Comment by techie128 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by techie128 | Hacker News Reader

I am sure the author means well. However, this makes little sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Although humans have evolved far more than most animals on this planet, the basic idea of evolutionary biology remains the same. In the wild, males have to hunt (provide food), protect the new born(s) and their mate(s) from threats. Therefore having the same level or higher levels of Testosterone is a biological imperative. Testosterone makes the male stronger and more aggressive. Both are very useful traits from an evolutionary standpoint. I cannot imagine human males diverging too much from this basic framework.

Coming to today's workplace, after childbirth there is a drop in productivity of male employees as they adjust to their new reality. However, I have observed men become more diligent and aggressive at their jobs. I only imagine thats because they have a stronger sense of responsibility to provide for their partner & offspring. Whether or not Testosterone levels change is a different matter.

>this makes little sense from an evolutionary standpoint

I am certainly no expert on this area but it sounds to me like you are concluding that the study must be invalid, based on a bit of armchair science.

The ideas I have presented are not 'armchair science'. They're widely accepted in the field of evolutionary biology.

It's not widely accepted that humans are more evolved than other animals. Whether males are the hunters or not depends on the species. In lions, the males are more concerned with territory while it is the females who hunt.

The species closest to us all don't hunt. They're opportunistic omnivores.

Evopsych explanations can often be used to argue both sides of any issue. For example, T is implicated in male aggression, which is useful when fending off predators both animal and human, but dangerous when you have a helpless, often extremely irritating Bundle of Evolutionary Fitness around. T is also thought to be involved in mate-seeking behaviour, which one may wish to downregulate for a while after successfully reproducing in order to devote resources to infant survival. Testosterone is also metabolically expensive, and those costs may be paid at the expense of the immune system. It might be advantageous to upregulate immune functions when an immuno-compromised neonate is around. You and the author could both be correct, but neglect important components of the testosterone fitness package.

I'm not sure if being very aggressive is useful if you have a small child. Also, testosterone increase could lead to searching for new mates, thus lowering chances of survival for mother and child.

I don‘t doubt the results, but I also wouldn‘t exclude a causation/correlation 101 fail.

Just thinking back at my own first years with kids, the workload was so tough I neglected most testosterone producing activities (sports, action, male bonding).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com