Ancient Skulls Show Civilization Rose As Testosterone Fell

An anonymous reader writes Even though modern humans started appearing around 200,000 years ago, it was only about 50,000 years ago that artistry and tool making became popular. New research shows that society bloomed when testosterone levels in humans started dropping. A paper published in the journal Current Anthropology, suggests that a testosterone deficit facilitated the friendliness and cooperation between humans, which lead to modern society. "Whatever the cause, reduced testosterone levels enabled increasingly social people to better learn from and cooperate with each other, allowing the acceleration of cultural and technological innovation that is the hallmark of modern human success," says University of Utah biology graduate student Robert Cieri.

Comments

correlation, causation

[roc97007]

I have trouble with pronouncements like these, because it's so easy to jump to conclusions about correlation and causation.

It seems like their conclusion might have a Politically Correct component. Could it be instead that civilization caused a general lowering of testosterone, because high testosterone levels were no longer vital to survival?

Re:correlation, causation

[Mr D from 63]

Could it be instead that civilization caused a general lowering of testosterone, because high testosterone levels were no longer vital to survival?

If you follow evolutionary theory, that's the first conclusion one should reach. To assume otherwise is quite scientifically naive. As humans became more proficient at survival and had more time on their hands, being able to sit still and think for a little while was likely a good thing.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Could it be instead that civilization caused a general lowering of testosterone, because high testosterone levels were no longer vital to survival?

Or that the removal of some other threat or improvement in environmental conditions meant both that conditions existed that favoured the rise of civilisation and that testosterone was no longer required to the same extent as previously.

Or even that testosterone played its role in enabling humans to overcome a threat that needed to be overcome in order for civiliation to be practical, and since that threat had been overcome the testosterone was no longer needed... in which case it was responsible for the rise of civilisation, not an obstacle to it.

Re:correlation, causation

[wisnoskij]

It is also the only reasonable theory form a biological standpoint, as Testosterone has been studied exhaustively and simply does not in anyway reduce cooperation or friendliness. In fact in general testosterone seems to be positively correlated to number of friends and ability to cooperate.

Why should it have the opposite effect in ancient humans?

Re:correlation, causation

[erroneus]

Nice "wisdom" there. But why did you stop thinking there? There IS definitely a link between excessive testosterone and the lowering of sustained logic, reason and mental stability and order. (Just as there is similar evidence liking excessive estrogen with similar behaviors among women) What happens to people, both men and women when they are on steroids? That's been well established in the medical sciences for decades.

So to say correlation/causation is a problem here conveniently missed the established facts and among these the effect of higher testosterone on mental capacity.

I think the recognition of corre-cause fundamental principle is an important aspect of reasoning. But it is not the whole of debunking anything. (And yes, nothing you say disagrees with that statement.) But to simply state "correlation != causation" and walk away as if you've debunked something is pretty commonly expressed in these parts and I find it disturbing.

We're bio-chemical machines. The efficacy of the machines has everything to do with what's in them, what the balances are and especially what we put into them. But even if that balance is essentially natural or origin and basis, the outcome is still an effect of the factors at play. That is to say, groups of people with higher levels than others show predictable results categorically speaking. (But that's "racist" and we're not allowed to talk about that either)

If anything, this "finding" is just another grain of evidence supporting the obvious where human evolution are concerned. As we continue to value intellectual ability over physical ability, those who have better intellectual ability will do better than those that do not. And for societies to evolve in a direction which favors mind power over physical power literally requires and causes a reduction in that which inhibits it the most. Think in terms of rust causing heat which causes more rust and it's not so much corre-cause as it is factors feeding into one another.

No, I don't favor the "men are obsolete" argument as it's ridiculous on its face. Feminism, like so many other hate-focused idealisms, requires an enemy. And the biggest problem with feminism's enemy is that they are the ones who create and maintain pretty much everything. That's why all of the push for "more women in these fields." The push is because as men continue to become disenfranchised, they know there is a need to replace them. The problem is they don't have anyone who WANTS to replace them because cetegorically speaking, women are interested in what women are interested in while men are interested in what interests men. And there's a certain amount of "nature" driving this fact. Deviations are fine and welcome, but attempting to force idealism over nature has NEVER worked in all of history for any sustainable amount of time and has never resulted in happiness, peace or harmony. So let's not take the observation and the apparent conclusions into political space.

Men cannot be obsolete if only because we are half of that biological basis of sustainable reproduction, development and adaptation. We need to be able to breed and cross-breed as a means of continuation. And that requires men and women... until they can effectively create artificial sperm... which yes, I know they're working on even now.

Re:correlation, causation

[wierd_w]

It's probably an "energy" issue.

Testosterone is linked with increased muscle mass, and thus with increased rest metabolism. A civilization that has lots of "Adonis" look-a-likes sitting around in the winter will not survive as well as a civilization with lots of beanpoles sitting around in the winter, because the beanpoles require less food per person per winter, and as such, the society will have more energy available to invest in improvements in technology and culture.

So, while increased testosterone is more sexually attractive, lower testosterone would have conferred a large survival advantage in ancient human history.

Some experiments could be devised to test this idea in fact--

Screen the population for a threshold of testosterone production, with a good distribution over ages, (so not all the low T people are 65+ and under 12) divide into two groups of 100, one with low T, and one with high T, pay them to live in isolation in a nice little log cabin up in the mountains, then just monitor their food consumption. According to the theory, the higher T population should consume more food doing the same rest activities as the lower T group. The experiment should determine a rough baseline for the difference, from which a (dangerous) extrapolation could be made.

Re:correlation, causation

[Intrepid imaginaut]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

The study's results, however, contradict this view sharply. Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum. "The preconception that testosterone only causes aggressive or egoistic behavior in humans is thus clearly refuted," sums up Eisenegger. Instead, the findings suggest that the hormone increases the sensitivity for status. For animal species with relatively simple social systems, an increased awareness for status may express itself in aggressiveness. "In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behavior secures status, and not aggression," surmises study co-author Michael Naef from Royal Holloway London. "The interplay between testosterone and the socially differentiated environment of humans, and not testosterone itself, probably causes fair or aggressive behavior."

Moreover the study shows that the popular wisdom that the hormone causes aggression is apparently deeply entrenched: those test subjects who believed they had received the testosterone compound and not the placebo stood out with their conspicuously unfair offers. It is possible that these persons exploited the popular wisdom to legitimate their unfair actions. Economist Michael Naef states: "It appears that it is not testosterone itself that induces aggressiveness, but rather the myth surrounding the hormone. In a society where qualities and manners of behavior are increasingly traced to biological causes and thereby partly legitimated, this should make us sit up and take notice." The study clearly demonstrates the influence of both social as well as biological factors on human behavior.

Re:correlation, causation

[ShanghaiBill]

Citation needed.

Animal studies have shown a strong correlation between testosterone and aggression (the opposite of what the GPP asserts). In humans, the data is less conclusive, but tends to show a similar correlation. Wisnoskij's assertion that testosterone makes people friendly and cooperative is not supported by any evidence that I can find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression#Testosterone
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2029601
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/testosterone-promotes-agression-aut-12-06-09/

Re:correlation, causation

[Intrepid imaginaut]

See the post above your own.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

But that doesn't explain why you're a racist. It's the twenty-first century. Lose the racism. It's just as bad against white people as it is against any other race.

Re:correlation, causation

[Wycliffe]

Both are making assumptions but the later is the correct assumption.
Unless you have a rational reason for WHY testosterone levels fell then it makes alot more sense to
say that "the rise of civilization caused testosterone to fall" than it does to say that some unknown
force caused testosterone to fall which caused civilization to rise so the correct headline should read:

            Ancient Skulls Show Testosterone Fell as Civilization Rose

Re:correlation, causation

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

... If they continue to use a term as poisoned as "feminist" then you might look to question their actual motive and intent.

This is the problem right here: the term feminist has been poisoned intentionally. Its similar to the right-wing hit job on 'liberal'; the only way to defeat an idea that most people already accept is to reframe and demonize that idea as something objectionable.

You could find me a billion links to nutty, anti-male websites if you like. It doesn't matter. If you think it does matter than I allow me to discredit all right-wing politics by giving you a link to the American Nazi Party, or to discredit any idea of treating animals humanely by linking to PETA.

Feminism is the belief that women are just as capable and deserving of respect as men. Unless you believe women deserve less respect or fewer opportunities, simply for being female, congratulations, you are a feminist. Being anti-male, wanting to feminize men or de-feminize women, denying basic biological differences, or whatever other stupid idea you have been taught feminists believe, these are categorically not feminism.

Feminism is basically a social criticism that in many spheres of our society an elite group of men has taken control for their own benefit, to the exclusion of others. Keep in mind that women only gained the right to vote last century, as late as 1970 in France, and that people are still alive who remember women not being able work after marriage, legalized martial rape, and a whole bunch of other obviously misogynist practices, and its not a huge stretch to imagine that our society might still not be 100% perfect, or that social groups who were severely discriminated against in living memory still are.

Even if you are 100% self-interested, you should recognize that as women have gained more freedom over the last 50 year so have men, particularly in areas of child care and parental leave. Freedom and rights are not zero sum. The fact is that the same 'boys club' attitude that is bad for women is also bad for the vast majority of men.

I'll leave you with a Germaine Greer quote (paraphrasing):

Aspiring to equality with men is a terrible mistake, since men live and work in a frighteningly unfree and tyrannical society, one built on confederacies and conspiracies, on initiation and blooding rituals, on shared antisocial behaviour, on ostracisms and punishments, practical jokes, clannishness and discrimination.

Re:correlation, causation

[ShanghaiBill]

See the post above your own.

That was ONE study that found that testosterone can make men more cooperative in very narrow circumstances (when they think it will improve their social status). There are many studies showing it makes both animals and people more aggressive.

Re:correlation, causation

[epyT-R]

Thanks to 40 years of affirmative action and political correctness, pretty much all the 'science' around sex differences has been polluted beyond repair and must be called into question at this point. If some 'study' enters the mainstream media, you can be almost certain it is meant as propaganda and not to educate.

Re:correlation, causation

[epyT-R]

Which is a perfect example why political correctness is such a detriment to the free world. A society that increasingly cannot accept truth eventually succumbs to it, usually violently.

Re:correlation, causation

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

I don't care enough to express an opinion on the rest of your post and the debate you're in...

I find it pretty weird that such a logical, clear thinker has no opinion on the question of whether society is unfair to approximately 50% if its members, but fair enough, your choice.

... but this part strikes me as very false. A conspiracy theory is completely unnecessary to explain the "poisoning" of the term feminism. It's entirely believable that, as radical elements of feminism naturally arose (and they did arise naturally; there's no way in hell that's a false flag operation), both non-feminists and those with actively anti-feminist inclinations lumped those radical elements with the less extreme versions of feminism. That's a story as old as time, same has happened with Islam, atheism, race relations, LGBT issues, etc. People are really bad at ignoring threatening extremes. It's a natural impulse, no deliberate poisoning necessary. As far as I know, the only viable means of fighting this trend is for the more moderate (but still similarly aligned) elements to actively, loudly disavow the radicalization of their views.

I wouldn't describe it as a conspiracy, but as a group of people attacking an idea they view as immoral or dangerous, in the most effective way possible. This often involves picking isolated sentences out of context to make a different impression that you would get reading the entire book, or blog post or whatever. Its very effective in our soundbite, 'gotcha' culture. I think the exact same thing happens to the other groups of people you mentioned, usually by the same reactionary people.

People are really bad at ignoring threatening extremes. It's a natural impulse, no deliberate poisoning necessary. As far as I know, the only viable means of fighting this trend is for the more moderate (but still similarly aligned) elements to actively, loudly disavow the radicalization of their views.

This shifts the burden from people who over-generalize to the objects of generalization, to police other people. Trying to control free thinkers and individualists is folly, as is trying to protect the ignorant from their own errors. People who are interested will explore ideas for themselves. Gay people shouldn't need to hide the guy bare-ass in chaps and a cowboy hat, and nothing else, to be respected and have equality before the law. Feminists shouldn't have to hide the bra-burners to have the same rights and opportunities as men.

I also think that for all your example there are plenty of moderates putting their ideas out there, and denouncing extremists, and it doesn't work the way you claim it should. You can't argue people out of positions they were never argued into in the first place. The majority of anti-feminists, anti-gay, anti-whatever people who I have run into have these opinions because of cultural and political identity.

Defensiveness won't get you anywhere, it'll just legitimize the suspicion surrounding the issue further.

I wasn't trying to be defensive, but to defend an idea. I didn't see any good posts defending feminism, and plenty of weak ones attacking it.

Re:correlation, causation

[RevWaldo]

Actually I think there's a clear case of cause and effete here.

.

Re:correlation, causation

[epyT-R]

Define 'sociable'. The problem is that this spectrum is sublabled with a good/bad dichotomy, usually done by the 'educated', soft, extraverted, submissive, and effete people, who consider themselves superior to the more masculine, independent sorts. Despite what is said about them, they do speak and associate with others, but not for its own sake, but rather as part of some other goal, like work or play. They just don't have this incessant need to be around others all the time in order to function. The reality is that this group has its own 'sociability' and hierarchy that works for them. This has nothing to do with intelligence or capability. It's just too blunt and reality focused for most of those effete types to handle without falling to pieces, and naturally the effete groups doing most of the yammering these days associate positive traits like intelligence with the behaviors that make themselves feel good.

Re:correlation, causation

[erroneus]

1. "Improve things"? Really? There are loads of women who would love nothing more than to raise their children instead if having babysitters do it while they work and feel guilty no matter what choice they make. And for those women who feel fine about abandoning their children to "trusted strangers," How is that an improvement?! Desensitized, unloving, unnurturing mothers?? Bad families raise bad children who grow into bad adults. And when they have children (and that's happening now) they have NO idea how to raise them.

2. Not men as a category? You can't be serious. And why "certain specific men"? And why do feminists in high government leadership positions care nothing about the very REAL anti-woman things going on in other nations and instead make up nonsense about pay gaps and all of that? Study after study shows that the reasons for many gaps and limits on upper-leadership and lack of women in certain jobs (funny, they never talk about how few women do "grunt work" like mechanics, plumbing, elentrcians, HVAC, garbage collection, truck drivers and all...yes there are some, but it's overwhelmingly male) has more to do with lack of interest and/or having other/conflicting interests in life... say for example, being a mother.

There just aren't fights left to fight for "feminism." And the harm it has done to nearly all areas and aspects they have influenced is amazing. Nothing good has happened since the right to vote has been established. (Please cite examples to the contrary) And please. When have feminists EVER demanded equal responsibility to accompany their equal rights? The draft registration is STILL a sexist law and no one cares and if anyone pushed to require women to register you can bet the feminists would be the first to say "no!"

When, thanks to feminism, women have the legal right to walk away from the responsibility of motherhood. Do men? Even if they never knew or saw the child? Nope. There is a need for equality, but equality of RESPONSIBILITY is elephant of hypocrisy in the room.

Nature gives men and women role assignment by gender. Men can't nurse babies without some serious medical modifications. Any and every time "society" thinks it's smarter than nature, and that a political idealism which challenges reality, bad things result. We live in a society where more children have only one parent and either that parent (invariably a woman) is either living on child support and welfare or is working and not taking care of her children. Neglected children cannot POSSIBLY grow up well.

Is feminism really such a great idea?

Re:correlation, causation

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

So your problem is that it isn't a scientific theory?

Here's a falsifiable statement: do a small group of elite men dominate society for their own interests? This statement is false if no group dominates society, or if a group of elite women do. Given how subjective many of these concepts are, its not as neatly falsifiable than Newton's laws, for example. Life is complicated. I find it interesting that this theory is basically what people are espousing when talking about inequality and the 1%, its just that the connection to gender isn't as obvious if you are a male. Few would deny that most of the money is in male hands.

As for what feminism actually does, I'll trust my own judgement on that thanks. The fact that you mentioned 'bra burners' is interesting as it is actually a myth. I referenced it as an example in one of my posts but I don't literally think it is something that happened.

Re:correlation, causation

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

My problem is that it's truthy sounding nonsense claiming the imprimatur of verifiability using sciency-sounding words, and is being used to persecute large sections of the population.

So you accept the notion of widespread persecution, but you think its directed towards men? That is a pretty weird thing to believe in a society where the vast majority of politicians, CEOs, and wealthiest people are men. I just don't see it.

And you see this is where feminism falls down, extrapolating from the "personal is the political" mantra of the 70s feminists point to a few rich people as evidence that all men have oppressed all women forever, despite these few wealthy people never having acted to improve the situation or welfare of men as a class. Your mythical boys club doesn't exist. As for most of the money being in the hands of men, most of the spending power is in the hands of those poor oppressed women. But hey what's a few nuances to the blunt instrument that is feminism.

My original post made the exact opposite argument. The 'boys club' is not interested in helping men as a category, its a handful of selfish men (with a handful of women) pissing on everyone else. If you actually thought this is what feminists believed, no wonder you are so confused.

The spending power is normal people, not the elites. Our society has become more egalitarian over the past few decades, which I personally feel is a good development. It also makes sense in light of the many single mothers out there, and kids being pretty expensive.

I note you haven't disputed the veracity of the description of patriarchy theory given above, nor the effects it has had when applied to real life. The Swedish model is a good one, feminists decided that criminalising the clients of sex workers was the way to go because patriarchy, right, except the end result was fewer and more violent clients. Which a five year old could have told you would be the outcome - criminalise clients and the clients will mostly be criminals. Well done feminists, leaving yet another trail of bodies and broken lives behind you, except this time it's women.

I frankly don't know alot about these things, which is why I didn't bite. If you feel these are important issues, champion them yourselves, rather than sneer at other people for not doing so.

Now we can continue this two step as long as you like but the bottom line is that feminism is by its own outcomes based on a particularly hateful central premise. You're waving at the wealthy one percent while I'm talking about police departments being trained to arrest the man in all circumstances, even when he's the victim of domestic violence, which is about half the time.

I mean is this thing turned on or what.

Men are also raped about as often as women are. Again, the problem is that the windmill you are tilting at is not feminism. The world is unfair in many ways, and you would have to be a total idiot to claim that all men live like kings.

Re:correlation, causation

[erroneus]

1) The political push is for getting more women into studies in school they don't want and when they can't get the numbers they want in those schools, they close the programs down. In the workplace, the same sort of numbers games are being played in a way rather similar to race baiters. And women are being "shamed" for not being successful career women. Smart women don't buy into it, but we live in a consumer society -- smart people are increasingly rare.

It's getting late... want to sleep. I think I am happy with this discussion especially as I find many like-minded people who actually see the harms our society is experiencing due to the cost [read "LOSS"] of the family and thus children which are the next workers and leaders of our nation as the years continue to count forward. We seem to be taking a LOT for granted and not the least of which is the importance of women, families and children.

We knew this decades and centuries ago. We have always sought to honor and protect women -- we called it by many names including chivalry. But some whack-job women decided it was "oppression." And as their agenda became adopted into the system, the results have been catastrophic. And if you don't agree that children are our future and that whole families are needed to raise good, strong, healthy sons and daughters, please tell me who and how our society will not become "Idiocracy" any worse than it already is? That's a serious question.

Re:correlation, causation

[Areyoukiddingme]

The fact that you mentioned 'bra burners' is interesting as it is actually a myth.

Wait, what? Snopes severely overstated that one.

Bra burning was quite real. Perhaps the origin is mythological, but if that's the case, life imitated art in a hurry, and kept at it for quite some time. My mother has personal memories of protests where bras were burned at the University of Chicago, and two different family friends the same age have similar memories from other places. It was quite real. It made the nightly news. Video exists. Yes some of that video is Hollywood depictions of fictional feminists, but not all of it. Not by a long shot.

Re:correlation, causation

[dave420]

And your post was a perfect example of condemning something without a shred of evidence, because it fits in with your notion that political correctness is bad. If I've not seen plenty of posts from you haranguing women for daring to be scientists, or making other, equally-ridiculous claims about various sections of the human race, I could pin it to unfortunate ignorance. However it seems like you are wilfully-ignorance, and filled with hate and anger. It's no wonder you'd jump on anything to condemn that which you perceive to call you out on your disgusting behaviour.

Re:correlation, causation

[dave420]

It's actually a derogatory term for working-class white people from the south. I don't know why you are getting upset about this epithet when you are so quick to condemn women. Or are some forms of rampant discrimination OK but others are fine? It must be strange to live in your head.

Re:correlation, causation

[dave420]

Actual feminism is as much about hatred as the civil rights movement was in the 60s. You are confusing some very vocal idiots with the rest of the movement. "Feminist" is what you call someone when they think men and women should be treated equally. That's it. It's got "fem" in the name because currently women are getting the raw deal at the moment. If women were in disproportionately in control, men had lower wages, were denied opportunities, etc. then it would be called "masculism" and the end goal would be the same - equality between the sexes.

Re:correlation, causation

[Vitriol Angst]

Other than a few Socialist countries -- what country thrives on truth? A Half truth is often Patriotism when a full fledged Lie would prove better.

Sure, you can say "results in violence" because the French did away with some crooked royals once, but there was quite a long run of "lying our asses off". You think the cult to stack rocks in Egypt was anything but a "keep people busy" program?

Political Correctness can be annoying -- but it used to be called "Polite" -- only now it extends to people outside of the Privileged class. The main problem I have with Political Correctness is to try and bend over backwards to create euphemisms. Retarded kids get called challenged, and then special and then alternative or whatever because as soon as everyone knows "Exceptional" stands for "Retarded" it's a slur.

But it doesn't seem to be THAT huge of an issue. It's just a problem for people who would rather talk like Archie Bunker and someone in HR is spoiling their fun. You know what drives Political Correctness? Lawsuits. Not so much angry feminists burning bras.

Re:correlation, causation

[romons]

Hmmm. Here is an article that seems to assert the opposite. It is newer (2012 vs 2009 for your link.)

Here is another article, that suggests that testosterone actually affects dominance, which makes more sense, and supports the original article.

Re:Yet more feminist propaganda.

[war4peace]

Females also secrete testosterone.

Oblig: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

Social Engineering?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like the biggest cause for the drop would be people realizing that their biggest baddest brutes, were seriously poor negotiators. Sending in the little guy because he was less threatening would make sense. Over time, less threatening males were necessary more and more often.

Let's Define Success

[avgjoe62]

"Whatever the cause, reduced testosterone levels enabled increasingly social people to better learn from and cooperate with each other, allowing the acceleration of cultural and technological innovation that is the hallmark of modern human success," says University of Utah biology graduate student Robert Cieri.

The Peaceful Middle East

The newest country on Earth

Civil society in the West

I am not a pessimist, but I will say that we are a far cry from being a "success".

Re:Yet more feminist propaganda.

[Mr D from 63]

Maybe it was the reduction of female testosterone that made men want to breed more?

Nonsense in scientific language

[Futurepower(R)]

This is part of the extreme hostility toward men in the U.S. culture.

The body is extremely complicated. There are maybe a million chemicals? Choosing one supposedly connected with men but actually present in both men and women, testosterone, and talking about its importance is thinly veiled hostility.

The current wave of hostility of women toward men began with the book The Second Sex, by Simone de Beauvoir, a woman who was very confused about life. The book mentioned negative things men do, and avoided mentioning the negative things women do. Part of her viewpoint was influenced by the fact that she was trying to get women to have sex with her.

There is a movie that shows Simone de Beauvoir was treated as an equal by Jean-Paul Sartre, a French philosopher and friend. She was not second.

Both Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre had terrible childhoods and both did things in their adult lives that demonstrated their confusion.

The Washington Post article linked in the Slashdot summary says, "No, this isnâ(TM)t some jab at dudes." Yes it is, and extremely stupid about biochemistry and civilization, also.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[serviscope_minor]

This is part of the extreme hostility toward men in the U.S. culture.

I know, right? I mean when will the US ever get a male president?

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Intrepid imaginaut]

You are aware the majority of the electorate in the US is female, right? So maybe there's a slim possibility that they're voting for something other than the genitals of political candidates, due to not being eight years old anymore?

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I'm directly saying that people, men and women, who are mature adults vote in their own best interests rather than pandering to some sort of juvenile playground instinct as feminists would prefer them to. They vote for the person they believe will best represent those interests. Now if you want to talk about why more women don't stand for election, go for it, but that's a different conversation. There is, after all, nothing stopping them.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Anonymous Coward]

This is part of the extreme hostility toward men in the U.S. culture.

I know, right? I mean when will the US ever get a male president?

Textbook example of "apex fallacy".

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Iamthecheese]

Amusing but wrong. You can't use "the people on top are men" to mean "all men are on top" And neither negates the very real hostility men experience in the form of "dumb dad" stereotypes, more severe punishments for equal crimes, biased family courts, the pervasive idea that men are dangerous, and many more.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of hate-speech against men in society today is rather alarming. In the days before feminism, I'm not sure men ever suggested that women be exterminated as a gender. And yet today, the war on men grows increasingly loud and hate-filled by the day.

Re:Coincidence

[ColdWetDog]

I seriously don't understand how they can measure the level of testosterone from 50,000 years ago. Was it recorded with fine detail? Hell, did they know it existed?

Anyway. The lower testosterone levels could be a coincidence that arose at the same time humans discovered the benefits of empathy, which is essential in group negotiations and community support.

They didn't. Here is their logic train:

- They measured facial characteristics, some of these characteristics have been associated with aggression (not testosterone levels).
- There are studies that link aggression with testosterone.
- Therefore, early humans had large degrees of aggression and therefore testosterone.
- Modern human skulls have fewer / less of the linked facial features, therefore our testosterone levels are lower.

- Therefore early human testosterone levels were higher and further, this was selected for in some way, shape for fashion.

Total BS. Two speculative leaps and a nice large jump to a conclusion. It is trivial to create other equally valid hypotheses from this data.

Social Engineering?

[Anonymous Coward]

'Necessary' doesn't mean they had more babies, though.

What's more likely is that with the advent of agriculture, more people spent their lives living in one place, with a number of consequences. One is that women and their children were more likely to live their lives alongside their other children, so having more cooperative, less violent children became advantageous. Another is that women were more likely to be impregnated by one of the local farmers, rather than the hot wandering barbarian hunter or the gang of rapists.

Furthermore, there is a theory that the primary purpose of developing agriculture was not for food but for alcohol. It may have been that the peaceful farmers' access to stuff that could get women drunk was conducive to them having more babies.

For this twit, a great French phrase:

[smittyoneeach]

nostalgie de la boue

I, for one, could live more happily if the anti-human nihilists would just fall off the planet.

Re:Men are obsolete

[ShanghaiBill]

In the days before feminism, I'm not sure men ever suggested that women be exterminated as a gender.

Perhaps because that is not practical. The human species cannot continue to exist without women. Men, on the other hand, could be replaced with a sperm bank. Long before the sperm bank is depleted, female scientists should be able to perfect human ova-fusion, which is already working in mice.

I am not saying men should be exterminated. I am just saying that there are no significant technical barriers.

Re:Makes sense

[Riddler Sensei]

Testosterone isn't some Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde concoction like you seem to think it is.

As long as we're dealing with anecdotes I will throw mine into the ring. I've engaged in powerlifting as a hobby for the past two years, during which I have met some very impressive, and dedicated, individuals. These men are strong. Really strong. Functionally strong. They're not just pounding out hammer curls and shrugs to get a pump. They are training for strength, the kind of strength where elevated testosterone just comes with the territory. And they've all been pussycats. After benching just shy of 400lbs they aren't grunting and scowling, they're grinning ear-to-ear and are practically giggling. They're considerate with the equipment and readily share when the weight room is busy. They don't scoff at the 110lbs new guy, rather they're begging the new guy to take before-and-after shots because, "...if you keep this up you are going to be AWESOME in a year!"

Testosterone does not cause assholish-ness, per se, so much as it exacerbates it. If you are a kind, decent, person then becoming strong (and thus achieving higher levels of testosterone) will not change that. But if you are dick...well now you are a dick who is strong and you likely no longer feel the need to restrain your jackass behavior because you feel as though you can physically overwhelm any challengers to your supreme phallus.

Wars, empires, testosterone

[mapuche]

Civilization comes with war. Warriors need a lot of testosterone and battles lead to anihilation of hi-testosterone individuals. I find some evolutive path to decrease of testosterone.

Re:Wars, empires, testosterone

[Oligonicella]

Chimps wage war. It is not something that "comes" with civilization, like Oscar thinks gravy comes with meatloaf.

Re:Makes sense

[PPH]

Subjects with high testosterone levels* are socialized to compete for some goal. Subjects with low testosterone levels (women) compete against each other. I don't think you want to live in a society dominated by people always trying to trip each other up while smiling at each other.

I have witnessed such cases.

And I have witnessed the aforementioned behavior. Taken advantage of it on numerous occasions as well. I'd rather deal with someone that confronts me than creeps around behind my back.

always trying to harm other men (domination, "alpha male")

Not really. Read Sex at Dawn. Homo sapiens are more closely related to primate species that don't have definite alpha male societies. Animals (not just primates) that do have such a social model are characterised by smaller testicles/penises and less sexual activity. Humans, chimps and bonobos are more closely related and have more sex and larger sexual organs (in relation to body mass) than gorillas (alpha male groups). I'd say the alpha male social model (or alpha female) is more an indicator of a lack of testosterone.

*Maybe. Its a male behavioral characteristic, modified by social settings. Some women have a certain amount of testosterone as well and I wouldn't be surprised if these are more sucessful in business and other stereotypical male professions.

You are on crack

[Intrepid imaginaut]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

The study's results, however, contradict this view sharply. Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum. "The preconception that testosterone only causes aggressive or egoistic behavior in humans is thus clearly refuted," sums up Eisenegger. Instead, the findings suggest that the hormone increases the sensitivity for status. For animal species with relatively simple social systems, an increased awareness for status may express itself in aggressiveness. "In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behavior secures status, and not aggression," surmises study co-author Michael Naef from Royal Holloway London. "The interplay between testosterone and the socially differentiated environment of humans, and not testosterone itself, probably causes fair or aggressive behavior."

Moreover the study shows that the popular wisdom that the hormone causes aggression is apparently deeply entrenched: those test subjects who believed they had received the testosterone compound and not the placebo stood out with their conspicuously unfair offers. It is possible that these persons exploited the popular wisdom to legitimate their unfair actions. Economist Michael Naef states: "It appears that it is not testosterone itself that induces aggressiveness, but rather the myth surrounding the hormone. In a society where qualities and manners of behavior are increasingly traced to biological causes and thereby partly legitimated, this should make us sit up and take notice." The study clearly demonstrates the influence of both social as well as biological factors on human behavior.

Makes total sense

[LihTox]

You can't build a civilization with *alpha* males; they have to *at least* be in beta.

(Preferably release versions, but you take what you can get.)

Re:Men are obsolete

[ganjadude]

yet for some reason those are the ones that get all the coverage. Try going to a feminism blog and reading for yourself. I had someone try and equate telling a woman she has nice eyes to rape just earlier today. apparently chivalry is dead, and it was killed by women

Re: Men are obsolete

[flyneye]

Come on,man, you're a dude. Pretending you are a woman in a post makes you a Transvestwrite.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Perhaps because that is not practical.

Or perhaps because only something as demented as feminism could come up with such a lunatic idea in the first place.

The human species cannot continue to exist without women. Men, on the other hand, could be replaced with a sperm bank. Long before the sperm bank is depleted, female scientists should be able to perfect human ova-fusion, which is already working in mice.

I am not saying men should be exterminated. I am just saying that there are no significant technical barriers.

Completely unneccessary. Assuming a world where feminists (not women mind you, women tend to like men quite a lot) reign supreme, why not just keep a minimum breeding stock of boys and off them after they hit age 20? After all that's what leading feminists Mary Daly and Sally Miller Gearhart wanted, reduce the population of men to 10% or so, frothing nazis that they were.

Happily however the general population is starting to go very sour indeed on feminism, and I would hope to see the final end of the religion within my lifetime.

Re:Men are obsolete

[epyT-R]

mmmm... no. That is a no true scotsman fallacy.

At best, a 'coffeeshop' style feminist wants men around as ATM machines and 'tough job' handlers.. These are the ones who think feminism is nothing more than equality between the two sexes, and think that men are or really should be women with penises...except when equality gets too hard for them, then they want their white knight to save the day.

In the past, the militant kind wanted men reduced in population, made subservient to women, or just outright used as slaves or eliminated. Today, they express that same misandry by pushing policies supporting that mentality in education, media programming, civil law, criminal law, and, are now making/funding their presence in subcultures, like technology and gaming. You have to be careful with this kind of thing, as the poison is in the implied, 'unintended' outcomes of said policies: Schools focus on girls because supposedly they're such victims, and, now, boys are left behind and/or are made to comply effeminately, at the college level, 2/3 graduates are women as male populations continue their decline, media/entertainment has been softened and made more about relationships and feelings (everything is now a 'reality' soap opera), employers must meet quotas and build office policy around feminine imperatives as defaults (destroying male psychoaccoustic spaces and making them female), product design and advertising now also focuses almost exclusively on feminine imperatives.

It is NOT about anyone's liberation. It uses women's desire for protection and provision to help bootstrap tyrannical power. Like those stories about people making deals with the devil, initially it's great for the recipient, but in the end, everyone gets burned.

Re:Men are obsolete

[DivineKnight]

Oh damn, got so off track replying to parent / grandparent, I didn't have a chance to make the post I wanted.

http://www.nature.com/nature/j...

Testosterone is the hormone which is responsible for aggressiveness and individuality, right? Except when it's not. It's the 'everybody knows' kind of wisdom that is bunk -> I've been studying this off and on for a while, and the hormone in both males and females that is responsible for aggression, IMHO, is progesterone; think of your wife / gf who gets PMS, this hormone is in play, and men have some of it in their systems as well. Testosterone seems to get a bad rap, with half the research saying this, and half saying that. Read up on it...the scary thought is, if one half is right, then chemical castration of sex offendors actually makes things worse, rather than better.

Re:Men are obsolete

[lisaparratt]

It seemed like a step too far, but then they read the slashdot comments, and suddenly spermbanks seemed the more rational option.

Re: Coincidence

[Enigma2175]

There is some logic behind

A Russian scientist turned wild foxes into cute puppies in about 10 generations by breeding for lower adrenaline levels

Not necessarily adrenaline levels, but that may have been the way it worked out. All they bred for was aggression, the more aggressive foxes were not allowed to breed. This resulted in a tamer fox, but also a lot of other traits that we associate with dogs (juvenilization, coloration patterns, vocalization, etc). Just selecting for one thing can have a profound effect on the species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

junk science

[silfen]

Whatever the cause, reduced testosterone levels enabled increasingly social people to better learn from and cooperate with each other

That's pure speculation at this point. Falling testosterone levels may have been a consequence of civilization, not a cause. Or it may have been coincidental.

People really need to start separating scientific fact from speculation.

Re: Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a citation. That's just another pundit (in this case a women) repeating the same myths and making the same, unsubstantiated accusations.

Likewise for the next poster's links.

I'm not a feminist, let alone a militant feminist. But much like the Black Power movement, I can understand where these people are coming from based solely on the vitriol of the reactionaries who rail against them.

Weak evidence

[manu0601]

While I find interesting the idea that lesser testosterone is required for cooperation, my opinion is that the path to that conclusion is rather weak.

They studied testosterone-induced strong features in skulls, observed they vanished as cooperation raised, and concluded that testosterone must have lowered as cooperation increased.

But correlation is not causation. Another explanation could be that as cooperation increased, fights decreased, and hence the need for strong skull features.Testosterone could have remained at steady level while its effect on skulls lowered.

Re:Men are obsolete

[epyT-R]

No, I never said that men did everything, nor did I imply it.

I have no issue with coexisting. I do have issue with groups using government to provide privileges to them at my financial/social expense based on the very attributes they claim I use to judge them. I have no issue with equality of opportunity either, but feminists need to realize that if they want equal seating at the trough, they need to be willing to help when it's time to fill it, and when it's time to clean it. No shortcuts or incentives that aren't also offered to everyone else. Her body, her right, her choice? Fine by me, but that also means her responsibility. No using the baby to rope daddy in for an easy meal ticket (or just to stick it to him), at least, not without a signed contract/marriage license. When I bring this up, white knights and most women fly into defensive shitstorms, but the reality is that if women want equality in the eyes of men, they have to give up the expectation of chattel privilege and we need to strip the lobbied-for favoritism out. Affirmative action law and policies must die.

The last 40 years of feminism have made women the most privileged class in western society. Everything is now modeled, shaped, spindled, folded, and mutilated to benefit and cater to them. Thus, nowadays, when women put on melodramas about some guy looking at them in a hallway, or asking them to coffee at work, and then claim they have to set up buddy systems or demand 'safe spaces' as a result, it's really hard for me to take them seriously. It would be a laughable joke if it wasn't also so toxic to men, and western society's long term prospects. Women today just abuse the system to gain leverage in whatever spaces they're in because they know they can get away with it, and it sullies the reputation of those few women who really were assaulted or discriminated against.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Capsaicin]

mmmm... no. That is a no true scotsman fallacy

And your exclusive focus on the "the militant kind" is a strawman fallacy. Welcome to the club.

I have yet to know any woman who would eliminate, reduce or otherwise alter the proportion of men (already the minority); not my mother, my current or any previous partners or any other feminist I've known. None, zero, zilch. Where are all these women who frighten you so?

Today, [the militant kind of feminist who wanted "men reduced in population, made subservient to women, or just outright used as slaves or eliminated"] express that same misandry by pushing policies supporting that mentality in education, media programming, civil law, criminal law, and, are now making/funding their presence in subcultures, like technology and gaming.

Yup that's it, girls who want to write games or watch three dimensional female characters on TV are just exactly that kind of militant misandric feminists. Mary Daly eat your heart out!. Your insecurity, and that of the many other boys here, borders on the paranoid. Just grow a pair mate!

humans have muscle gowth suppressor

[peter303]

Myostation, whihc makes them a fifth as strong as other apes the weight. It is thought this diverted metabolic resources to the brain and running. Undergorund chemists are seeking to neutralize of this statin to improve athletes. Medical scientists hopign to stop muscle wasting in dystropy and old people.

Re:Makes sense

[werepants]

There's a complicated relationship between muscle mass and testosterone. Higher levels of testosterone do help you to build muscle, but there's also a strong indication that heavy resistance exercise increases testosterone and that higher levels of muscle mass will increase your testosterone production.