how many of these researchers have ever actually taken testosterone or even hung around people who do. Just because there is no increase of aggressive incidents, doesn't mean you don't feel more aggression. I'd love to see the methodology of these studies, because the idea of an "observable change in temperament" sounds like an oxymoron.
Mostly, it sounds a lot like the researchers who've never done drugs/pot/lsd/x trying to explain what happens when you do those drugs. Where they "prove" it causing anything from brain holes, serotonin deficiencies, Parkinson's, and death to the drugs having no long term effects whatsoever.
your anecdotal experience trumps scientific drug studies
yes sir
I'm not familiar with these particular testosterone studies. I can guarantee you that ecstasy doesn't kill one in five people who take it. Marajuana doesn't cause people to go insane. Cocaine doesn't cause schizophrenia. All of these are claims that were at one time supported by scientific research. Testosterone is a new danger, so it gets new propaganda.
Until such time that the US gets it's head out of it's ass about drug policy and research, you're DAMN RIGHT I'll take anecdotal experience over "research".
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
hey guess what debunked those claims
was it....was it scientific research
T is awesome.
Especially green T.
T
Mmmmmm.
Basically, yes. The distinction between government drug-research and scientific/medical drug-research. Setting out to prove a hypothesis is not science.
Really? Absolutely no link between increase mental instability in regular users?
Thank fuck I only pay attention to anecdotal evidence and not scie... oh, no, wait, my house mates ex had a mental break after 3 years of pot-use.
So by your logic all marujinaneasna use causes insanity. Good times.
I say we bring back trepanation, leeches, maybe maggot therapy. Stick with the golden oldies.
Wiki seems to agree that Testosterone affects libido, and the only reason I'm still posting about this is because you keep making statements that are so generally uncivil and largely incorrect that I'm finding it hard to ignore. Your last post is a prime example.
I'll stop now, if you will.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
wikipedia
I only quoted wiki because she mentioned it in her post.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Not just wiki, but wiki with everything except the part he's obsessing over dot-dot-dotted out. And wiki of testosterone but not of sexual arousal. This conversation is a kirkul.
Yes. At least for those drugs that have actually gotten studies. Some studies on drugs are batshit loco and some are scientifically sound.
The question is if the current round of T studies are correct or if they're batshit loco.
Probably because our conversation was, you know, about how testosterone affects libido. Or was it? I don't even know what the cat was taking issue with because she never said anything other than "you're don't know biology olol". Did she take issue with me thinking testosterone affects libido? Did she take issue with me thinking that testosterone plays a larger role in male development than female?
EDIT:
Plus I'm really not obsessed with testosterone. I just think it's likely it plays a role in shaping male sexual behavioral trends.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Testosterone is by no means being viewed as 'new' or a 'danger', and it's pretty misleading to lump the study of elevated t-levels within human males in with narcotic research. For too long social views upon the effects of androgens have been incredibly misleading, partly due to popular anecdotal evidence regarding male behaviour, particularly that of individuals with increased musculature. If anything this is scientific research giving fresh perspective to a steroid that has an integral effect on human development. I'm a varsity athlete so I'm often around the weight-lifting culture that you might be referring to and I can tell you from my own experience that any apparent generated aggression is much more dependent upon individual mentality and social conditioning (what you might call a jock attitude) then any hormonal influx.
Hold back there man,
Greys Anatomy uses leeches - so they are clearly pretty hench bastards. In fact. Pretty certain trepanning is in there too.
Maggots, not yet - they're still obsolete
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
And considering cats response simply said he didn't know anything about biology, clearly she may have a point, but if Wikipedia disagrees with her then clearly her point is not common knowledge or a universal assumption. As such she cannot simply say "You know nothing about biology" and defend herself on the grounds that its not her job to teach him. Simple research agrees with his statement, not hers, if more complex research reveals that she is correct then its her job to inform.
I'd love to believe that T had nothing to absolutely no adverse effects like that study says. It'd be fucking great because then there'd be no reason to have it be a Schedule III controlled substance. I'm wary about trusting the study because the results of those studies have changed every decade, and suspiciously just happen to always support the current prevailing opinion when they're conducted.
Historically, it's been very much believed to be linked to libido. The prevailing wind of research says it's currently not that important, but it remains to be seen if today's research will stand the test of time. My point is that there's good cause to believe that testosterone has significant impacts on libido.
And that the answer seems to be "not really".
Actually fuck it, why don't you just go ahead and cite some historical studies on this matter because I'm more the averagely certain that they don't say what you think they say, and that they probably get critiqued in later studies which would've been grant funded to build upon them and correct sample issues.
What I'm saying is you're choosing to believe what you want to believe.
EDIT:
It actually came first. Or the answer to it. And then everyone decided to go ololz testosteronni and nothing intelligent came of the entire discourse. Just people going "oh I'm so smart here's some fake-science" and then backpedaling when it is pointed out to them that their evidence wasn't science and didn't support the claim they jumped in in their shining armor to defend. And then several people decided to have a discussion about The Cat instead of about anything to do with the thread, and now here we are with next to no one having any clue what was even being discussed in the first place which is that for fuck's sake pretty people are still pretty even when you're not single and if your not-singleness-person doesn't get that they're fucked in the head.
And most of the worry about roid rage is because excess substances have really fucked up effects on the brain. For example, if you take too many vitamin B12 supplements, you feel like you're playing a video game of your life, and that's not a very fun game.