Mammalian Aggression
srconstantin.github.io
srconstantin.github.io
Instead of asking "What do individual levels of testosterone have to do with aggression?", he posits a better question: "Does difference in testosterone levels among individuals predict who will be aggressive?"
The answer: Among birds, fish, mammals, and especially other primates, "generally no". As for humans, it has been extensively studied, and the jury is in (Sapolsky is quoting a British endocrinologist, John Archer): "There is a weak and inconsistent association between testosterone levels and aggression in [human adults], and ... administration of testosterone to volunteers typically does not increase their aggression."
———
The executive summary being testosterone's effects are hugely context dependent—this in turn means "rather than causing X, testosterone amplifies the power of something else to cause X."
It's a very common thing, even among serious scientists, to immediately go searching for gendered factors and treat them as special, whereas often other factors are far larger, and far more interesting.
I find it telling that politics and science focuses so much on say, gender and race factors in terms of influence on academic achievements whereas very simple things such as what time of year one is born in is actually a more telling factor.
http://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/resources/neuromyt...
The focus of the politics on these factors is because, within living memory, they were grounds for exclusion from academia entirely. There is therefore an effort to make sure the exclusion is not being carried on covertly instead of overtly.
Bad ideas take a long time to replace.
So was poverty, citizenship, family lineage, and many other things they aren't so interested for to demonstrate that they are more significant influences than many other factors.
I would simply say that these scientists care a great deal for gender and race in their own social matrices, and simply treat a man differently based on his gender or race, but aren't so interested in doing so based on citizenship, or birth cycle.
The running gives me quick highs but the weight lifting does have an affect on my testosterone production and sex drive it seems. I was a little low few years ago (I tested because after reading pseudoscience research I wanted to know) but since building this into my routine my levels are back to normal. N Taleb wrote about it and I was a bit skeptical but then thought why not give it a try it's free and will not hurt (or make some quack rich).
> whereas very simple things such as what time of year one is born in is actually a more telling factor
interesting. I wonder if this might have to do with school starting in autumn and kids born in autumn might then be more likely to start the year after - instead pushing themselves in for an early start this very year when they're legally able to start school. it would be obvious if kids that are actually a year older then the classmates had more time to be ready for school than their peers. Otherwise it would also be interesting to see this repeated in the Southern hemisphere where autumn is actually spring.
Many Japanese I know would laugh at Astrology but are 100% convinced that blood-type affects personality.
That is indeed the typically proffered explanation: they are older than their peers when being taught anything.
> Many Japanese I know would laugh at Astrology but are 100% convinced that blood-type affects personality.
It's interesting from my frame of reference, that Japanese fictional characters often defy any plausible racial phænotype, but are carefully designed around the stereotypes of their stated blood type.
That still means that testosterone is a cause of X, doesn't it? Not a deterministic cause of course, but in a causal graph there would be a directed path from "testosterone" to X?
"[...] Within the normal range, individual differences in testosterone levels don't predict who will be aggressive. Moreover, the more an organism has been aggressive, the less testosterone is needed for future aggression. When testosterone does play a role, it's facilitatory—testosterone does not "invent" aggression. It makes us more sensitive to triggers of aggression, particularly in those most prone to aggression. Also, rising testosterone levels foster aggression only during challenges to status. Finally, crucially, the rise in testosterone during a status challenge does not necessarily increase aggression; it increases whatever is needed to maintain status. In a world in which status is awarded for the best of our behaviors, testosterone would be the most prosocial hormone in existence."
"In one [study], under circumstances where someone's sense of pride rides on honesty, testosterone decreased men's cheating in a game. [...] Engineer social circumstances right, and boosting testosterone levels during a challenge would make people compete like crazy to do the most acts of random kindness. In our world riddled with male violence, the problem isn't that testosterone can increase levels of aggression. The problem is the frequency with which we reward aggression."
Behave piqued my interest enough to make me pick up a robust neuroscience textbook. (For those curious, I went with the fourth edition of this one, by Bear et al—https://openlibrary.org/books/OL27999902M/Neuroscience. I strongly recommend it; it's written with excellent pedagogic skill.)
I would've assumed maternal aggression would come with vocalizing + threats, but here it says not?
It says this:
>Maternal aggression in rodents, like predatory aggression and unlike social aggression, is _not _accompanied by a cortisol response, elevated arousal, or social signaling (threats).
But I've seen plenty of videos of animals being territorial where people say "oh they're guarding their cubs, stay away". But maybe they're talking about conspecific aggression? It feels like maybe an over-broad generalisation to me. I wish I knew more about animal behaviour that I could judge for sure...
A male that has managed to gain the top of the male hierarchy and claimed a territory has also invested significant in their reproduction, and since the territory and status is fixed, would also benefit from lower threshold for threats and more active response in eliminating such threats.
Its evolution based on passing on as many copies of your genes as possible, and the purpose of lowered threshold for threats and more active response is identical in both. Sex hormones are also a great tool to trigger this, but naturally in different context based on the reproductive method. It would also make a predictable theory that a species where both male and female have similar reproductive behavior and stakes, the relation between hormones and aggression will be similar for both genders.
'New evidence on the link between genes, psychological traits, and political engagement'
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-lif...
It was really just the basic idea of saying "look at what most mammals do, and why we think they do it - wait, all humans do that also!".
The problem with this comparison is that it's been used a lot in racism to justify some races as being "more animal" and by implication "less human" and less deserving of human rights. It's OK to selectively breed and mass euthanize animals.
> look at what most mammals do, and why we think they do it - wait, all humans do that also!
Do they? Have we checked? We do some things that are similar to animal behavior, but ours is .. considerably more complicated.
I mean, yes obviously we are animals in the sense of being of the same substance and biological processes, and that has theological implications; this is why Darwin pointing that out was so disruptive. However, there's a long tradition of using analogies (not actual research) drawn from the animal kingdom to make wrong and harmful conclusions about humans, usually for the purposes of finding a moral justification for inhuman treatment.
Something that took me a long time to realize about the Scopes Monkey Trial was that, not only was it theologicallly problematic for humans to have derived from animals, it was even more problematic to the public of the time for white humans to share a common ancestor with black humans, since there was demand to make this illegal.
Tennessee 1925: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial
Seven years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_... "Classified "Negro" as any person with any Negro blood".
Human aggression rarely has bare fangs. It's obscured and mediated through culture and belief systems.
That doesn't mean it isn't fundamentally animal aggression. It means it's expressed through abstract symbol systems which disguise its true nature. And it only becomes overt and physical some of the time.
Mainstream economics works in the same way. To many on the right, economic failure is proof of low status in the hierarchy, and low status is inherently impure and toxic and deserves to be exploited and abused.
Caste systems are another example.
Can't we take a non-racist point of view to analyze the parallels between humans in general (as a single group) and different species of animals?
1. Defensive
2. Social
3. Maternal
4. Predatory