Hacker News Reader

>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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com