When Muslims are problematic wherever they are one has to wonder whether the rest of the world is at fault.
I had hoped that perhaps you were improving after the last few dozen of your accounts that we've banned. Would you please consider just following the site guidelines? I don't really see what you're getting out of vandalizing HN, or why you would want to create so much extra work for us. It just takes resources away from making HN more interesting, which I assume you must value or you'd be spending your spare hours elsewhere.
By not understanding this, devilry is created.
- Did Jesus, the founder of Christianity, lead an army or have slaves?
- Did Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, lead an army or have slaves?
I'm really curious how you are going to twist these words again, you really seem to be good at it.
Even if the all-or-nothing competition itself doesn't create more aggressiveness, for the sake of argument, the larger percentage of unmarried men means more men have higher levels of testosterone, being that individual testosterone levels go down once one marries and has kids. That's a medical fact, not speculation. And testosterone on average makes one more aggressive.
Thus, the first part of this theory is indeed speculative, but the second part is pretty much a mathematical truth.
I'm not trying to offend, just presenting an intriguing theory.
The first part is true, but the later one is false. Testosterone on does not makes one more aggressive, a medical fact researcher started to figure out in the last 30 years or so and have instead found a much better theory what testosterone do and why it so easily get associated with aggression. Testosterone increase the amount of energy a person will spend on defending challenges to social status.
Imagine a male baboon that just raised to alpha status of a flock after a difficult and dangerous fight with the previous alpha male. This is the point where testosterone production spikes. If the new alpha male get challenged and loose then any gained chance of mating would be lost. In addition all the energy and risk of injury that was just spent on rising to the top would be wasted effort.
A low ranking male baboon however might find a better strategy to lay low and wait for a opportunity, such as the moment after someone above them have just been in a fight. If they get challenged and loose then there isn't as much of a loss. A optimal strategy is thus to modulate how much energy is spent on defense based on how high the probability for mating is and how high the risk is that someone else might try to take it away.
The role of testosterone, a sex hormone, should maybe not come as an surprise as being the method in which the body inform itself of this. It also make sense that marriage and having kids reduces the need for high testosterone. You loose social status and the negative effect is not as bad. A better strategy might be to reserve energy and maybe focus on raising the offspring you already have.
The most common method is with some form of economical game where in an experimental setting you either reward either aggression or cooperation, and then inject half the participants with testosterone and the other with a placebo. The finding of that is just as I mentioned above, ie that regardless if cooperation or aggression is rewarded, what correlate with testosterone is how much effort is spent on defending a position. If it is cooperation, then cooperation goes up after injecting testosterone. The real life example that a professor in neuroendocrinologist gave is that if you inject a buddhist monk with testosterone the expected results, considering their culture, would be increased zen-like behavior.
The reason testosterone get associated with aggression is that zen-like behavior is not the common cultural appropriate response to being challenged. Lets imagine the case of a man disrespecting an other man (a different word for challenging someone socially) by cutting a waiting line in front of an other man. Testosterone would in that case amplify what ever the cultural appropriate behavior is for defending their social status, which in many places of the world would be a violent response. From the outside that would look very much like aggression.
The common difference between animal studies and human is not that animals and humans has fundamental different biology or behavior in regard to impulses, but rather that humans tend to use it more novel and complex way. Loosing your job can easily be converted to a feeling of loosing social status, especially if someone or a group can be made to be the perceived as taking that social status.
In a rather fascinating study researcher looked at sport fans and found that their biology mimicked the social status effect of their teams. Fans testosterone went up if their team won, or down when it lost. A similar effect has been found in primary elections, where men on the winning side gain testosterone after the election results was announced.
If somebody's chance of reproducing is say 2%, they may start to think, "Hey, if me and a bunch of other losers invade the next town, my chance of "getting some" goes up to 5%." The math of evolution would favor such behavior.
You see it in sports also: if your team is are clearly losing, you gamble more with "tricky" plays and perhaps cheating, which may result in interceptions (losing possession of the ball) and/or penalties.
I should point out this is probably a factor with any inequality, not just marriage. Pitchforks come out when enough feel left behind.
No, it doesn’t work like that. Not getting something which you never had is not a loss in status. And only loss in status is affected by testosterone, not any possible gains in status.
I.e. only people who feel they are losing something which they feel they currently have are affected by testosterone.
Historically, following a war, there are too few husbands to go around. In strictly monogamous cultures, the result is that some women cannot find a husband and additionally typically have to also put up with harassment over their lack of a husband and children.
While perhaps true, if the present condition is a roughly even mix, then tension builds.
You appear to be doing a great deal of speculating without gathering much in the way of data to support your conclusions. This isn't exactly a best practice.