[Note from Pumpkin Person: The following is a guest article and does NOT necessarily reflect the views of Pumpkin Person. Out of respect for the author, please try to keep all comments on-topic. I understand conversations naturally evolve, but please start on-topic]
Testosterone has a similar heritability to IQ (between .4 and .6; Harris, Vernon, and Boomsma, 1998; Travison et al, 2014). To most, this would imply a significant effect of genes on the production of testosterone and therefore we should find a lot of SNPs that affect the production of testosterone. However, testosterone production is much more complicated than that. In this article, I will talk about testosterone production and discuss two studies which purport to show a few SNPs associated with testosterone. Now, this doesn’t mean that the SNPs cause high/low testosterone, just that they were associated. I will then speak briefly on the ‘IQ SNPs’ and compare it to ‘testosterone SNPs’.
Testosterone SNPs?
Complex traits are ‘controlled’ by many genes and environmental factors (Garland Jr., Zhao, and Saltzman, 2016). Testosterone is a complex trait, so along with the heritability of testosterone being .4 to .6, there must be many genes of small effect that influence testosterone, just like they supposedly do for IQ. This is obviously wrong for testosterone, which I will explain below.
Back in 2011 it was reported that genetic markers were discovered ‘for’ testosterone, estrogen, and SHGB production, while showing that genetic variants in the SHGB locus, located on the X chromosome, were associated with substantial testosterone variation and increased the risk of low testosterone (important to keep in mind) (Ohlsson et al, 2011). The study was done since low testosterone is linked to numerous maladies. Low testosterone is related to cardiovascular risk (Maggio and Basaria, 2009), insulin sensitivity (Pitteloud et al, 2005; Grossman et al, 2008), metabolic syndrome (Salam, Kshetrimayum, and Keisam, 2012; Tsuijimora et al, 2013), heart attack (Daka et al, 2015), elevated risk of dementia in older men (Carcaillon et al, 2014), muscle loss (Yuki et al, 2013), and stroke and ischemic attack (Yeap et al, 2009). So this is a very important study to understand the genetic determinants of low serum testosterone.
Ohlsson et al (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of GWASs, using a sample of 14,429 ‘Caucasian’ men. To be brief, they discovered two SNPs associated with testosterone by performing a GWAS of serum testosterone concentrations on 2 million SNPs on over 8,000 ‘Caucasians’. The strongest associated SNP discovered was rs12150660 was associated with low testosterone in this analysis, as well as in a study of Han Chinese, but it is rare along with rs5934505 being associated with an increased risk of low testosterone(Chen et al, 2016). Chen et al (2016) also caution that their results need replication (but I will show that it is meaningless due to how testosterone is produced in the body).
Ohlsson et al (2011) also found the same associations with the same two SNPs, along with rs6258 which affect how testosterone binds to SHGB. Ohlsson et al (2011) also validated their results: “To validate the independence of these two SNPs, conditional meta-analysis of the discovery cohorts including both rs12150660 and rs6258 in an additive genetic linear model adjusted for covariates was calculated.” Both SNPs were independently associated with low serum testosterone in men (less than 300ng/dl which is in the lower range of the new testosterone guidelines that just went into effect back in July). Men who had 3 or more of these SNPs were 6.5 times more likely to have lower testosterone.
Ohlsson et al (2011) conclude that they discovered genetic variants in the SHGB locus and X chromosome that significantly affect serum testosterone production in males (noting that it’s only on ‘Caucasians’ so this cannot be extrapolated to other races). It’s worth noting that, as can be seen, these SNPs are not really associated with variation in the normal range, but near the lower end of the normal range in which people would then need to seek medical help for a possible condition they may have.
In infant males, no SNPs were significantly associated with salivary testosterone levels, and the same was seen for infant females. Individual variation in salivary testosterone levels during mini-puberty (Kurtoglu and Bastug, 2014) were explained by environmental factors, not SNPs (Xia et al, 2014). They also replicated Carmaschi et al (2010) who also showed that environmental factors influence testosterone more than genetic factors in infancy. There is a direct correlation between salivary testosterone levels and free serum testosterone (Wang et al, 1981; Johnson, Joplin, and Burin, 1987), so free serum testosterone was indirectly tested.
This is interesting because, as I’ve noted here numerous times, testosterone is indirectly controlled by DNA, and it can be raised or lowered due to numerous environmental variables (Mazur and Booth, 1998; Mazur, 2016), such as marriage (Gray et al, 2002; Burnham et al, 2003; Gray, 2011; Pollet, Cobey, and van der Meij, 2013; Farrelly et al, 2015; Holmboe et al, 2017), having children (Gray et al, 2002; Gray et al, 2006; Gettler et al, 2011); to obesity (Palmer et al, 2012; Mazur et al, 2013; Fui, Dupuis, and Grossman, 2014; Jayaraman, Lent-Schochet, and Pike, 2014; Saxbe et al, 2017) smoking is not clearly related to testosterone (Zhao et al, 2016), and high-carb diets decrease testosterone (Silva, 2014). Though, most testosterone decline can be ameliorated with environmental interventions (Shi et al, 2013), it’s not a foregone conclusion that testosterone will sharply decrease around age 25-30.
Studies on ‘testosterone genes’ only show associations, not causes, genes don’t directly cause testosterone production, it is indirectly controlled by DNA, as I will explain below. These studies on the numerous environmental variables that decrease testosterone is proof enough of the huge effects of environment on testosterone production and synthesis.
How testosterone is produced in the body
There are five simple steps to testosterone production: 1) DNA codes for mRNA; 2) mRNA codes for the synthesis of an enzyme in the cytoplasm; 3) luteinizing hormone stimulates the production of another messenger in the cell when testosterone is needed; 4) this second messenger activates the enzyme; 5) the enzyme then converts cholesterol to testosterone (Leydig cells produce testosterone in the presence of luteinizing hormone) (Saladin, 2010: 137). Testosterone is a steroid and so there are no ‘genes for’ testosterone.
Cells in the testes enzymatically convert cholesterol into the steroid hormone testosterone. Quoting Saladin (2010: 137):
But to make it [testosterone], a cell of the testis takes in cholesterol and enzymatically converts it to testosterone. This can occur only if the genes for the enzymes are active. Yet a further implication of this is that genes may greatly affect such complex outcomes as behavior, since testosterone strongly influences such behaviors as aggression and sex drive. [RR: Most may know that I strongly disagree with the fact that testosterone *causes* aggression, see Archer, Graham-Kevan and Davies, 2005.] In short, DNA codes only for RNA and protein synthesis, yet it indirectly controls the synthesis of a much wider range of substances concerned with all aspects of anatomy, physiology, and behavior.
(Figure from Saladin (2010: 137; Anatomy and Physiology: The Unity of Form and Function)
Genes only code for RNA and protein synthesis, and thusly, genes do not *cause* testosterone production. This is a misconception most people have; if it’s a human trait, then it must be controlled by genes, ultimately, not proximately as can be seen, and is already known in biology. Genes, on their own, are not causes but passive templates (Noble, 2008; Noble, 2011; Krimsky, 2013; Noble, 2013; Also read Exploring Genetic Causation in Biology). This is something that people need to understand; genes on their own do nothing until they are activated by the system.
What does this have to do with ‘IQ genes’?
My logic here is very simple: 1) Testosterone has the same heritability range as IQ. 2) One would assume—like is done with IQ—that since testosterone is a complex trait that it must be controlled by ‘many genes of small effect’. 3) Therefore, since I showed that there are no ‘genes for’ testosterone and only ‘associations’ (which could most probably be mediated by environmental interventions) with low testosterone, may the same hold true for ‘IQ genes/SNPS’? These testosterone SNPs I talked about from Ohlsson et al (2011) were associated with low testosterone. These ‘IQ SNP’ studies (Davies et al, 2017; Hill et al, 2017; Savage et al, 2017) are the same—except we have an actual idea of how testosterone is produced in the body, we know that DNA is indirectly controlling its production, and, most importantly, there is/are no ‘gene[s] for’ testosterone.
Conclusion
Testosterone has the same heritability range as IQ, is a complex trait like IQ, but, unlike how IQ is purported to be, it [testosterone] is not controlled by genes; only indirectly. My reasoning for using this example is simple: something has a moderate to high heritability, and so most would assume that ‘numerous genes of small effect’ would have an influence on testosterone production. This, as I have shown, is false. It’s also important to note that Ohlsson et al (2011) showed associated SNPs in regards to low testosterone—not testosterone levels in the normal range. Of course, only when physiological values are outside of the normal range will we notice any difference between men, and only then will we find—however small—genetic differences between men with normal and low levels of testosterone (I wouldn’t be surprised if lifestyle factors explained the lower testosterone, but we’ll never know that in regards to this study).
Testosterone production is a real, measurable physiologic process, as is the hormone itself; which is not unlike the so-called physiologic process that ‘g’ is supposed to be, which does not mimic any known physiologic process in the body, which is covered with unscientific metaphors like ‘power’ and ‘energy’ and so on. This example, in my opinion, is important for this debate. Sure, Ohlsson et al (2011) found a few SNPs associated with low testosterone. That’s besides the point. They are only associated with low testosterone; they do not cause low testosterone. So, I assert, these so-called associated SNPs do not cause differences in IQ test scores; just because they’re ‘associated’ doesn’t mean they ’cause’ the differences in the trait in question. (See Noble, 2008; Noble, 2011; Krimsky, 2013; Noble, 2013.) The testosterone analogy that I made here buttresses my point due to the similarities (it is a complex trait with high heritability) with IQ.
Pumpkin Person 
“Studies on ‘testosterone genes’ only show associations, not causes, genes don’t directly cause testosterone production, it is indirectly controlled by DNA, as I will explain below. ”
This is cancerous. “Testosterone is not caused by genes, now let me take you step by step on how genes cause testosterone!”
Do you even think? No matter how “indirect” it’s obvious T levels are controlled by genes and has it ever occurred to you that these “associations” are not responsible for those “indirect” mechanisms?
are responsible******************
Studies on ‘testosterone genes’ only show associations, not causes, genes don’t directly cause testosterone production, it is indirectly controlled by DNA, as I will explain below.
But usually when scientists claim a gene is causing something, I assume they mean that gene has what Mug of Pee calls an “independent genetic effect”, as opposed to an environment dependent effect.
So for example, if a gene, or SNP, were correlated with increased T levels in many different kinds of countries, and many different eras, they would say it’s causal.
But if the gene only correlates with T levels in American men, then it might not be causal at all, but rather an interaction with the U.S. environment. For example, it might be a gene that causes you to be very status obsessed and since low carb diets are high class in the U.S., you might follow one and raise your T level that way (assuming that works).
In that case the gene would not be causal because if high carb diets suddenly were embraced by elites, the same gene would indirectly cause low T.
So the litmus test for genetic causation would probably be “is the association robust across time and place?”
But you seem to be implying a much stricter test for causation.
that’s what “X causes Y” means if it isn’t qualified and no mechanism is known. it means “invariably associated”.
“smoking causes lung cancer” actually means “smoking is associated with increased incidence of lung cancer in all populations”. as it turns out this may not be true. but it’s close enough. tobacco company lobbyists use to make the sophistical claim that the mechanism wasn’t known therefore causation couldn’t be inferred. before they claimed nicotine wasn’t addictive they claimed smoking didn’t cause cancer.
gayman says: It’s OK to use correlations in behavioral genetic research for a simple reason: the environment didn’t cause genes (at least not proximately).
i’m pretty sure even he doesn’t know what he means by that.
or i should say “invariably associated” and preceding in time.
It’s OK to use correlations in behavioral genetic research for a simple reason: the environment didn’t cause genes (at least not proximately).
I think you’d agree that it’s OK if the correlations (between specific genetic variants and phenotype) are replicated in very different kinds of environments. They might be stronger or weaker in some environments, but as long as the correlations are all statistically significant (and in the same direction) it’s OK.
Of course if JayMan was referring to the correlation between identical twin phenotypes, then no, that’s not really good enough if they’re both in the same country, as you’ve discussed.
i guess gayman means if genes and environment aren’t correlated then the only thing similar about two related people is their genes, and therefore the genes by themselves must be the cause of the similarity of such people. their environments are no more alike than those of unrelated people so environment can’t be the cause. but genes and environment are correlated and even more gayman doesn’t understand that late 20th c and early 21st c america is not the entire range of environments. sad!
Jayman might argue genes & environment are not correlated since shared environment effects supposedly vanish in adulthood
doesn’t understand that late 20th c and early 21st c america is not the entire range of environments. sad!
No he understands that, but since he almost certainly assumes the P = G + E model, it’s a trivial point
I think the P = G + E model is probably mostly true for IQ, but largely false for many of the personality traits Jayman talks about
and turkheimer found in two studies that the effect of genes varied within the US. very poor kids had IQ heritability of 0. heritability increased with parents’ income. but i think these results have not been repeated.
“and turkheimer found in two studies that the effect of genes varied within the US. very poor kids had IQ heritability of 0. heritability increased with parents’ income. but i think these results have not been repeated.”
New paper.
https://twitter.com/NoamJStein/status/933827876641583104
The results have not been repeated and his paper had a low sample. I believe Rushton and Jensen rebutted this in their response to Nisbett as well.
…used to…
not a typo peepee, a “stupo”.
and as a matter of fact nicotine is NOT addictive by itself.
what is addictive is the combination of nicotine and MAOI inhibtors in tobacco.
it takes 2 to tango in the case of tobacco addiction.
…MAOIs… or …MAO inhibitors…
stupo not typo.
Vocabulary size in mother tongue
Comparably speaking with the same age pairs, your vocabulary will be on avg stable. When your cognitive quantitative levels finish its development your vocabulary size will start to become finally stable and when you will aging your vocabulary will reducing, more or less.
Personality traits also can be defined as reaction traits and seems more affected by environmental interactions OR be more sensible but still wil be pre defined how you will react to different situations at short, avg and long term ad or non-infinitely-plastic or changeable.
So we don’t born “with” neuroticism literally speaking but wirh all this spectrum from emotional stability and neuroticism, but some people will be more sensible and others will be less. Environmental interactions partly define how we will counter react but of course ourselves are considerably important for this conjugation and we are behaviorally pre defined and not blank-slated.
“So for example, if a gene, or SNP, were correlated with increased T levels in many different kinds of countries, and many different eras, they would say it’s causal.”
Yet testosterone production doesn’t work like that as I have covered. They can be ‘associated’ all they want, you can associate 50 SNPs to testosterone production, it doesn’t mean those SNPs *cause* testosterone production.
“So the litmus test for genetic causation would probably be “is the association robust across time and place?””
Not even, I’m talking about genetic causation in a different way.
“But you seem to be implying a much stricter test for causation.”
No. I’m arguing that 1) those SNPs are not ‘causing’ low testosterone. 2) they’re just ‘associations’. 3) testosterone is indirectly produced by DNA. 4) therefore, genes don’t cause testosterone production outright it’s production is an indirect effect of DNA and luteinizing hormones along with the Leydig cells in the testes.
When talking about genetic causation, you must understand that genes on their own do absolutely nothing. Put some genes into a petri dish and it won’t do a thing. It does nothing until it’s activated for and by the system.
My main argument here is that testosterone SNPs may be like IQ SNPs, just ‘associations’, no ‘causality’, because genes don’t work that way. People still have held on to the old model of the gene. Well it’s under constant definitional change. Here’s the most recent article.
As the classical and neoclassical periods unfolded, the term became more concrete, first as a dimensionless point on a chromosome, then as a linear segment within a chromosome, and finally as a linear segment in the DNA molecule that encodes a polypeptide chain. This last definition, from the early 1960s, remains the one employed today, but developments since the 1970s have undermined its generality. Indeed, they raise questions about both the utility of the concept of a basic “unit of inheritance” and the long implicit belief that genes are autonomous agents. Here, we review findings that have made the classic molecular definition obsolete and propose a new one based on contemporary knowledge.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28360126
My main argument here is that testosterone SNPs may be like IQ SNPs, just ‘associations’, no ‘causality’, because genes don’t work that way. People still have held on to the old model of the gene. Well it’s under constant definitional change.
Right, but even people who invoke the new model, might still say genes are causal in Mug of Pee’s sense: “invariably associated and preceding in time”. Even you will sometimes specify that genes don’t “directly” cause, or “actively” cause, implying that you admit to passive causation.
It’s a bit like the gun debate: Guns don’t kill people; people kill people. The gun was just a tool to kill a bunch of people, but without the gun, it wouldn’t have happened, so it was causal in that sense.
When talking about genetic causation, you must understand that genes on their own do absolutely nothing. Put some genes into a petri dish and it won’t do a thing.
Put a gun in a petri dish, and it wont kill anyone 🙂
It does nothing until it’s activated for and by the system.
A gun does nothing until it’s activated for and by the killer
But yes, I agree genes are not actively causal; they’re just used by a system, but this begs the question, doesn’t DNA cause the system to behave the way it does?
please be less obvious about your lesbianism.
“Right, but even people who invoke the new model, might still say genes are causal in Mug of Pee’s sense: “invariably associated and preceding in time”. Even you will sometimes specify that genes don’t “directly” cause, or “actively” cause, implying that you admit to passive causation.”
Yes I do admit passive causation; genes are like templates and don’t do anything unless activated by the system. Neo-Darwinists don’t like this view because it takes some ‘power’ from the gene.
In regards to your gun analogy, I think it’d be better like this: the bullet is the gene, the gun is the intelligent system, and the activator is the human. So the human activates the bullet by putting it into the system and the outcome it wanted occurs. Still passive causation; the bullet in the petri dish does nothing unless activated by the system (the gun).
“Do you even think? No matter how “indirect” it’s obvious T levels are controlled by genes and has it ever occurred to you that these “associations” are not responsible for those “indirect” mechanisms?”
It’s very simple. Read the figure. Read the part on testosterone production. There are no ‘genes for’ testosterone production. Associated SNPs ‘associated’ with low testosterone don’t mean anything, it doesn’t mean those SNPs *cause* lower testosterone.
You can’t say it’s ‘obvious’ that testosterone is ‘controlled’ by genes because that’s not how testosterone production and synthesis works! DNA indirectly causes its production. That’s it. So DNA’s role here is passive.
Remember, nothing is ‘obvious’ in science. The control is indirect. SRD5A2 provides the instructions to synthesize steroid 5-alpha 2 which produces androgens. Indirect gene control. g
Genes don’t cause its production ultimately, only proximately. You can’t logically say that SRD5A2 causes testosterone and that it is a testosterone production gene because it doesn’t work like that.
“It’s very simple. Read the figure.”
I did, and I read the 2011 study. You said:
“1) DNA codes for mRNA; 2) mRNA codes for the synthesis of an enzyme in the cytoplasm”
“Genes don’t cause its production ultimately, only proximately.”
You’re missing the point, I wasn’t arguing semantics I only argued that genes are a causation, it doesn’t matter if it’s distal or proximate, in fact if genes were proximate then they would be number 5 on your list.
“I did, and I read the 2011 study. You said:
“1) DNA codes for mRNA; 2) mRNA codes for the synthesis of an enzyme in the cytoplasm””
Yes. And? That shows indirect control by DNA. Ohlsson et al show only associations. They don’t talk about how those two SNPs cause trait variation. Nor do they say the SNPs cause testosterone on the lower end of the range.
“it doesn’t matter if it’s distal or proximate, in fact if genes were proximate then they would be number 5 on your list.”
No because step five is an enzyme that converts cholesterol into testosterone. There are no genes at play here. DNA is proximate.
The steps are: 1) DNA codes for mRNA; 2) mRNA codes for the synthesis of an enzyme in the cytoplasm; 3) luteinizing hormone stimulates the production of another messenger in the cell when testosterone is needed; 4) this second messenger activates the enzyme; 5) the enzyme then converts cholesterol to testosterone.
DNA indirectly causes its production when the body needs it, which is detected by the intelligent cells which drive the intelligent physiology.
Genes act as instructions to make protein. On their own they do nothing.
There are no ‘genes for’ testosterone. I repeat: SRD5A2 provides the instructions to synthesize steroid 5-alpha 2 which produces androgens. ..
You can’t logically say that SRD5A2 causes testosterone and that it is a testosterone production gene because it doesn’t work like that
“That shows indirect control by DNA. ”
Causation is still causation.
“No because step five is an enzyme that converts cholesterol into testosterone. There are no genes at play here. DNA is proximate.”
Do you even know the difference between a proximate and distal cause?
“Proximate cause: Because it was holed beneath the waterline, water entered the hull and the ship became denser than the water which supported it, so it could not stay afloat.
Ultimate cause: Because the ship hit a rock which tore open the hole in the ship’s hull.”
Dna in this sense is the ultimate cause because it was the first event.
“Causation is still causation.”
Not *ultimate*. So then you would say that genes still are causes on their own even though they’re causation is passive? Doesn’t work like that. Read this article (I know you did not):
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1878/3001
Genes are passive causes; that doesn’t mean they ’cause’ the action; the system causes it, the genes are like a computer database that the system reads off of.
“Do you even know the difference between a proximate and distal cause?”
Don’t insult me. I clearly do. I’m talking about proximate vs. ultimate causes.
“Dna in this sense is the ultimate cause because it was the first event.”
You’re funny. It is not the ultimate cause. Just because it’s the first event doesn’t mean it’s the ultimate cause because a whole bunch of other steps need to occur. Hell, the pituitary and hypothalamus control how much testosterone is secreted. There are no ‘testosterone genes’ and genes don’t ’cause’ testosterone.
Testosterone production is also just a pawn; talk about my comparison with ‘IQ SNPs’ too, which is the reason why I wrote this.
Here’s a good example: The proximate cause of obesity is overeating kcal while the ultimate cause is too much insulin production from processed food. If we cure the proximate cause will the disease be fixed? Look to the 99% diet failure to know the answer. Proximate causes tell you nothing about how things occur, they only give you an idea. To get an idea of how something works you need to know about ultimate causes.
Alcohol is too much alcohol in or not enough alcohol out. Solution? Drink less! Obesity is too much energy and or not enough energy out. Solution? Eat less! Both are proximate, not ultimate causes, therefore, treating the proximate causes and not ultimate causes doesn’t help!
So if you look at the proximate cause of testosterone production (DNA), you won’t learn anything about its ultimate cause (the system) because you’re focused on the magic genes that do nothing unless activated by the intelligent physiologic system.
“Doesn’t work like that. ”
Yes it does, how are you going to call something “causal” and then say it’s not.
” Read this article (I know you did not):”
Actually I did.
“the system causes it”
Which system??
“Don’t insult me.”
Not an insult, just a question.
“I’m talking about proximate vs. ultimate causes.”
I know. Distal is the same thing as Ultimate.
“It is not the ultimate cause. Just because it’s the first event doesn’t mean it’s the ultimate cause because a whole bunch of other steps need to occur. ”
You seem to be separating the definition of proximate and distal based on which can occur without the other, which means all steps have equal importance, they would all be distal. If you take the first step out of the equation nothing else will work, the same goes for 5. If it is temporal instead, that means Dna is still distal because it is first in the order of events you described, however a distal cause can be proximate to an even more distal cause.
“talk about my comparison with ‘IQ SNPs’ too”
My logic applies to that too.
“Yes it does, how are you going to call something “causal” and then say it’s not.”
Passive causation (which I argued for in this article and have done so in the past) is the only type of causation that can be attributable to gene; ultimate causation cannot be attributed to genes because they only do *something* when activated by the intelligent physiological system. So saying ‘genes for’ X is dumb.
“Actually I did.”
What did you gather? Do you agree with Noble?
“Which system??”
The intelligent physiologic system.
“which means all steps have equal importance, they would all be distal. If you take the first step out of the equation nothing else will work, the same goes for 5”
Of course. You can’t get to step 5 without step 4 and you can’t get to step 4 without step 3, etc.
“Dna is still distal because it is first in the order of events you described, however a distal cause can be proximate to an even more distal cause.”
The cells detect what is occurring in the environment; the cells are the how and why of how physiology is intelligent; you cannot apply ultimate causation onto DNA in regards to testosterone production. So the cells are, you can say, an ‘ultimate’ cause’ for this since without the intelligent cells driving the intelligent physiology then this would not occur.
If you take DNA out it will no longer work. Take out mitochondria and the chain will no longer work. Take out Luteinizing hormone and it won’t work. Testosterone cannot be produced without cholesterol since testosterone is a cholesterol-based hormone, take cholesterol out and the chain will not work. They all work together in concert to finally produce the testosterone molecule which then gets secreted from the cell (step 6).
“My logic applies to that too.”
The logic is flawed as I have argued in this article. You can’t say those SNPs ’cause’ testosterone just like you can’t say those ‘IQ SNPs’ ’cause’ IQ.
“Passive causation (which I argued for in this article and have done so in the past) is the only type of causation that can be attributable to gene”
It’s still causation. You’re being purposefully semantic just to disagree.
“Do you agree with Noble?”
Well yes, he didn’t say anything really wrong, genes are apart of the system so of course they cannot act alone, there’s just a giant “So what?” Hanging over all of this.
“The intelligent physiologic system.”
That’s incredibly vague.
“So the cells are, you can say, an ‘ultimate’ cause’ for this since without the intelligent cells driving the intelligent physiology then this would not occur.”
So your logic goes:
“Without cells, no testosterone or any physiologic expression, therefore Cells are the distal cause”
If that is correct then what’s stopping me from saying:
“Without genes, no testosterone or any physiologic expression, therefore Genes are the distal cause.”?
Because you already admitted that: “If you take DNA out it will no longer work.”
“The logic is flawed”
To me your logic could use some work.
“It’s still causation. You’re being purposefully semantic just to disagree.”
I agree it’s still causation (not ultimate but passive and it does matter) and no I’m not “being purposefully semantic just to disagree”. That’s a part of the larger attack on the Modern Synthesis so you know. (“… the modern synthesis has got causality in biology wrong.“—Denis Noble, Guardian interview, 6/09/2014) Anyway, genes are better described as a passive database that the organism uses to make the proteins it requires to carry out its functioning.
“Well yes, he didn’t say anything really wrong, genes are apart of the system so of course they cannot act alone, there’s just a giant “So what?” Hanging over all of this.”
No there is not ‘giant “So what?” Hanging over all of this’.
The point is that the gene-centered view (the Modern Synthesis) has causality wrong. So if you agree with Noble then you disagree with the Modern Synthesis and causation.
“That’s incredibly vague.”
How is it vague? The intelligent system transcribes genes to create proteins to carry out functioning. The genes don’t transcribe themselves, ya know.
“So your logic goes:
“Without cells, no testosterone or any physiologic expression, therefore Cells are the distal cause”
If that is correct then what’s stopping me from saying:
“Without genes, no testosterone or any physiologic expression, therefore Genes are the distal cause.”?”
…
“Because you already admitted that: “If you take DNA out it will no longer work.””
If you take out cholesterol it will no longer work. Take out any part of the process and it will no longer work. They all work in concert to reach the end of the process (to secrete testosterone out of the cell for physiologic behaviors).
I only stated that because, at the molecular level, what the cells do first in order to initiate it would be ‘the cause’, as I’m sure you would agree.
“To me your logic could use some work.”
There is nothing wrong with my logic.
The point is to look at the whole system and to not reduce it to one simpler part. Only by looking at organisms as a system of parts working in concert (as can be seen with the production of testosterone) will you see how these things work and interact with each other to cause the intelligent physiology’s ‘outcome’: in this case being the production of testosterone.
“Anyway, genes are better described as a passive database that the organism uses to make the proteins it requires to carry out its functioning.”
Who didn’t know this!? Do you even know how genes work?
” then you disagree with the Modern Synthesis and causation.”
So what? Genes are still what decides a organisms functioning and are the main agents of inheritance.
“The intelligent system transcribes genes to create proteins to carry out functioning.”
Which system and how is it intelligent?
“…”
You said it, not me.
“I only stated that because, at the molecular level, what the cells do first in order to initiate it would be ‘the cause’, as I’m sure you would agree.”
Ok so you are in fact speaking from a temporal perspective. Are cells or genes first in order? Do the cells do their job before or after mRna is coded for?
“There is nothing wrong with my logic.”
When you choose to word yourself so callously then yes it appears there is something wrong. Though I have my lazy moments too.
“Who didn’t know this!? Do you even know how genes work?”
I clearly do know this. People are resistant when I say this.
“So what? Genes are still what decides a organisms functioning and are the main agents of inheritance.”
No. Physiology decides functioning. It’s form (anatomy) and function (physiology), the title of Saladin’s textbook is “Anatomy and Physiology: The Beauty of Form and Function”.
“Which system and how is it intelligent?”
The physiological system and its intelligent because it’s driven by intelligent cells.
“You said it, not me.”
Sorry, thst wasn’t a reply it was a break in the quotes.
“Ok so you are in fact speaking from a temporal perspective. Are cells or genes first in order? Do the cells do their job before or after mRna is coded for?”
The cells power physiological system so they do their job before mRNA is coded for. Read the figure from the textbook.
“When you choose to word yourself so callously then yes it appears there is something wrong. Though I have my lazy moments too.”
OK I got you.
By the way, genes aren’t the ‘main’ unit of inheritance either.
“No. Physiology decides functioning.”
No, genes code for physiological constructions. You can argue that genes are apart of the system and therefore don’t have a higher importance, but you can’t just hand wave enormous amounts of data on the function of genes and how they relate to inheritance and evolution. There’s a fine line between reforming the “modern synthesis” and evolutionary denialism.
“it’s driven by intelligent cells.”
What makes the cells intelligent?
“The cells power physiological system so they do their job before mRNA is coded for. Read the figure from the textbook.”
Ok, but doesn’t dna reside within cells?
“genes aren’t the ‘main’ unit of inheritance either.”
Then what is?
“You can argue that genes are apart of the system and therefore don’t have a higher importance, but you can’t just hand wave enormous amounts of data on the function of genes and how they relate to inheritance and evolution. There’s a fine line between reforming the “modern synthesis” and evolutionary denialism.”
How do genes relate to inheritance and evolution? You stated that you agree with Noble and his article Genes and Causation which directly goes against the modern synthesis and how it views the causality of the gene.
“What makes the cells intelligent?”
Behavioral plasticity. Read:
Living things, then, need to be good at registering those statistical patterns across everyday experience and then use them to shape the best response, including (in the cell) what genes to recruit for desired products. This is what intelligence is, and it’s origins coincide with the origins of life itself, and life is intelligence. (Richardson, 2017: 115)
In multicelluar systems, of course, the cells are not just responding to one another, but also collectively to the changing environment outside. That requires an intelligent physiology, as described in chapter 5. However, it is still the statistical structure of the changes that matters and that forms the basis of a living intelligence. Even at this level, closest to the genes, then, the environment is emphatically not a loose collection of independent factors to which the cells respond, in stimulus-response fashion, under gene control. This reality makes the additive statistical models of the behavioral geneticist quite unrealistic. (Richardson, 2017: 120)
“Ok, but doesn’t dna reside within cells?”
Yes in the nucleus. ATP powers the cells.
“Then what is?”
Let me rephrase: DNA isn’t the only unit of inheritance. It’s not the main unit of inheritance either. There are other systems of inheritance which we’ve discussed briefly. This is what Cochran didn’t believe me on saying I was wrong and the people I’m citing are wrong. Nope.
Here’s a quote from Ken Richardson’s book Genes, Brains, and Human Potential: The Science and Ideology of Intelligence (pg. 171, emphasis mine) for good measure:
Chapter 4 spelled out just what a real-world environment means. The upshot was that complex organisms evolved in highly changeable worlds, but one full of spatiotemporal patterns. The patterns contain information deeper than simple associations and are assimilated, even in molecular networks, as statistical (relational) parameters. These are a kind of knowledge and help predict consequences of responses. So responses can be optimized even in novel situations.
This is the intelligence of the cell. Such information cannot be found in genes per se, laid down by the experiences of past generations. It has to be abstracted de novo from contemporary experience.
Chaoter 5 showed how the intelligence of the cell has been extended into development and physiology in multicellular organisms. These functions evolved to provide increased adaptability in even more changeable environments. A major feature, even at those levels, is the presence of compensatory (alternative) pathways to form, function and their development. With so many idiosyncratic expressions, it is impossible (as well as pointless) to arrange individual differences along a single functional axis valid for all circumstances. For the vast majority of cells and organisms, their functions are good enough for the challenges faced.
“How do genes relate to inheritance and evolution?”
……Are you trolling? Usually in sexual reproduction, you inherit one copy of each gene from both parents.
“which directly goes against the modern synthesis and how it views the causality of the gene.”
This ties back to the whole “semantics” and the “So what?” about all of this. Denis noble didn’t go against anything, he just modified it. Take a look at the actual wiki page on the modern synthesis it’s been revised dozen’s of time. Noble pointed out, as did you that epigenetics, plasticity etc. play a role in phenotypic inheritance, and it’s absolutely correct that the body is an entire system that produces feedback loops to function but that never changed the fact that genes are “codes” that are passed down from generation to generation and then modified through gene duplication and genetic recombination. Am I seriously having to explain this to you? Do you know what Hox genes are? What about homeobox genes?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC334173/
I also suggest you read the link on your blog about Dna supposedly replacing synapses as how memories are formed.
“Behavioral plasticity.”
Oh okay, see I was under the impression that you were saying that cells were “free agents” in reality, cell’s behavioral plasticity reflects human behavioral plasticity because they form the same system.
” ATP ”
?
“It’s not the main unit of inheritance either.”
Let me rephrase: What is the main unit of inheritance?
“……Are you trolling? Usually in sexual reproduction, you inherit one copy of each gene from both parents.”
Not trolling.
There is more to inheritance than gene-inheritance. Not denying it’s the main transmittor, just saying what happens before and after (development) are arguably more important to form and functioning.
“but that never changed the fact that genes are “codes” that are passed down from generation to generation and then modified through gene duplication and genetic recombination.”
Hereditary information is not only encoded in DNA.
Click to access 10.1534%40genetics.116.196956.pdf
Here, therefore, we will propose a definition that we believe comes closer to doing justice to the idea of the “gene,” in light of current knowledge. It makes no reference to “the unit of heredity”—the long-standing sense of the term—because we feel that it is now clear that no such generic universal unit exists.
…
A gene is a DNA sequence (whose component segments do not necessarily need to be physically contiguous) that specifies one or more sequence-related RNAs/proteins that are both evoked by GRNs and participate as elements in GRNs, often with indirect effects, or as outputs of GRNs, the latter yielding more direct phenotypic effects.
This is an explicitly “molecular” definition, but we think that is what is needed now. In contrast, “genes” that are identified purely by their phenotypic effects, as for example in genome-wide association study (GWAS) experiments, would, in our view, not deserve such a characterization until found to specify one or more RNAs/proteins.
(GRNs are “genetic regulatory networks”.)
“Do you know what Hox genes are?”
Homeotic genes with homeoboxes.
“What about homeobox genes?”
They direct the form of animals. It could also be the cause of convergent evolution as well.
I just read Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo by Sean Carroll. Good book.
“I also suggest you read the link on your blog about Dna supposedly replacing synapses as how memories are formed.”
Will do. Give me a day or two to respond and read your cites.
“Oh okay, see I was under the impression that you were saying that cells were “free agents” in reality, cell’s behavioral plasticity reflects human behavioral plasticity because they form the same system.”
The cells act on their own; the cells drive the intelligent physiology. See the Richardson quote above.
“?”
Adenosine triphosphate.
“Let me rephrase: What is the main unit of inheritance?”
Read the paper I cited above.
“just saying what happens before and after (development) are arguably more important to form and functioning.”
I don’t think either has higher importance, they both form the same system, they cant function without the other.
“Hereditary information is not only encoded in DNA.”
“There is more to inheritance than gene-inheritance. ”
You keep repeating yourself, I’m aware that Genes are not the end all be all to an organisms function and development. It is irrelevant to my point. In fact you didn’t properly address any of mine.
“The cells act on their own; the cells drive the intelligent physiology.”
You are your cells dummy.
“Read the paper I cited above.”
“Adenosine triphosphate.”
….So Dna powers the cell?
Why can’t you just tell me? Or is it going to be the same thing as every other paper you have posted? “genes are not the only influence on heredity” Because I’ve already stated that, weeks, no years ago actually. You just cant admit that “genes partly determine an animals function and development” because you like to deny facts only for the sake of arguing.
“I don’t think either has higher importance, they both form the same system, they cant function without the other.”
Right but what occurs during embryonic development can change an organism in a way that’s different from the “plan” “encoded” in its “Genes”.
” In fact you didn’t properly address any of mine.”
It was addressed with the quote from the paper.
“You are your cells dummy.”
Do you guide your cells? Consciously I mean. They’re conscious on their own. They’re intelligent. Read my previous citations on this matter
” Because I’ve already stated that, weeks, no years ago actually.”
Cool. Now I’m on the ship. Though I think I’m more extreme than you are.
” You just cant admit that “genes partly determine an animals function and development” because you like to deny facts only for the sake of arguing.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10094/
Genes code for proteins that carry out the functioning of the organism. The system transcripts each gene to carry out the functioning.
Yes I do love arguing and nit picking. It’s fun, especially to tease certain things out and get a deeper understanding of another’s views.
A quote from Ken Richardson’s article “So what is a gene?” :
Genes, that is, are servants, not masters, of the development of form and individual differences. Genes do serve as templates for proteins: but not under their own direction. And, as entirely passive strings of chemicals, it is logically impossible for them to initiate and steer development in any sense. Instead, attention has shifted to the “system” – the cells, their physiology, cognition and behavior and (in humans) complex social cognition: a vast, interacting, multi-level locus of control, responding to environmental changes and using genes accordingly.
“Right but what occurs during embryonic development can change an organism in a way that’s different from the “plan” “encoded” in its “Genes”.”
Can you give me an example? As far as I’m aware epigenetics still involves the expression of the Genome.
“It was addressed with the quote from the paper.”
How?
“Do you guide your cells? Consciously I mean.”
No, but that’s because of what I said, You are your cells. Your “self awareness” is catalyzed by the interaction of billions upon billions of neuron cells. Single cellular organisms are literally living cells, but still have dna. Your confusion is starting to make enormous sense. In fact cells don’t pass down generation from generation they are the organisms themselves, but Dna does.
“They’re conscious on their own.”
LOL no. Not if you’re defining “consciousness” as the the ability make mental visual representation of possible scenarios(imagination).
“Read my previous citations on this matter”
None of your citations provided evidence that Neurons are “intelligent”.
“Though I think I’m more extreme than you are.”
No shit.
“Genes code for proteins that carry out the functioning of the organism.”
Thank you!
“especially to tease certain things out and get a deeper understanding of another’s views.”
It’s better to understand your own views first RR.
“Can you give me an example? As far as I’m aware epigenetics still involves the expression of the Genome.”
Heritable morphologic change can occur with little to no genetic change in vertebrates. On my phone so I’ll get the cite later.
Yes it involves the expression of the genome but what makes the epigenetic tags is environmental stress for one.
“Your confusion is starting to make enormous sense. In fact cells don’t pass down generation from generation they are the organisms themselves, but Dna does.”
I’m aware. That doesn’t change the fact that cells are Intelligent and can and do react to what occurs in the environment, the cellular and human environment included.
“Not if you’re defining “consciousness” as the the ability make mental visual representation of possible scenarios(imagination”).
So what is reacting to environmental stimuli? PP made the bold claim last year that humans are the only organism that adapt at the level of the phenotype and cited bacteria as evidence for adapting at the genotypic level but not phenotypic level. I disproved that claim. Please read my citations in my article I cited previously.
“None of your citations provided evidence that Neurons are “intelligent”.”
I claimed that bacteria and cells are Intelligent, provided citations and logical arguments.
“It’s better to understand your own views first RR.”
Trust me I understand my views.
PP made the bold claim last year that humans are the only organism that adapt at the level of the phenotype and cited bacteria as evidence for adapting at the genotypic level but not phenotypic level. I disproved that claim
I did cite bacteria as an example of genotypic adaptation but i don’t recall saying humans are the ONLY organism that adapts phenotypically (which is clearly false).
And read that paper on the gene. It proves my point.
“On my phone so I’ll get the cite later.”
Please make sure you do.
“what makes the epigenetic tags is environmental stress for one.”
Okay, but how does that downplay genetic importance? Natural selection is caused by the environment. All evolution is caused by environment, saying the changes can happen quickly is no new phenomena. Genetic determinism is a stupid as the dichotomy itself.
“So what is reacting to environmental stimuli?”
If that’s how you are defining intelligence then sure. That is the definition I prefer myself, but my point is that the individual cell is not self aware. Neurons pool together to form self awareness. You don’t guide cells, cells guide you, so any claim of cellular intelligence is equivalent to human intelligence, which sort of makes the distinction seem redundant and implies ideological attachment, as if you’re suggesting that cell intelligence exists outside of human intelligence.
“Please read my citations in my article I cited previously.”
Look, you seem to not understand that yours citations are not telling me anything I didn’t already know. Your logical renditions are simply wanting.
“And read that paper on the gene.”
No it just used propaganda language like “slave, master, passive” to set up a strawman, and then use it to promulgate already existing data as some kind of new thesis. Long story short just more semantics. When are you going to learn?
“I’m aware. That doesn’t change the fact that cells are Intelligent. I claimed that bacteria and cells are Intelligent, provided citations and logical arguments. ”
Which leads me to my final point, that it actually changes a lot, Dna powers the cell, the cell forms human consciousness, Your citations didn’t prove anything , you just made a false distinction in an attempt to downplay genetic importance because of some weird vendetta you have against “Evolution.” I won’t say “genetic determinism” because an antithesis to that is already based in extremely idiotic assumptions.
“Please make sure you do.”
Moreover, heritable morphological changes were seen to be capable of occurring abruptly with little or no genetic change, with involvement of the external environment, and in preferred directions.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262151448_Form_and_function_remixed_Developmental_physiology_in_the_evolution_of_vertebrate_body_plans
“Okay, but how does that downplay genetic importance? Natural selection is caused by the environment. All evolution is caused by environment, saying the changes can happen quickly is no new phenomena. Genetic determinism is a stupid as the dichotomy itself.”
Because the ‘plan’ of the organism is not ‘in the genes’:
Genes, that is, are servants, not masters, of the development of form and individual differences. Genes do serve as templates for proteins: but not under their own direction. And, as entirely passive strings of chemicals, it is logically impossible for them to initiate and steer development in any sense. Instead, attention has shifted to the “system” – the cells, their physiology, cognition and behavior and (in humans) complex social cognition: a vast, interacting, multi-level locus of control, responding to environmental changes and using genes accordingly.
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/so-what-gene
At least you agree that genetic determinism is dumb.
“but my point is that the individual cell is not self aware.”
Yes it is:
Click to access 10.1111%40j.1749-6632.2001.tb05707.x.pdf
Numerous other recent (this year) papers on this matter:
Click to access 10.1007%40s12079-017-0394-6.pdf
Hell just read my article where I give the argument.
“so any claim of cellular intelligence is equivalent to human intelligence
…
as if you’re suggesting that cell intelligence exists outside of human intelligence.”
Yes. Cells act on their own volition, cells are intelligent.
Bacterial biochemical networks create complex internal models of their environments.
Click to access 10.1126%40science.1154456.pdf
Is human intelligence involved with that? The cell is an autonomous agent and work together with the other autonomous agents. Really read into this line of research because your assumptions on it are wrong.
“Look, you seem to not understand that yours citations are not telling me anything I didn’t already know. Your logical renditions are simply wanting.”
No they’re not. The quote provided literally said:
Here, therefore, we will propose a definition that we believe comes closer to doing justice to the idea of the “gene,” in light of current knowledge. It makes no reference to “the unit of heredity”—the long-standing sense of the term—because we feel that it is now clear that no such generic universal unit exists.
“No it just used propaganda language like “slave, master, passive” to set up a strawman, and then use it to promulgate already existing data as some kind of new thesis. Long story short just more semantics. When are you going to learn?”
So you agree with Nobel’s article on Genes and Causation, then you say that ‘passive’, ‘slave’ and ‘master’ are ‘propaganda language’, even though that’s literally the genes’ use in the body! It’s not just ‘more semantics’. Genes are ‘passive’, ‘slaves’ to the ‘master’ system. These analogies work because they’re true and describe the genes’ relationship in the physiological system.
“Dna powers the cell, the cell forms human consciousness, Your citations didn’t prove anything”
Let’s put an end to this bullshit claim right now, I’m sick of seeing it.
What powers the cell is ATP—adenosine triphosphate. There is also adenosine diphosphate (ADP). The triphosphate has 3 bonded phosphate groups while diphosphate has 2 phosphate groups. Cells use and store ATP to carry out their functions. Cells produce ATP from ADP and Pi. Cells use exergonic reactions to provide the energy needed to synthesize ATP from ADP and Pi. The hydrolysis of ATP provides the energy needed to drive endergonic actions.So the cells continuously produced more ATP from ADP and Pi to then carry out diverse functionings across the body.
Did I really have to explain that?
“I did cite bacteria as an example of genotypic adaptation but i don’t recall saying humans are the ONLY organism that adapts phenotypically (which is clearly false).”
Here:
The only truly adaptable life-form are humans, because we adapt at the phenotype level: rather than genetically mutating into another phenotype, we simply have a flexible phenotype that can change its behavior.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/05/03/why-humans-are-the-most-adaptable/
Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it seems you’re saying that humans are ‘the only true adaptable life-form’, which is clearly falsified with bacterial intelligence/behavioral plasticity. They adapt at the phenotype level too:
Bacteria are far more intelligent than we can think of. They adopt different survival strategies to make their life comfortable. Researches on bacterial communication to date suggest that bacteria can communicate with each other using chemical signaling molecules as well as using ion channel mediated electrical signaling.
Click to access 10.1007%40s12079-017-0394-6.pdf
Interesting, I’ll reply later tonight
Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it seems you’re saying that humans are ‘the only true adaptable life-form’,
I did say that, but by truly adaptable, I meant humans are the only species (that I know of) that live virtually everywhere on Earth.
which is clearly falsified with bacterial intelligence/behavioral plasticity. They adapt at the phenotype level too:
But is there any single species of bacteria that has survived everywhere from the Sahara desert, to Antarctica, to the bottom of the Ocean, to Outer Space? Perhaps not, because I don’t think you can meaningfully divide bacteria into species.
Yes. Extremophiles. They can live where we can’t.
Yes. Extremophiles. They can live where we can’t.
But they’re not a single species. As far as I know anatomically modern humans are the ONLY single species that has survived virtually everywhere on Earth (and beyond)
“Because the ‘plan’ of the organism is not ‘in the genes’:”
What you quoted did not validate this statement in any way. It said genes are used by the physiologic system, it didn’t state that genes don’t create heritable phenotypes. Ive already provided clear evidence that they do(hox genes). Any Geneticist would laugh at you.
“Yes it is:”
No it’s not. For the normal meaning of consciousness in psychology and neuroscience, biological cells would not be considered conscious. Intelligence is relevant. meaning it increases in grades, Cells are intelligent to the extent that they can behaviorally and phenotypically adapt when they react to stimuli, they cannot however reflect upon previous behavior through synaptic plasticity(memory) the only memory that resides in a cell is within the Dna, not the synapses, which is it’s main mechanism for plasticity. So yes Cells are intelligent(to a degree) but not self aware, because they form self awareness which is a grade of intelligence beyond the power of an individual cell.
To further demonstrate my point, When Pumpkin said:
“The only truly adaptable life-form are humans, because we adapt at the phenotype level: rather than genetically mutating into another phenotype, we simply have a flexible phenotype that can change its behavior.”
Your reply:
” but it seems you’re saying that humans are ‘the only true adaptable life-form’, which is clearly falsified with bacterial intelligence/behavioral plasticity. ”
Is actually irrelevant to the point. Humans are behaviorally plastic in the sense that we have evolved an organ(cerebral cortex) that allows for novel problem solving, Cells do not have this beyond Dna in the nucleus which is again not dependent on synaptic plasticity so it doesn’t have the ability to create convergence-divergence zones that allow for hypothetical thought.
“Really read into this line of research because your assumptions on it are wrong.”
Obviously not, you’ve just failed to understand any point i’ve made and just continue to repeat yourself. It is your specialty after all.
“The quote provided literally said:”
The quote literally had nothing to do with the original point, which was on celluar intelligence.
“These analogies work because they’re true and describe the genes’ relationship in the physiological system.”
LOL so you realize the “selfish” gene is a metaphor and is in fact one of the very few Anthropomorphic metaphors existent within biology/Genetics, You’re just replacing semantics with more semantics, not adding anything new. A bunch of old men going through a midlife crisis.
“Did I really have to explain that?”
Yeah, see the difference between me and you is that I admit when I don’t know something. I don’t have prolific knowledge in physiology except for neurophysiology, that and in conjunction with the links you have provided me has been the main source for my counter arguments.
Doesn’t Dna code for ATP or ADP?
“What you quoted did not validate this statement in any way. It said genes are used by the physiologic system, it didn’t state that genes don’t create heritable phenotypes. Ive already provided clear evidence that they do(hox genes). Any Geneticist would laugh at you.”
The quote from Ken Richardson did.
“Intelligence is relevant. meaning it increases in grades, Cells are intelligent to the extent that they can behaviorally and phenotypically adapt when they react to stimuli, they cannot however reflect upon previous behavior through synaptic plasticity(memory) the only memory that resides in a cell is within the Dna, not the synapses, which is it’s main mechanism for plasticity. So yes Cells are intelligent(to a degree) but not self aware, because they form self awareness which is a grade of intelligence beyond the power of an individual cell.”
Right, if we use humans as the measuring stick.(which is dumb.) Cells communicate with each other. A slime mold has found its way through a made to find food. Whatever occurs in the environment, the cells react to it. Cells have cognition. Cells are conscious. Cells know what is occurring in the environment and can change their behavior to match it, both in the body and the larger environment outside of it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4396460/
All life is intelligent.
“Is actually irrelevant to the point. Humans are behaviorally plastic in the sense that we have evolved an organ(cerebral cortex) that allows for novel problem solving, Cells do not have this beyond Dna in the nucleus which is again not dependent on synaptic plasticity so it doesn’t have the ability to create convergence-divergence zones that allow for hypothetical thought.”
Novel organ for problem-solving or not, cells are conscious.
Let’s look at the definition for conscious.
“the state of being awake and aware of one’s surroundings.” I have provided evidence that cells are aware of surroundings.
Let’s look at the definition for behavioral plasticity.
“Behavioral plasticity refers to a change in an organism’s behavior that results from exposure to stimuli, such as changing environmental conditions. Behavior is one of the most variable traits and can be influenced by many factors.”
Hmmm. Now with the evidence I’ve provided here (and there’s still more), wouldn’t you say that cells are conscious (aware of their surroundings) and change their behavior from exposure to stimuli (behavioral plasticity)? The evidence points to yes, cells are conscious, are behaviorally plastic and are Intelligent.
Hypothetical thought is clearly not a basis for behavioral plasticity.
“Obviously not, you’ve just failed to understand any point i’ve made and just continue to repeat yourself. It is your specialty after all.”
I understand your point. You’re wrong. You’re handwaving all the evidence I show you away and creating your own definitions to prove your point. I’ve made no error in explaining my arguments to you.
“LOL so you realize the “selfish” gene is a metaphor and is in fact one of the very few Anthropomorphic metaphors existent within biology/Genetics, You’re just replacing semantics with more semantics, not adding anything new. A bunch of old men going through a midlife crisis.”
This is how the ‘gene’ ‘works’ in the body, through physiological pathways. Genes does nothing until it’s transcribed by the system. Stating that they are passive isn’t “more semantics”, because unlike the selfish gene, there is evidence for it. The selfish gene is ‘only a metaphor’ because there’s no evidence to back it up.
Noble, Dawkins et al are past their mid life crises.
“The quote literally had nothing to do with the original point, which was on celluar intelligence.”
It made no reference to ““the unit of heredity”—the long-standing sense of the term—because we feel that it is now clear that no such generic universal unit exists.”
I’ve provided other citations for bacterial intelligence.
“Yeah, see the difference between me and you is that I admit when I don’t know something. I don’t have prolific knowledge in physiology except for neurophysiology, that and in conjunction with the links you have provided me has been the main source for my counter arguments.”
I admit when I’m wrong. Which is clearly obvious. Look at how my views have changed in 2.5 years. That’s evidence enough.
And a named bacterial species would be more like a genus than species.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12142474/
More on this as I read into it.
“What you quoted did not validate this statement in any way. It said genes are used by the physiologic system, it didn’t state that genes don’t create heritable phenotypes. Ive already provided clear evidence that they do(hox genes). Any Geneticist would laugh at you.”
The quote from Ken Richardson did.”
To clarify: the vehicle existed before the replicators, to use Dawkins’ terminology.
“the vehicle existed before the replicators, to use Dawkins’ terminology.”
You’re saying a single cellular organism existed before the much simpler self replicating molecule? like Rna and Dna?
Yes.
Take one stark realisation. In the standard view, a living thing is something like a “machine” constructed from the blueprint, the DNA sequence forming the genes. The blueprint uses the apparatus in cells and their physiology to carry out its instructions. This sometimes involves the blueprint making copies of itself to create offspring that do likewise, albeit with occasional mistakes or mutations. And so it has been across evolution from the first blueprint.
But where did that first blueprint come from? No-one can say. It’s a classic chicken and egg conundrum. Researchers have shown how RNA molecules may have formed from readily available constituents to store information for protein production (a function subsequently taken over by the more stable DNA). But that still doesn’t explain how they acquired the specification – the code or blueprint – for creating an organism and all its adaptations, as in the standard view. Nor does it explain how all the machinery needed to read and follow the blueprint happened to be there in just the right place at the right time?
The unavoidable answer is that the “machine” existed before the genes as a self-assembled entity; the genes (whether directly as DNA, or via RNA) came later. Laboratory experiments have supported the plausibility of this explanation for the origins of life. Self-organised molecular ensembles, including RNA precursors, that “feed”, develop, grow, reproduce, evolve, and so on, have been created in the laboratory without genes as such (see e.g. Shenhav et al., 2005). As Shapiro (2013) explains, such biochemical networks constitute a “toolbox” of cell processes capable of generating a virtually endless set of DNA sequence structures.
So if genes only came later, what, then, is their true role? Emphatically not, it seems, as the “original” recipes, designers and controllers of life, at all. More likely as templates for molecular components needed regularly by the already living thing: a kind of facility for “just in time” production of parts needed on a recurring basis.
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/so-what-gene
Sorry for the long quote. I’m on my phone and reached my quota of one long comment on my phone (my most recent comment in our current discussion).
“Right, if we use humans as the measuring stick.(which is dumb.)”
No, if we used any other animal the result would be the same, multicelluar(specifically vertebrates) organisms have more powerful versions of memory retention(not the magnitude of retention by absolute number but through actual mechanistic differences) which actually form self aware consciousness which is more adaptable than the automechanica the cell displays. In fact cells tend to behave like ants, with amazing navigational abilities they use to communicate and survive with, but they lack any ability whatsoever to build a unified representation of their world, they simply lack the brain power I mean whats one neuron cell compared to billions?
“All life is intelligent.”
Some life is more intelligent than others.
“Novel organ for problem-solving or not, cells are conscious.”
LOL no. Didn’t even understand what i wrote.
“Now with the evidence I’ve provided here (and there’s still more), wouldn’t you say that cells are conscious (aware of their surroundings”
They react to their surroundings. Does your brain know it’s a brain? And the definition of consciousness also implies a state of awake and sleep which a cell does not have. In this sense a cell cant be conscious, because it can’t be unconscious.
“change their behavior from exposure to stimuli (behavioral plasticity)”
But this behavioral plasticity is not formed from synaptic plasticity, meaning it’s memory is in genetic code and trial and error not oscillations between neurons, which is what activates old memories. The plasticity of the neuron dictates the plasticity of the brain. You’re smart enough to understand that Intelligence is not a with or without phenomena(at least among organisms) right?
“You’re handwaving all the evidence I show you away”
Not handwaiving your citations just arent proving what you think they are.
“I understand your point.”
Then what’s my point?
“Stating that they are passive isn’t “more semantics”, because unlike the selfish gene, there is evidence for it.”
There isn’t evidence you described function and then attributed an anthropomorphic quality to describe it. Dawkins did the same thing.
“Which is clearly obvious. Look at how my views have changed in 2.5 years. That’s evidence enough”
Not because you understand the material. You changed views because you’re a contrarian that reads the abstracts and the parrots. Your “anti HBD” views are soley from your competition with pumpkin and others. 2,5 years ago you were POSITIVE that g was a well researched and factual entity with enormous amounts of evidence backing it up, today you assume the opposite but with know difference in the level of speculation you used then compared to now, You just flip sides, based on whoever is pissing you off at that moment in time.
“No, if we used any other animal the result would be the same, multicelluar(specifically vertebrates) organisms have more powerful versions of memory retention(not the magnitude of retention by absolute number but through actual mechanistic differences) which actually form self aware consciousness which is more adaptable than the automechanica the cell displays. In fact cells tend to behave like ants, with amazing navigational abilities they use to communicate and survive with, but they lack any ability whatsoever to build a unified representation of their world, they simply lack the brain power I mean whats one neuron cell compared to billions?”
Not using the words ‘human’ and ‘brain’, then all forms of life are Intelligent. Why should we be so biased to use those two words as measuring sticks? That’s like the ultimate anthropocentric bias.
“Some life is more intelligent than others.”
Right. But all life is intelligent. Life is intelligence.
“LOL no. Didn’t even understand what i wrote.”
I’m pretty sure I did, I quoted you and brought up your novel problem solving point then cited definitions that were discussing to show they’re behaviorally plastic and are conscious.
“Does your brain know it’s a brain?”
I am my brain/mind, so I would say yes but I’m positive you’ll say no.
“And the definition of consciousness also implies a state of awake and sleep which a cell does not have. In this sense a cell cant be conscious, because it can’t be unconscious.”
Right. The paper “The Conscious Cell” describes how a cell is conscious.
“You’re smart enough to understand that Intelligence is not a with or without phenomena(at least among organisms) right?”
Don’t insult me. Yes I am.
And it’s not on the bacterial genetic code, whatever it does to be behaviorally plastic. That’s the point of behavioral plasticity. The Ken Richardson article takes care of that.
“Not handwaiving your citations just arent proving what you think they are.”
So in your eyes, what do my citations on bacterial intelligence say to you?
“Then what’s my point?”
That what is called bacterial intelligence is in the genetic code. That our billions of neurons to one neuron means we have behavioral plasticity and they don’t. We’ve stayed pretty far from the original argument so I won’t even discuss that at the moment (will do later). If I’m in error I’ll admit it.
“There isn’t evidence you described function and then attributed an anthropomorphic quality to describe it. Dawkins did the same thing.” *
There is evidence which I’ve cited here. Describing genes as passive isn’t anthropomorphic. Describing genes as selfish is. How is there *not* evidence for my assertion that genes are passive and pretty much a read-write data base? Dawkins anthropomorphized the gene and called it selfish without empirical evidence. There is empirical evidence for the gene/DNA being a read-write database.
This next part should be good.
“Not because you understand the material. You changed views because you’re a contrarian that reads the abstracts and the parrots”
I do understand the material. Which abstracts do I parrot? Evidence?
“Your “anti HBD” views are soley from your competition with pumpkin and others. 2,5 years ago you were POSITIVE that g was a well researched and factual entity with enormous amounts of evidence backing it up, today you assume the opposite but with know difference in the level of speculation you used then compared to now,”
Actually I began rethinking g before I stopped commenting here in July and fully questioned it on July 6.
Sure I have a difference in level of speculation from then to now. But I won’t discuss this here. That’s for another day.
I don’t think I’ve ever actually discussed this with PP. We’re saving that discussion.
“You just flip sides, based on whoever is pissing you off at that moment in time.”
You’re right that I’m a contrarian but I don’t flip sides based on who’s pissing me off at the time. I take any side where I can get the best argument. You know you don’t have to believe arguments that you make, right? Like if someone doesn’t state their position fully and only provides arguments then you can’t say they take that view (I’m aware I took the g isn’t real position, just giving an example).
“Not using the words ‘human’ and ‘brain’, then all forms of life are Intelligent.”
All forms of Life would be intelligent even if we used those words. I have made my stance on the issue clear multiple times, im not sure why this confusion still exists.
“Why should we be so biased to use those two words as measuring sticks?”
I don’t consider consciousness and self awareness to be requirement for Intelligence, because as I’ve stated countless times and as you claim to be smart enough to understand: Intelligence is relevant.
“I quoted you and brought up your novel problem solving point then cited definitions that were discussing to show they’re behaviorally plastic and are conscious.”
This sentence is where my main point lies:
“Cells do not have this beyond Dna in the nucleus which is again not dependent on synaptic plasticity so it doesn’t have the ability to create convergence-divergence zones that allow for hypothetical thought.”
I was talking about an actual mechanism that generate imagination, cells don’t have this because cells cant exist within cells. Cells are intelligent, they are not conscious, or self aware. I felt I rebutted this fairly well in my previous replies.
” but I’m positive you’ll say no.”
You only know you’re a brain, because you’ve been told you’re a brain, Most cultures were not aware of this important connection.You can’t control your neurons directly, they control you. Look into The Binding problem.
“The paper “The Conscious Cell” describes how a cell is conscious.”
Where? Also, you didn’t address my question, How can something be conscious if it can’t be unconscious?
“That what is called bacterial intelligence is in the genetic code. ”
Nooooooo, that’s where it’s phenotypic plasticity is stored as “memory
“That our billions of neurons to one neuron means we have behavioral plasticity and they don’t.”
Nooooooo, it means we’re self aware and they’re not.
“So in your eyes, what do my citations on bacterial intelligence say to you?”
Semantics and obfuscation meant to “woo” the audience. I wouldn’t be surprised if creationists would use these citations to fuel their own propaganda.
“Dawkins anthropomorphized the gene and called it selfish without empirical evidence.”
At the time the mechanism was kin selection but this is disputed.
“Which abstracts do I parrot? Evidence?”
I’ve seen you quote Abstracts(without quotations) Multiple commentators have accused for doing such and I asked Adam benton what he thought of your Man the Athlete post where he stated that you must have a tendency to only read abstracts because some of your sources actually contradicted you.
“I don’t consider consciousness and self awareness to be requirement for Intelligence, because as I’ve stated countless times and as you claim to be smart enough to understand: Intelligence is relevant.”
I wouldn’t say it’s irrelevant since life is intelligence. So clearly it’s of, some use (however useful it may be in a given environment, which it’s obvious that even lowlow intelligence would be useful since life is intelligence).
“I was talking about an actual mechanism that generate imagination, cells don’t have this because cells cant exist within cells. Cells are intelligent, they are not conscious, or self aware. I felt I rebutted this fairly well in my previous replies.”
Of course cells can’t exist within cells. That doesn’t mean that cells aren’t conscious or self aware.
“Where? Also, you didn’t address my question, How can something be conscious if it can’t be unconscious?”
The eukaryote fossil record begins about 2,000 million years ago. The first hard-shelled marine animals appeared at 541 million years ago. This dates the evoution of hard parts. Brains appear later, but consciousness, awareness of the surrounding environment, starts with the beginning of life itself, which is the point of this paper.
“Nooooooo, that’s where it’s phenotypic plasticity is stored as “memory.”
And bacterium can form “memories” of the environment too. I’ve explained this above.
“Nooooooo, it means we’re self aware and they’re not.”
They’re self aware too. You have a very narrow definition of ‘aware’.
“Semantics and obfuscation meant to “woo” the audience. I wouldn’t be surprised if creationists would use these citations to fuel their own propaganda.”
So you toss out a scientific discipline because it’s “semantics and obfuscation meant to “woo” the audience” (other academics, because let’s be real here, normal people like use who read papers are extremely rare). Even if Creationists used this for their propaganda, does that invalidate and falsify the discipline? Gould battled with Creationists for his whole life. They quote mined him, and love his PE theory. It’s the same with epigenetics. They use both of those models as evidence for Creation. Does that invalidate PE and epigenetics because Creationists use them?
“At the time the mechanism was kin selection but this is disputed”
It’s certainly viable, though it’s still “just a metaphor” (see Noble, 2011,2013) with no empirical backing. And as I’ve been saying, there is evidence for the metaphor of read write database (read James Shapiro, Eva Jablonka, Ken Richardson and Denis Noble too).
“I’ve seen you quote Abstracts(without quotations)”
Citation needed.
“Multiple commentators have accused for doing such”
Argumentum ad populum. Provide evidence of my “not reading abstracts”, accusations and “multiple comments [accusing me] is argumentum ad populum.
“I asked Adam benton what he thought of your Man the Athlete post where he stated that you must have a tendency to only read abstracts because some of your sources actually contradicted you.”
Very strong claim. Did he provided rationale for his claims? If not, then it’s useless. “He didn’t read them [I did] he only reads abstracts [false] and some papers contradict him [they don’t]” is useless without providing the evidence for the claims.
If you cannot provide evidence please retract that statement. However if you do provide evidence for this I will admit my fault.
“I wouldn’t say it’s irrelevant since life is intelligence. So clearly it’s of, some use”
That’s not now relevant is being used here, relevant =/= useful. Intelligence is “relevant” because it isn’t a with or without trait, meaning there are varying levels of intelligence among all living organisms, it isn’t monopolized because it is a general application.
“Of course cells can’t exist within cells. That doesn’t mean that cells aren’t conscious or self aware.”
Yes it does. A Neuron cells creates consciousness by sending electrochemical signals back and forth to it’s neighbors, meaning a conscious thought or action requires at least two neurons, possibly more.
“The eukaryote fossil record begins about 2,000 million years ago. The first hard-shelled marine animals appeared at 541 million years ago. This dates the evolution of hard parts. Brains appear later, but consciousness, awareness of the surrounding environment, starts with the beginning of life itself, which is the point of this paper.”
That does not answer my question. As someone interested in physiology, you should be able to tell me what Biological mechanism underlies consciousness within single cellular organisms. Specifically what processes within a cell mimics the “woke” or sleep” state of most multicellular organisms? It was a part of the original definition. Why are you sidestepping it?
“And bacterium can form “memories” of the environment too.”
You put memories in quotations because it isn’t anything like how we or other Organisms experience memories. They store memories within their Dna(at least neurons supposedly do) and their behavioral plasticity is acquired through trial and error with chemical reaction not by creating convergence divergence zones within the brain. Event though they serve similar functions it brings about entirely different “effects” and ‘results”. You broadened the definition of conscious to fit cells when there is no empirical reason to attribute them this trait.
“They’re self aware too. You have a very narrow definition of ‘aware’.”
No. There is just a difference between “aware” and “self aware”.
“Even if Creationists used this for their propaganda, does that invalidate and falsify the discipline?”
I don’t think its invalidates them but the Anthropomorphic language they used is what inspires misunderstandings and quote mining from creationists.
“it’s still “just a metaphor” (see Noble, 2011,2013) with no empirical backing. And as I’ve been saying, there is evidence for the metaphor of read write database”
Okay but noble’s language is also a metaphor and Dawkins still has evidence that supports him too.
“Citation needed.”
I’m not digging forever for something that you and I both know you do.
“Argumentum ad populum.”
No fallacy here, I’m just pointing out that others have noticed it.
“is useless without providing the evidence for the claims.”
Read the comments:
http://www.evoanth.net/2017/06/13/persistence-hunting-rewarding/
“That’s not now relevant is being used here, relevant =/= useful. Intelligence is “relevant” because it isn’t a with or without trait, meaning there are varying levels of intelligence among all living organisms, it isn’t monopolized because it is a general application.”
???? Relevant defintion: closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered.
So intelligence is relevant (closely connected what is being done—surviving).
“Yes it does. A Neuron cells creates consciousness by sending electrochemical signals back and forth to it’s neighbors, meaning a conscious thought or action requires at least two neurons, possibly more.”
Would you say that we have an anthropocentric view of consciousness?
They can react to light, dark, heat, etc. They can anticipate changes in the environment and shift their behavior to match their new environment, they communicate with other cells, and they engage in something that is akin to niche construction in that they can shape their environment to meet their needs. Seems conscious to me. Getting literal, multicellular organisms are swarms of single-celled organisms.
Click to access 10.1126%40science.1113834.pdf
Your narrow definition of “conscious thought or action” requiring “at least two neurons, possibly more”, excludes other organisms that would show conscious behavior.
Because the data I’m providing shows this fact.
“As someone interested in physiology, you should be able to tell me what Biological mechanism underlies consciousness within single cellular organisms. Specifically what processes within a cell mimics the “woke” or sleep” state of most multicellular organisms? It was a part of the original definition. Why are you sidestepping it?”
They aren’t ‘awake’. They ‘sleep’ when the cell dies. And it wasn’t a part of the original definition, it’s separate:
aware of and responding to one’s surroundings; awake.
See the Oxford comma.
Bacteria are aware of and respond to their surroundings. Do you agree?
“No. There is just a difference between “aware” and “self aware”.”
I think we need to get into a philosophical discussion on this (as in use philosophical instead of scientific definitions). Let me do some reading into this and I’ll respond the next comment. Sound good?
The Wikipedia article is good too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence
“I don’t think its invalidates them but the Anthropomorphic language they used is what inspires misunderstandings and quote mining from creationists.”
I think they *know* they’re being shady but just have their agenda to push. Though I do see the misunderstandings that could arise (with Gould’s PE theory as well as epigenetic inheritance. Have you ever read those articles on Creatonist websites? Hilarious!).
“Okay but noble’s language is also a metaphor and Dawkins still has evidence that supports him too.”
Quote from Noble (2011; emphasis mine):
Metaphors can correspond to different, even incompatible, aspects of reality. That is why, when comparing ‘selfish’ genes with ‘prisoner’ or ‘cooperative’ genes, as I do in chapter 1 of The Music of Life (Noble, 2006), there is no empirical test that will unequivocally show which is correct, a point which was conceded long ago by Richard Dawkins at the beginning of his book The Extended Phenotype: ‘I doubt that there is any experiment that could prove my claim’ (Dawkins, 1982, p. 1). This point is analogous to the sense in which no experiment could ever disprove a geometry, whether Euclidean or not (Poincaré, 1902, 1968). Significantly, Dawkins uses a geometric illusion (the Necker Cube) to illustrate his point.
…
The weight of evidence in the physiological sciences is now much more favourable to the metaphor of ‘co-operation’ than of ‘selfishness’.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/
So Dawkins states on the first page of his follow-up to The Selfish Gene that he doubts that there is any experiment that could prove his claim. Unfalsifiable theory? I don’t believe kin selection is an argument for it, but am open to arguments.
There is evidence to back up the ‘co-operation’ of genes, rather than ‘selfishness’ (see gene regulatory networks).
“I’m not digging forever for something that you and I both know you do.”
So please do not make defamatory claims if you cannot provide evidence when asked. Thank you.
I do recall, though, reading a paper wrong (the paper on the trade-off between fat mass and brain size) which I did agree I screwed up.
“No fallacy here, I’m just pointing out that others have noticed it.”
It can be taken as one, though.
“Read the comments”
This is the paper he’s talking about:
Click to access 10.1038%40nature10629.pdf
I just admitted (and have in the past) that I read it wrong. No biggie and doesn’t harm my thesis.
I’d also like to say thank you for these intellectually stimulating conversations and being a great, intelligent opponent (just try to tone down the snarkiness, I will too).
“I just admitted (and have in the past) that I read it wrong. No biggie and doesn’t harm my thesis.”
And FYI, I admitted that fault before I read the comment (and have in the past).
Conscious = / = self aware
Consciousness = universal for all living beings.
conscious is synonimous of ”be alive”.
Self aware/ self conscious = fundamentally concentrated among us.
Cells are life. Life is alive. Life is reacts to its environment when a stimulus occurs. Processes of development and and physiology are Intelligent. Processes that enable life are intelligent and driven by intelligent, cooperative organisms. All life is intelligence/intelligent.
“???? ”
Sorry, Ima a dumbass, I’ve been meaning to say “relative” not relevant.
“Would you say that we have an anthropocentric view of consciousness?”
Not at all. Only someone incredibly miseducated would assume so.
“Seems conscious to me.”
It’s not so try again.
” Getting literal, multicellular organisms are swarms of single-celled organisms.”
Yeah, i already told you that, which is why Consciousness is impossible for one single celled organism, because it requires at least 2.
“excludes other organisms that would show conscious behavior.:
Your definition of conscious is blatantly false as I’ve demonstrated.
“Sound good?”
Sure.
“I doubt that there is any experiment that could prove my claim’ ”
Which claim?
“So please do not make defamatory claims if you cannot provide evidence when asked.”
I don’t need evidence, Literally everyone here knows you do it. It’s okay, you better be careful because the next time you do it(which it will happen) I’m going to put your ass on blast in front of everyone. 🙂 There is nothing in this world that angers me more than pseudo-intellectualism. And you’re rampant with it.
“that I read it wrong. ”
You didn’t read it wrong, you just didn’t read it, like usual.
“(just try to tone down the snarkiness, I will too).”
I enjoy our convos too, and the moment you tone down your autistic semanticism, is the moment I stop being a arrogant asshole. Sound like a plan?
It would be interesting to know the reliability of T levels. Does the same person get wildly different results when measured a week, month, or year later? If so, the heritability could be considerably attenuated.
I’d also be interested in knowing whether heritability studies use the Classical Twin Method (comparing MZ twins to DZ twins) or the identical twins raised apart method.
If it’s the former, this may inflate the heritability because identical twins raised together greatly influence each other in behaviors said to affect T levels (diet, exercise, marriage)
Measure androgen receptor sensitivity, not T levels. T levels fluctuate with mood. But the receptors don’t. They are genetic. I’ve said this before to RR like a year ago. Theres a paper showing Asians have comparable free T (depending on when you measure) to whites and blacks, but the receptors are not sensitive.
This explains incidence of prostate cancer, more than free T levels.
No it doesn’t.
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2012/07/update-on-androgen-receptor-gene.html
“This explains incidence of prostate cancer, more than free T levels.”
No it doesn’t. Obesity plays a huge role in PCa acquisition.
“It would be interesting to know the reliability of T levels. Does the same person get wildly different results when measured a week, month, or year later? If so, the heritability could be considerably attenuated.”
I’m not aware of any papers on this but I’ll dig. Heritability of testosterone is between .4 and .6. Though that doesn’t mean that 1) genes cause testosterone and 2) that environmental factors can’t substantially change it.
“I’d also be interested in knowing whether heritability studies use the Classical Twin Method (comparing MZ twins to DZ twins) or the identical twins raised apart method.”
The equal environments assumption (EEA) is false.
Although the authors of psychiatry and psychology textbooks and other mainstream publications usually endorse genetic interpretations of psychiatric twin studies uncritically, there is a fatal flaw underlying these studies: identical twin pairs grow up experiencing much more similar environments than experienced by same-sex fraternal pairs, meaning that the equal environment assumption — upon which all conclusions in favor of genetics are based — is false. Therefore, many critics have argued that it is likely that identical-fraternal comparisons capture nothing more than identical pairs’ more similar treatment, greater environmental similarity, stronger attachment and emotional bond, and greater levels of identity confusion (feeling like they are two halves of the same whole).
https://www.madinamerica.com/2013/03/the-trouble-with-twin-studies/
blood pressure is another example of high heritability but only within a certain environment.
This. And BP differences for blacks may come down to social/stress environment and educational differences between the two races:
Click to access Black-white%20Differences%20in%20Blood%20Pressure.pdf
Racial disparities in BP may be better explained by differences in education than by genetic ancestry. Future studies of ancestry and disease should include measures of the social environment.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464817/
one explanation for blacks’ high bp may be low vitamin d due to their dark skin in an environment with much less sunlight intensity than black africa. if so then blacks in ottawa should have higher bp than blacks in miami, ceteris paribus.
Of course. It’s also true for prostate cancer. I won’t discredit stress, social environment and education however.
Environment you mean ”lifestyle”…
Robert Sapolsky agrees with RR that testosterone doesn’t cause aggression, but claims it does cause threat perception and status seeking (which can lead to aggression in some contexts). See 18 min mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5rUwupQSQY
Interesting presentation, I’m gonna watch the whole thing. I’ve seen that guy in something before. He sounds like some of the stereotypical high-IQ nerds I used to know in college…
What I learned was that the amygdala does 4 things emotional. Anger, Fear, Anxiety, and Happiness. I have bad anxiety, I take Klonopin. People ask me what I am anxious about and I say nothing I am just anxious. What really is the true problem is not that something is making me have anxiety. What it is, is uncertainty. People need activities to do or they go crazy. I try to find stuff to do but I fail at doing a project or something so this means that when I want to do something fun, I think I will fail and so I do not do anything and I get anxiety because I don’t know what to do. I cant do anything because I am anxious and I am anxious because I don’t know what to do. If testosterone increases the firing rate of the amygdala then if I took any I would be unable to stop shaking with nervousness. I remember several times I was so nervous that I was shaking.
————————-
“If the frontal lobes are the last part of the brain to mature, it is the part of the brain least shaped by genes and most shaped by environment.”
I wonder if this is true of child geniuses with 160 IQs. Maturity is due to intelligence so this must mean the frontal lobes develop faster in high IQ individuals. This means their genes tell their brains to develop faster especially the frontal lobes. Executive functioning is an important control system that some people are born with that determines cognitive development at varying rates.
Genes determine maturity rate. That means cellular metabolism must be gene related. Child geniuses have superior executive functioning.
I think Sapolsky stumbles onto a generic epistemology issue here. So when he says testosterone doesn’t ’cause’ violence, i think he means it in the autistic directly linked kind of way. Of course, you need a certain family history, personality, social opportunities, drink/drugs and so on to do violence.But its semi sophistry because testosterone greatly increases the chances of violence and you can make a cute argument high t results in certain personalities, family histories etc. The problem psychologists have is a very tough one – how to isolate variables that are related to others. As soon as you seperate out family history, you are really seperating a chunk of T out.
‘roid rage is real and even if it weren’t the violence occasioned by testosterone may be mediated by its effect on development. the male brain is male even if he’s a eunuch provided he was castrated after puberty.
“‘roid rage is real”
No it isn’t.
“We found a strong association between self-reported lifetime AAS use and violent offending in a population-based sample of more than 10,000 men aged 20-47 years. However, the association decreased substantially and lost statistical significance after adjusting for other substance abuse. This supports the notion that AAS use in the general population occurs as a component of polysubstance abuse, but argues against its purported role as a primary risk factor for interpersonal violence. Further, adjusting for potential individual-level confounders initially attenuated the association, but did not contribute to any substantial change after controlling for polysubstance abuse.“
Click to access 10.1111%40add.12715.pdf
Roid rage is just media stories. Watch this documentary for the truth about steroids.
i also know that ‘roids cause back achne, man boobs, shrunken balls, high blood pressure, and liver cancer in addition to uncontrollable rage.
in women it causes hypertophy of their lady parts, change in their voice, facial hair and the effects are irreversible.
Dan Patrick: Look, doctors have come forward and testified that you injected Bonds with steroids.
Greg Anderson: Doctors? You know, I’m tired of these doctors and their accusations. Why don’t these so-called doctors focus on real problems like curing cancer, or back acne, or uncontrollable rage, or man boobs?!
rr should edit the wiki on this. at least it wasn’t written by gayman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid#Neuropsychiatric
I have my eye on that book. Can’t wait to read it.
“but claims it does cause threat perception and status seeking”
It doesn’t even do that, surprisingly. I can’t find my reference at the moment but it’s a paper by Mazur and Booth.
ah. of course. mazur and booth. who could forget mazur and booth.
rr has got to be the only autistic personal trainer in the history of personal trainers.
his claim to fame is his research on the effects of stress in baboons iirc.
Racerealist, I have an understanding question, because I’m an outsider to this.
Heridity is the correlation . Heritability is the ratio . So you could have the same heritability number , with very different level of generic and environment involved (both low or both high) except if heredity is the same. Is it the same for IQ and testosterone ?
And as women have 5% of male testosterones , I guess there must me loads of assumptions to calculate the heredity. Unless the heredity is the same , the analogy is hollow because a ratio is just that. I guess that’s why you can’t compare in general heritability in different environments .
“And as women have 5% of male testosterones , I guess there must me loads of assumptions to calculate the heredity. Unless the heredity is the same , the analogy is hollow because a ratio is just that. I guess that’s why you can’t compare in general heritability in different environments .”
Take this with a grain of salt since it’s a twin study:
Rather, environmental influences shared by twins raised together accounted for all of the familial similarity in female testosterone (53%). This study adds to a small but growing body of research that investigates genetic influences on individual differences in behaviorally-relevant hormones.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4445655/
Women produce testosterone from their ovaries, it’s not as high as males’ obviously.
Heritability is just a correlation too. Heritability of testosterone and IQ is in the same range; no ‘genes for’ testosterone production, and I assert the same is true for IQ. Testosterone production is a real, measurable variable. ‘IQ’ is not. ‘g’ is not.
gayman also claims that adiposity is “like height”.
he is motivated to make this claim by his own orsonesque physique.
so in order to be consistent he must think that the obesity rate has changed because allele frequencies have changed. the same for type ii diabetes, autism, ADHD, etc.
sad!
in fact adiposity is not as heritable as IQ or bp. or so i have read.
the bigger the cushion the better the pushin’…
Jayman denies autism has increased, claiming only the diagnostic rate has increased.
Not sure what he thinks about the increase in obesity but Lion thinks it’s cause fat people have more kids
“gayman also claims that adiposity is “like height”.”
JayMan is a moron.
“so in order to be consistent he must think that the obesity rate has changed because allele frequencies have changed. the same for type ii diabetes, autism, ADHD, etc.”
Literally retarded and there is no evidence for this. We have gotten too fat in too short a time for allele changes to be the cause of obesity. The cause is obesogenic environments. Change the obesogenic environment, change the obesity rate. Advertisements cause people to eat more which causes more obesity.
“in fact adiposity is not as heritable as IQ or bp. or so i have read.”
40% attributed to genetics
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/2/398.full
So it’s at the lower range of IQ heritability.
PP,
“Jayman denies autism has increased, claiming only the diagnostic rate has increased.”
He’s right. The definition has relaxed.
“Not sure what he thinks about the increase in obesity but Lion thinks it’s cause fat people have more kids”
What he thinks doesn’t matter because he’s wrong and Lion…. don’t listen to him either. Obesity rates have skyrocketed due to the obesogenic environment. Garbage food all around, insulin-spiking food is pushed down our throats. Change the food environment, change obesity rates.
I agree that it’s very unlikely that obesity increased for genetic reasons.
“I agree that it’s very unlikely that obesity increased for genetic reasons.”
Getting technical, the reasons are ‘genetic’ but not in the way that people like Jayman think.
We have paleolithic genomes in modern, obesogenic environments. We’ve not yet adapted to our environments obviously. You can see the increased consumption of sugar and other processed carbs that coincide with the obesity explosion since the 70s. People like Jayman are such staunch genetic determinists—though he won’t admit it—that he thinks you’re a slave to your genome and that no interventions will help.
Jayman read a few papers and he thinks he knows something about obesity. He incorrectly cites the Look AHEAD study. Recall a few months back when we had a short discussion on whether or not dieting works, I’ve changed my view on thst too substantially and now agree with thst meta analysis you cited showing that a ten percent reduction in weight is good for mortality reduction.
The results of look ahead don’t mean that people shouldn’t diet and exercise, especially diabetics! Jayman pushes very dangerous information but he wouldn’t know that because he’s too ‘self-taught’ on the matter.
This is my second response article to Jayman on dieting.
He can appeal to genes all he wants (new fallacy!), the literature says otherwise. I cite studies showing they even getting up and walking decreases mortality and he says genetic confounding. Ha.
We can make this simple. I strength train 3 times per week and eat well. Take an exact clone of me who doesn’t eat well and doesn’t strength train 3 times per week. All things being equal, who would live longer me or my clone?
We have paleolithic genomes in modern, obesogenic environments
Yes Dr. Oz has been saying that for years & it makes perfect sense.
I meant “not genetic” in the sense that obesity associated SNPs probably have not increased much since the 1950s, but the environment has changed dramatically since the 1950s
“Yes Dr. Oz has been saying that for years & it makes perfect sense.”
This may be one of the only things that snake oil salesman has ever said that is correct.
“I meant “not genetic” in the sense that obesity associated SNPs probably have not increased much since the 1950s, but the environment has changed dramatically since the 1950”
It’s highly doubtful. Our environments we have constructed for ourselves is the cause. Change the environment change obesity rates. To the genetic determist this sounds crazy because “omg he’s saying environment has a strong effect!!!”.
Mal adaptations are genetic two popel…
Please rephrase that. I think I got what you said and no, you’re wrong.
another example of something which is genetic but only within a certain environment is skin cancer.
iirc australia has the highest rate of skin cancer in the world. this because its population comes mostly from the high latitude british isles and half of australia is in the tropics. only tasmania has a european climate.
if alcoholism were genetic, which it isn’t, it would be another example. that is, no alcohol, no alcoholism. the psychological trait only manifests in a certain environment.
why so much skin cancer in the horn of africa compared to the rest of africa and asia ?
You don’t understand when someone says: “it’s genetics”
Still in semantics…
(expecting he say some thing correctly impolite about my English)…
i said this 6 years ago on lion’s old blog under the name “yezhov”.
IQ is a measure. IQ is not measured.
i should comment that a measure is an attempt not a success. IQ is the best conceivable measure of the genuine and undeniable phenomenon of differences between people in their smart-ness. but it still sucks.
Over the 20th century, height measures have increased & so it’s obvious people have become much taller
Weight measures have also increased so it’s obvious people have become much heavier
IQ measures have also increased yet it’s NOT obvious people have become much smarter
That’s what makes IQ suck compared to other measures. Its measurements can’t be taken at face value the way other measures can
I think the jumps in the early 20th with TV, radio, and basic electronics from what was before were bigger than the later information revolution.
IQ sucks in comparison to those traits you mentioned because…. Well…. The traits you mentioned actually have 100 percent reliable measures. We know what we mean when we say ‘weight’ or ‘height’, we have concrete definitions for them. The same can’t be said for IQ.
Anyway if you want to explain the Flynn Effect then you must look at the rise of the middle class.
IQ measure the surface of human intelligence, or cognitive skills. Indeed IQ can ALSO be described as a ”cultural test” because it measure literacy or vocabulary-proficiency in mother tongue, specially, and other cultural-gene-evolved skills as [non-humanbasal] mathematical ability…
IQ measure SOME important ingredients of recipe ”intelligence” but not how it is used in integrated ways and with pre-determined uber-logical ends.
Because the relevance of measured skills in human societies, IQ also CORRELATES with a lot of ”positive’ outcomes [intellectual achievement] and also, in negative correlations, with a lot of ‘negative” ones [criminal achievement].
And because humans are cognitively and psychologically different [both strongly related with sexual traits] or diverse, so it’s or should be difficult to deny the existence of different psycho-cognitive profiles, that many people prefer to call ”multiple intelligences”.
IQ is just like human intelligence in captivity…
If humans were exposed to natural world, many them would perish [seems] because lack of heuristics//factual understanding, what’s matter in the end.
Human societies became intellectual labyrinths while in the natural world, even tones of subjectivity are always recommendable, the imprescindibility of intelligence in their ultimate functions is considerable.
So we can even say that in terms of ”maximized intelligence achievement”, hunter gatherers are much better than ”us”. What they have as disadvantageous, or LACK, is their little cultural accumulation.
In quantitative ways, ”we” are superior.
In qualitative ways, ”they’ are superior than us.
You got a nice bush
I want a ticket to bushville
Maybe we make a deal
Maybe together we can get on each other
Bushville is better
Starting from no penis got nothing to lose
Maybe we’ll make ‘gasms
Me, myself I got no penis
You got a nice bush.
I got a plan to get us in bushville
I been working at the convenience store
Managed to save just a little bit of money
Won’t have to drive too far
Just ‘cross the border and into the city
You and I can both get jobs
And finally see what it means to be living
You see my old man is awesome
He live with the bottle that’s the way it is
He says he don’t like lesbians
His body’s too old to look that awesome
My mama went off and left him
She wanted muff and he could give it
I said somebody’s got to take care of him
So I quit school and became a lesbian
You got a nice bush…
Haha, in surprised you didn’t write:
You and I can buy strap-ons
And finally see what it means to be men
And
buy a strap-on dick & live in the suburbs
that’s in the next stanza.
there’s also a santo version.
what are the differences between the different kind of testosterone ? i never understood this.
what the testosterone rate by ethnicity ?
“what are the differences between the different kind of testosterone ? i never understood this.”
What do you mean?
“what the testosterone rate by ethnicity ?”
Read this:
Blacks don’t have higher T than whites:
RR is delusional.
I am the first person who will admit blacks have higher T (in effect) and you will also see me be the first to slate blacks about violence and predation. Its 100% consistent. If Race believes the nonsense above, he has no theory of how african gene dominated places like the Caribbean and Africa are they way they are and Bill Gates is so rabid about his ‘Mother Africa’ cult.
Data is available for each of these groups though lacking for Americans, Indo-Aryans and Latin Americans. The (general) race realist T-ranking from highest to lowest:
1)African
2)Middle Easterner
3)European
4)Latino
5)Native American
6)Indo-Aryan
7)East Asian
this hierarchy make sense to me.
but the apparently real hierarchy show indo-aryan (indians and south asians i guess?) and east asians to be on the top.
rr, do you think the previous hierarchy could be true if we only focused on free testosterone ?
like negroids have more free t than caucasoids who have more of it than mongoloids ?
“rr, do you think the previous hierarchy could be true if we only focused on free testosterone ?”
It is true, some other studies show no difference. What I’m worried about however is if the slight difference causes differences in crime, aggression and prostate cancer. They do not. You can give a man with prostate cancer exogenous testosterone and his ailment won’t worsen. You can give supraphysiologic doses of testosterone to someone and not increase their aggression. They’re just myths, myths I’ve put to bed.
if free testosterone doesn’t cause crime nor aggression, can you list what it cause ?
I’ve not really dived into that yet but I believe that sleep and nutrition deprivation can explain some of it. Read this.
What I’m really worried about is refuting the ‘testosterone causes crime and aggression” canard, which I believe I’ve done a great job at if I don’t say so myself.
Testosterone ALONE rarely cause something related with behavior BUT pre-dispose.
Testosterone in-combination which is very likely will cause a lot of diverse behavioral outcomes via environmental interactions.
Maybe we may use diabetes type 1 and 2 to analogously explain criminality/aggression propensity.
Diabetes type 1 is to extreme-end of anti-social personality [psycho and sociopathy], aka, born that way, a condition… while diabetes type 2 is to invariably middle part of this/the same spectrum of personality.
It’s not everyone with propensity to become diabetic [diabetes type 2] who will become like that but ALL people who born with diabetes [type 1] ”obviously” will be diabetic, the difference between a CONDITION and a STATE/temporary or secondarily expressed condition.
Some or if many people, namely men, can be in diverse degrees, criminally borderline, and environment can aggravate or super-express this trends.
In combination with what? Antisocial personality?
type 1 diabetes is not genetic.
more specifically the heritability of type 1 and type 2 are the same.
type 2 can be avoided 100% of the time.
so maybe type 1 too.
rr, my question was not about what cause different testosterone levels, but what are the effect of it if it’s not crime and aggression ?
EVERYTHING which are related with GENES is genetic in some or in another way…
some ”people” here, those who barrely say something understandable or useful, seems confuse what is
inherited
and
what is genetic or biological.
It’s not all genetic-related things which will be directly inherited.
Even a acquired brain injury is genetic because we have changes in the genetic expression, aka, phenotype of behaviors or brain functions…
Diabetes, type 1 and 2, run within families, it can be transmited from parents to sons…
So why say it’s not genetic**
What is the most frustating and irritating about this GENIUS of…
SELF PROPAGANDA here, who love to use stupid new-nicknames every time, as if this attitude is extremely funny, is:
when ”he” need to explain WHY of your PERSONNEL OPINIONS,
he can’t…
even worse than my englishexic.
a COMPLETE pseudo-intellectual with all of your
ARROGANCE / hyper-ego
and
quasi-total lack of capacity to explain in understandable, clear, objective and even correct ways your ”intellectual precocious ejaculations”…
Type II diabetes is brought on by a high carb diet. Don’t eat high amount of carbs and you won’t get type II diabetes. That’s his point.
PSEUDO QUORA’S GENIUS here seems believe
”to be genetic must be unavoidable”
I read this correctly**
My point is that
SOME people born with this vulnerability to become diabetic
and someother people just born that away, already diabetic…
Maybe the same situations can be extrapolated to many other outcomes
condition versus state//vulnerability.
“SOME people born with this vulnerability to become diabetic”
If they’re not exposed to the relevant environments which induce obesity and high insulin levels brought on by processed carb consumption then they don’t become diabetic (type II).
“SOME people born with this vulnerability to become diabetic”
There is a difference between type I and II:
People with type I diabetes don’t produce insulin (indeed, people like this prove the point that insulin causes weight gain and obesity). People with type II diabetes don’t respond to insulin and later they don’t respond well enough to insulin. This then causes a vicious cycle: insulin resistance (with the constant spiking of blood glucose due to a high-carb diet) leads to hyperinsulinemia which leads to insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is a response to insulin resistance.
https://idmprogram.com/insulin-resistance-protects-insulin-t2d-26/
Insulin resistance may be good for us:
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/64/3/673.long
https://idmprogram.com/insulin-resistance-good-t2d-7/
Diabetes is kinda ‘my thing’, I have a special interest in it so please educate yourself on the matter before talking about it.
i mean the difference between free testosterone and the other kind of testosterone, i don’t really get it, is there only one type of t or many?
let me reformulate : what are the different kind of testosterone and what the differences between them ?
98% of testosterone is bound to protein, with 66 percent of that being bound to SHGB (sex-hormone binding globulin) with 33% being weakly bound to albumin. The remaining two percent is free testosterone, which is not bound to protein, SHGB or albumin. Free testosterone is the only testosterone that exerts anabolic effects on the body.
so free testosterone is what really matter ?
Blacks over whites, 2.5 to 4.9 percent higher free testosterone.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327897/
But testosterone doesn’t cause crime.
So even if blacks had 19 percent higher testosterone than whites as asserted by Rushton and Lynn, it wouldn’t cause higher prostate cancer, nor crime nor aggression.
Abstractions are not literal…
So what is the true range of testosterone between races? Are you privy to information that I am not?
One of RRs biggest issues ive noticed over the past year is he seems to have a very autistic sense of how things have to be shown to be related. If a man shoots someone on the street in broad daylight and is standing there covered in blood with the weapon, RR will say: “Boy, I wish I was there to see that man shoot someone in broad daylight on the street. I guess we’ll never find out who killed that man.”
RR after his house has burned down: “We can’t be sure the fire caused it. It could have been lightening. It could have been Shiva, the goddess of destruction. We’ll never know.”.
this is what happens to southern italians when they are bitten by a tarantula.
RR’s keystone cops approach to causuality raises the interesting thought I had the other day about how people investigated murder cases before video cameras and DNA.
If you wanted to prove murder to 21st century court standards in 1850:
(a) nobody would be jailed for murder
It just goes to show though that:
(a) many people could easily have been falsely accused of crime.
(b) the murder clearance rate must have been single digits.
(c) this is why people joined gangs
(d) those rape accusations against blacks in the south by ‘evil’ white women are probably true based on current criminology patterns i.e. they deserved to be lynched by the rape punishment laws of that time
(e) this is why women select for brute strenght and aggression in men – rule folowers couldn’t stop murderers back in the days.
(f) giving discretion to detectives maybe should be brought back. In many cases circumstantial evidence and priors and reputation of the suspect in the community are good evidence but not 21st century evidence.
(g) the burden of proof is now autistic. Now the detective has to be himself raped by the suspect if anyone is going to jail.
(h) black imprisonment rates under austism are if anything too low
i just saw a video of a nigerian alleged rapist lynched by the crowd in india.
do you think lynching is right ?
a lot of lynching happened in africa too.
i can easily watch violent videos without being emotionally touched but lynching is something that horrify me at the utmost.
it’s impossible for me to not feel pity for the victim of a lynching no matter what he allegedly did.
and extreme hate against those who took part in the lynching.
as you may know according to unz the KKK killed a grand total of 15 people in its entire history.
and white people were lynched too.
so were italians.
The March 14, 1891, lynchings were a series of lynchings of eleven Italian Americans in New Orleans, Louisiana, for their alleged role in the murder of police chief David Hennessy.It was the largest mass lynching (as distinct from a massacre) in U.S. history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_14,_1891,_lynchings
as if they wouldn’t have been whacked by other italians.
20 years from now people will look back on Steve Sailer as one of the leading intellectuals of the day. I mean, he is starting to become the Thomas Paine of our age.
his blog could be better if…
1. he made a few substantive remarks rather than just all jokes all the time.
2. he banned all commenters except me.
and sailor has shown no signs that he groks that race, gender, sexuality neurosis is neurotic precisely because the economic system can’t be criticized.
or this is what zizek and i think.
but it’s NOT conscious, even on behalf of the ruling class. otherwise an out pervert would never have become CEO of the world’s highest market cap company, AAPL?
zizek and i are right, but not entirely.
in a perverted system, amoral and perverted people rise to the top.
and sailor has shown no signs that he groks that race, gender, sexuality neurosis is neurotic precisely because the economic system can’t be criticized.
that is, the real problems can’t be addressed. the real questions can’t be asked. so a neurosis develops around trivial questions. being neurotic about these trivial things expends energy that would otherwise be used in overthrowing the ruling class and the system it presides over.
it’s as if the national party could have maintained power forever if only it had rap music. miriam makeeba wasn’t enough.
Whatcha think RR?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/
What about it? I’ve cited this article numerous times in my testosterone articles.
It is of interest, however, that supraphysiological doses of testosterone in the order of 200 mg weekly (20), or even 600 mg weekly (21), which were administered to normal men had no effect on their aggression or anger levels.
Don’t approve the other one PP. I didn’t respond directly to Melo’s comment.
Oh I’m aware, Testosterone doesn’t force aggression it just makes already aggressive individuals become more aggressive, just like Oxytocin(though with affection). Like some people when given larger amounts of oxytocin would actually sabotoge their relationships because oxytocin doesnt actually force love, it just heightens your predisposed mental reaction. People who were non affectionate had heightened levels of affection when given oxytocin but people with anxiety and abandonment issues would become more passive agressive and insecure.
Yet the testosterone didn’t cause the aggression in the first place since testosterone doesn’t cause aggression. I still can’t find my cite from Mazur and Booth where they say that dominant behavior from heightened testosterone doesn’t lead to violence.
Not every discussion is a debate RR.
I know but debating is fun.
Huge problems to interpret basic abstract reasoning lines but… he believe he’s good to grasp this very difficult [and often vague] abstract reasoning lines he like to show up.
”Neo-darwinians” seems like to start from the basal knowledge [start from the beggining], what concrete we have about this subject, while neo-heroes of Social Justice love to jump to the hard-core levels, without firstly and humbly understand this very important basal knowledge.
And we have basically three types of peoples or causes
– pure and simple lack of capacity to understand abstractions but highly motivated;
– ideology//cognitively smarter true-believers, but not in factual understanding or heuristics;
– astute foxes [and in this cases a disproportionate % of shekelnazis].
So we have those who simply understand poorly what they are studying and just follows in very rigid or dogmatic ways the basic lines of this pretend-to-be-scientifical-knowledlge.
Those who was born with the same intellectual malady that affects religious people, but in ideological format, tend to be secondarily smarter [great vocabulary, good in arythmetic and even in mathematics, good semantic memory size and/OR functioning] but in primary intellectual issues, and the most important of all, what’s really matter: factual understanding, they are not just on avg but often below avg, specially in this area. So this group are perfectly capable to ”rationalize” in very astute ways their beliefs but without grasp what really matter: facts.
And finally, those who are astute foxes or clever assholes who have the same heuristic levels and about the knowledge they perverted but with diametrical levels of responsibility and intellectual honesty.
The first try to convince people that new emperor’s clothes are real but following dogmatic and or pre-created proto-arguments, instead creating their own;
The second group try to convince people creating their own argumentation in often involuntarily astute ways;
The third group are the original creators of this often fake knowledge.
…
Because testosterone itself OR ALONE don’t cause immediate aggressive behavior, only or considerably via combinations among intrinsic/biological and extrinsic/environmental elements, it’s ”still” doesn’t mean it will not have any role or mediation in this conjugation.
But would be interesting analyse the relationship of this hormone with psychopathy and sociopathy, both are often consistently related with all types of aggressive or anti-altruistic behaviors.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166523/
The results seems very similar: testosterone in combination increase aggressive responses…
Just like to say
emotional ””’intelligence”” is just a good arrangement of personality traits, 😉
NO relationship or NO effect IS VERY DIFFERENT than IN-COMBINATION this element it’s likely will increase certain type of response.
So what combinations?
It’s a strawman.
Few people believe only-testosterone cause immediate aggressive response…
It’s not a strawman. People do believe testosterone causes aggression. A Google search will show that.
Would be interesting to see what is the primitive effect this hormone have, i mean, the testosterone effect itself, if i’m not saying some rubligities…
“while neo-heroes of Social Justice love to jump to the hard-core levels, without firstly and humbly understand this very important basal knowledge”
You’re speaking about.. Who?
“The results seems very similar: testosterone in combination increase aggressive responses…”
So it only ’causes’ maladies when the person is abnormal. Good to know that its not for the normal range.
“while neo-heroes of Social Justice love to jump to the hard-core levels, without firstly and humbly understand this very important basal knowledge”
I understand basic biology. I understand the workings of the cell and DNA. Do you?
You think you understand but many people here can/may conclude otherwise…
I understand testosterone better than anyone on this blog.
There are more mammalians and birds in all regions, specially in colder ones…
Why**
Endothermy
and evolution is not teleological…
1) Aggression is a male trait. (insert “says who? muh social constructivism!” comment here.)
2) Testosterone is what causes a fetus to become male. (insert “uh… actually, it’s a lot more complicated than that” comment here.)
Ergo, testosterone and aggression are rationally, intrinsically linked.
No they aren’t. Read my articles on the matter. You can assert it all you want, that doesn’t make it true.
“You think you understand but many people here can/may conclude otherwise…”
Show me any of my comments that leads you to believe this.
Maybe you understand mosthing about testosterone-ALONE if you are compared with us, but ”in-combination”…
So you don’t have evidence?
Simon,
aggression is not a male trait but a male-related trait WITH exceptions for some species…
If i want, i can take a lot of works which prove, partially or even considerably, ”my” points here but i’m lazy enough to use it as ”evidences”. After all you need also works with the concept of evidence, you seems don’t know what is it.
Most of your links are hypothesis or theories.
Hypothesis, theories = / = evidences
Evidences = proven-theories
I think deny the role of testosterone on aggressive behavior is just like to deny the already evidenced correlation and/or combinatory increased predisposition…
This step: testosterone is positively linked or not with aggressive behavior, is already reached. The next step would be to know if or how ”environment” trigger it.
But we already have a lot of pre-scientific evidences, just the comparably higher male aggression levels is a very good sign that there is not just a correlation but strong correlation, not absolute, but strong. And many studies have confirmed this hypo-thesis.
Why males tend to be muscularly stronger than females**
Just to be used as socially recreational exhibitions**
.08 correlation with testosterone and aggression the environment does trigger testosterone production. I’ve covered it numerous times.
Men tend to be more muscular and stronger than women because of testosterone and different somas. Though that doesn’t mean it causes aggression. I’ve talked about this until in blue in the face.
A paper that will cause aggression in RR 🙂 :
Testosterone activates the subcortical areas of the brain to produce aggression, while cortisol and serotonin act antagonistically with testosterone to reduce its effects.
Click to access ijem-10-563.pdf
I’ve read this paper a million times, but I guess I’ll review it here in this comment:
I. Section 2 reviews studies on prisoners. Small ns, no controls, prison isn’t a natural environment. Similar data was reported, but it has the same problems as above. Studies of sexual offenders are contradictory, with blood T not being associated, then being associated with aggression. An investigation of veterans showed T to raise aggression, again, non-representative sample (and you also have to think of PTSD and other illnesses). Then the money quote (which I quoted the other day):
It is of interest, however, that supraphysiological doses of testosterone in the order of 200 mg weekly (20), or even 600 mg weekly (21), which were administered to normal men had no effect on their aggression or anger levels.
Dominance is related to testosterone increases, and dominance can lead to aggressive behavior then to violent acts, but this is not always true. Mazur and Booth’s (1997) reciprocal model shows a feedback loop on dominance and testosterone:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.421.3005&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Ehrenkranz et al. (1974) showed that socially dominant but unaggressive prisoners had relatively high T, not significantly different from the T levels of aggressive prisoners (who may have been dominant too). Nearly all primate studies that have been interpreted as linking T to aggression (Dixson 1980) may as easily be interpreted as liking T with dominance (Mazur 1976). Recent reviewers have questioned whether, among humans, T is related to aggressiveness per se (Archer 1991; Albert et al. 1994).
And:
Heightened testosterone is not a direct cause of male violence.
Click to access 10.1080%4019485565.2006.9989114.pdf
Small studies have shown that T increases during sports (duh because it’s competition) and that watching your favorite sports team win a game increases T (has been replicated).
Batrinos then cites a study talking about circadian rhythm and testosterone/aggression here:
Click to access 10.1016%40j.psychres.2007.06.012.pdf
Now, anyone who has read my article on why testosoterone doesn’t cause crime knows where I’m going with this:
Look at the times most crimes are committed then think about when T levels are highest (8 pm).
Using what I gave, what do you draw from the line graph?
Now, finally, in regards to the claim about “locally produced testosterone”, it is true that the brain can produce testosterone de novo from cholesterol; but wait! Luteinizing hormone signalling in the neurons promotes the secretion and production of steroids, along with the de novo production of testosterone through cholesterol (literally the only way testosterone can be produced).
Click to access 10.1111%40j.1471-4159.2006.04307.x.pdf
Good paper, shaky claims (the prisoner claims suck, circadian rhythym claims suck). The only novel thing in this paper is saying how the brain can produce testosterone de novo from cholesterol (though lutieinizing hormones are still involved, see above cite).
”Dominance is related to testosterone increases, and dominance can lead to aggressive behavior then to violent acts,
but this is not always true.”
”Men tend to be more muscular and stronger than women because of testosterone and different somas.
Though that doesn’t mean it causes aggression.”
Only-you think most people here believe Testosterone- ALONE cause aggression, it’s already a strawman and seems your entire argumentation is based on this strawman…
”Small studies have shown that T increases during sports (duh because it’s competition)”
Competition = fight for dominance = increased susceptibility to aggressive responses…
But the participation of testosterone-alone in increased susceptibility to aggressive or aggressive-related [dominance] responses is not negligible.
I love how you storm in without reading any of my cites.
“Only-you think most people here believe Testosterone- ALONE cause aggression, it’s already a strawman and seems your entire argumentation is based on this strawman…”
Right. So answer my question in regards to the graph. What do you gather from the graph?
My argument is not a strawman. Testosterone has a low correlation with aggression: fact (.08). Testosterone increases lead to dominant behavior: fact. Dominant behavior does not always lead to violent behavior: fact. Which of these are wrong and why? Please include citations.
“Competition = fight for dominance = increased susceptibility to aggressive responses…”
“But the participation of testosterone-alone in increased susceptibility to aggressive or aggressive-related [dominance] responses is not negligible.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-testosterone-alone-doesnt-cause-violence/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/testosterones-bad-rep/
Stop talking, please. I clearly know this stuff better than you do.
First of all most scientists or pretend-to-be as you, must be capable to differentiate soundly valid studies and not-so… but…
”I love how you storm in without reading any of my cites.”
I can’t read this particular bibliography of…
”Right. So answer my question in regards to the graph. What do you gather from the graph?”
I can’t understand graphics without subtitles.
”My argument is not a strawman. Testosterone has a low correlation with aggression: fact (.08). Testosterone increases lead to dominant behavior: fact. Dominant behavior does not always lead to violent behavior: fact. Which of these are wrong and why? Please include citations.”
Really smarter people only need citations to confirm their reasoning lines they were capable to reach for themselves…
Chronically dependent-of-citations-people tends to be…
I don’t need citations to see with my own eyes that violent men tend to be dominant and TEND to be manly…
Quite complicated when your mistakes seems so easy to be perceived by yourself, theorically speaking, but all the time you, by misterious reason, can’t do it.
“Really smarter people only need citations to confirm their reasoning lines they were capable to reach for themselves…”
I make claims and provided cites; you make claims and provide… nothing.
“I don’t need citations to see with my own eyes that violent men tend to be dominant and TEND to be manly…”
Sooooo anecdotes are evidence and not data? That explains a lot of your ‘reasoning’ to be honest.
“Quite complicated when your mistakes seems so easy to be perceived by yourself, theorically speaking, but all the time you, by misterious reason, can’t do it.”
I have no mistakes and when I make mistakes, I admit I am wrong. I’m not wrong here. You just don’t know what you’re talking about and you make sweeping claims without understanding what is being talked about.
“First of all most scientists or pretend-to-be as you, must be capable to differentiate soundly valid studies and not-so… but…”
I don’t claim to be a scientist (that’s Melo). So which of my studies isn’t valid, and why?
What about it? I’ve cited this article numerous times in my testosterone articles.
It is of interest, however, that supraphysiological doses of testosterone in the order of 200 mg weekly (20), or even 600 mg weekly (21), which were administered to normal men had no effect on their aggression or anger levels.
i’ve also read that cosby needn’t have used roofies. he could have just used t. t is the hormone of desire for men and women.
that is, i’ve heard that women with t become as randy as gay men. not to be used too often or she’ll start looking and sounding like a man too.
“drink up my dear!”
Yeah, heartiste talks alot about high T ‘boy hips’ women being very loose.
so peepee thinks pill is less autistic than me, yet pill has posted how man music videos with no conceivable significance to anyone but him.
one needn’t be autistic to do such. if a piece of music moves you, it’s natural to confuse this with significance.
but i have never made such a mistake. though, i admit, the significance may not be known. it’s there.
like this horrible song. why is it historically important, significant? i first heard it in a documentary on the 70s or on the sexual revolution, they’re the same thing. at the time it was a very popular song. and? what else? the singer had been and was at the time a porn-stress. AIDS. divorce. women’s lib. harvey weinstein. it signifies all these things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlJGrIyt-X8
…how many…
the “failure” of nippo-brownzilians is just another disproof of flushtonism.
nippo-brownzilians are not especially distinguished in brazilian society.
because there are so few?
hardly!
Brazil is home to the largest Japanese population outside Japan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Brazilians
peru had fujimori, but…
fujimori was just another motherfucker like videla. nothing special.
of course, in reality, neither videla nor fujimori were that bad. they did what they needed to do. maybe.
hitler wasn’t that bad either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Fujimori#Terrorism
”because there are so few?
hardly!”
There are no more than 2 million brazilians with japanese descent but more than 20 million brazilians with italian descent, common!!
They are not ”failled” anyway, most them were [descendent of] poor immigrants, most them came from rural Japan and now they have pretty good standard living here.
GENERALIZATIONS…
of the specialties of our Quora’s self-elected genius hear…
i’ve read about all the religions of the world.
christianity, judaism, islam, hinduism, buddhism, taoism, confucianism, lesbianism, atheism, etc.
i’ve decided that lesbianism is the true religion.
all other religions are “gravely deficient”.
i belong to the african queen denomination.
the african queen denomination believes that hanging is a more human form of execution than crucifying.
…more humane…
other religions require one to attend church, mosque, synagogue, temple.
they require one chant “sacred” words.
they require one believe in some man.
all lesbianism requires of me is that i dedicate my life to cleaning carpets.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=CoCEc5B1M8Y%3Fstart%3D10
does peepee see this? what i see? what i assume pill and jimmy see?
professor shoe is not very smart. not.
it’s weird. not what i expected.
i almost feel sorry for him.
he’s a living breathing stereotype.
just like afro.
sad!
Shoe not very smart?
So you no longer believe the SAT is a valid IQ test?
someone with a high IQ score can be “not very smart” peepee-tard.
you continue to reify IQ.
sad!
Not if the test’s valid, Mug of Tard!
IQ tests are the best operationalization of what is meant by smart vs dumb, but they still suck. they aren’t like a “stadiometer”. very imperfect.
how many times have i said that?
and what were his SAT scores? his GRE scores?
notice that the BGI criteria weren’t just test scores. people with PhDs in physics from top schools but without the test scores qualified too.
this suggests shoe added this so that he himself would qualify.
He likely relaxed the requirements to get more data
Hard to get into Caltech without high SATs
Isn’t posting music off topic a sign of less autism?
The hollywood implosion is basically a dream come true for the alt right in the sense it reveals more or less everything they say is true to the normies. Anyone following the message boards must have encountered ‘anti semitism’ by now.
Truthfully, it suprised even me somewhat in its extent.
I mean, I can[‘t watch certain movies or tv shows ever again. Its weird.
ian smith said that me getting drunk cured my autism. I postest lots of videos that time around the thread of the Frech elections.
Confessions: I was not drunk, I was so depressed that I was not in the right state of mind.
Two days ago I stayed up 24 hours and at the end, I was beginning to talk as if I was wasted.
So far I have barely integrated my negative life experiences. They are significantly ingrained because trauma embeds deeper into the psyche than any other conditioning.
Back when I was a liberal, I used to listen to Bill Maher a lot. I don’t think hes corrupt like Maddow or MSNBC or Vox media jewish trolls even now though. He is simply guided in his thinking by dangerous people around him and/or talks himself into not believing the worst.
When I think about it, there hasn’t been a public intellectual that has matched my views in my lifetime. Im talking about tv hosts, journalists, philosophers, academics, scientists, business leaders etc etc. Nobody is socially conservative and economically liberal. The oddest thing is that Bill Maher comes closer to it than most. If Maher wasn’t half jewish, I would bet he would have similar opinions to me.
Henry Ford is someone like myself I just realised social con, eco liberal.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.silodrome.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F03%2FHenry-Ford-Wallpaper-1600×901.jpg&f=1
Henry Ford is very intelligent looking. When I say aesthetic don’t lie it also means aesthetic say a lot of things too. And Henry looks shrewd. Henry is one of the few libertarian examples of a creator who actually managed to own the means of production. Unlike libertarians he believed in (managed) socialism.
the alt-right is not economically conservative. the so called “right wing populist” parties of europe are economically liberal. the AfD is known as “the party of professors”. so there may be such intellectuals, just not in english.
My new favourite hero alonsgide St Mel Gibson is now His Holiness Henry Ford. Wow, its like findinga long lost friend on facebook or something. Incredible!
http://www.magapill.com/
Wow. Trump has done a lot of great things.
You know, if you read that and follow trump on twitter, he might very well be the exact person he campaigned as. For example he asks ‘why cant we be friends with russia?”
IMO, trumpy is everything I said he was. You people cant see he pretends to be stupid. He is not stupid.
The Tabloid I saw says the CIA profiled him with their expert’s psychoanalysts to tell how high his intelligence is and they concluded his IQ was 163. John Quincy Adams, they profiled him as 167.
Trump planted that story. The Enquirer is his bitch.
Reading blind gossip.com, the royals are pretty wary of Meghan Markle. She has slut eyes. But Harry is a bit of a cad himself so maybe they are good banter for each other. Harry is the son of that lieutenant Diana had an affair with, not Charles (see pictures). However, her other son is defo Charles son.
I have no idea why Charles and Diana never got on. They would seem similar in temperament.
intelligent black men feeling uncomfortable around chav.
this is for deal to fap to.
i myself have a very little synophris. between my monsterbrows.
it’s just one yuge black hair.
i pluck it or shave it.
big black hair tells me, “you’re just a neanderthal you chav!”
i still don’t get it.
if t doesn’t cause aggression nor crime what does it cause ? deep voice ? hairyness ? muscularity ? high sex drive ?
so muscular hairy men with deep voices are no more likely to be violent than less masculine looking men ?
sounds like bullshit to me, but i’m not expert on that matter.
You’re right, Conversanus. It’s counter-intuitive as fuck, like most things RaceRealist claims. I just about throw everything he says right out the window.
“You’re right, Conversanus. It’s counter-intuitive as fuck, like most things RaceRealist claims. I just about throw everything he says right out the window.”
That’s your choice but, as you can see, I have good insight into these types of things because I understand biology and physiology.
“It’s counter-intuitive as fuck, like most things RaceRealist claims.”
RR completly lack the ability to see the big picture.
Not really. I see the big picture and my articles on testosterone, along with my arguments here, attest to that.
“so muscular hairy men with deep voices are no more likely to be violent than less masculine looking men ?”
Would the cause be testosterone?
“sounds like bullshit to me, but i’m not expert on that matter.”
So go and talk about things you have expertise in.
“So muscular hairy men with deep voices are no more likely to be violent than less masculine looking men?”
He’s got you there. The absurdity of saying testosterone has nothing to do with aggression or masculinity is apparent to all. What other preposterous notions that fly in the face of rationality will you hit us with? Let’s see… how about fire having no connection to heat?
“He’s got you there. The absurdity of saying testosterone has nothing to do with aggression or masculinity is apparent to all. What other preposterous notions that fly in the face of rationality will you hit us with? Let’s see… how about fire having no connection to heat?”
No he doesn’t. You really should read all of my other comments in this thread.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-testosterone-alone-doesnt-cause-violence/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/testosterones-bad-rep/
It’s easy to make sweeping claims without understanding what you’re talking about.
why so aggressive rr ? i myself admit i have no expertise, i’m not asserting anything simply asking question, is this wrong ?
“Would the cause be testosterone?”
if deep voice, hairyness or whatever people think is related to testosterone is not. then tell me what we know for sur that being cause by testosterone ?
what you’re saying sounds like testosterone being some useless hormone we don’t know why we have it in the first place.
By the way, Google searching ‘testosterone and crime’ brings up my ‘why testosterone does not cause crime’ article and my ‘testosterone and aggressive behavior’ article. So people will get the truth of this matter if they use that search string.
“why so aggressive rr ? i myself admit i have no expertise, i’m not asserting anything simply asking question, is this wrong ?”
Sorry. Excuse me. (Must be my high testosterone =^) )
“if deep voice, hairyness or whatever people think is related to testosterone is not. then tell me what we know for sur that being cause by testosterone ?”
It is related to deep voice and how much hair one has.
“what you’re saying sounds like testosterone being some useless hormone we don’t know why we have it in the first place.”
My only assertion is that it doesn’t cause crime.
testosterone have no effect on behaviour ?
Testosterone has a .08 correlation with aggression. Hilariously small, nowhere near enough to explain aggressive behavior/crime.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257525063_Testosterone_and_aggression_A_reanalysis_of_Book_Starzyk_and_Quinsey's_2001_study
I’ve never claimed it didn’t have behavioral effects other than my claims on aggression and criminal behavior.
MAYBE testosterone-ALONE have .08 correlation with aggression…
If it is the case, so it’s not ”hilariously small”…
The most important would be how testosterone contribute, in-combination, to increase aggressive responses and just by the dominance factor…
Yes. Alone. Provide evidence for other correlations with aggression and testosterone then.
You can see that Lyrion made the claim. Provide evidence because your baseless assertions do not cut it.
I’ve talked at length about this. It’s now getting boring to me because no one gets what I’m saying.
So back your assertions.
”It’s now getting boring to me because no one gets what I’m saying.”
Just be objective with conclusions and not with suggestions…
”Yes. Alone. Provide evidence for other correlations with aggression and testosterone then.”
Try to think-alone/ by yourself firstly instead run for studies…
And also try to search for this counter-studies to really, at least, see both sides firstly.
It’s not BASELESS
It’s not just BASED on pattern recognition + writing interpretation + attention to [verbal] details…
I am objective with my conclusions.
I do think alone and by myself firstly instead of running for studies. I know this stuff at the cellular level.
The voice of intuitive pre-science RR find unacademic…
Not just sound wrong Conversaanus…
I have more of an education than you in relevant fields, and am involved on a field that I use my knowledge on the system to. What the hell do you do? Nothing so you’re in no place to talk.
Finally you showed why you’re … this…
Most ”academically educated” people are not socially useful for society who pay their expensive earnings and you are one of them…
You no have ”knowledge” start from the point you don’t show what ALL real experts must show.
You just have memorized [or not necessarily] some concepts about ”your” area but you can’t integrate your memorized concepts in the way they can express some factual coherence [but you are very good to expresse COHENrence]…
You even know what is evidence because you use your particular bibliography of vague and super-confuse studies as if they are evidences or proves of something…
You, what i already said here and there, thousand times, don’t understand the basics of abstractions.
example: testosterone and aggressive behavior.
OR you’re ideologically dogmatic, incapable to follow facts whatever they look like [even it doesn’t mean = act as a asshole].
I try to understand why PP AGAIN gave this space to you, to share your incapabilities with a major public…
and AGAIN, what i said, since a long time humans have domesticated plants and nonhuman animals without most of this ”post-modern” and even valid knowledge.
They just needed a sane, objective or goal-oriented and perceptive pattern recognition to do most things they did…
MOST of hunter gatherer communities shows great scientific talent in many areas without any pompous ”educated” people telling them what to do.
Any knowledge can become more relevant, i’m not someone who try to stablish what is the knowledge which is the most relevant and what is the least…
Hierarchy of relevances and priorities is important to be build but not to feed personal insecurities.
Interestingly most very arrogant people tend not to be smarter as they usually believes…
Damn, how can you type so much yet literally say nothing? Surely you know what ‘ad hominem’ attacks are.
“I try to understand why PP AGAIN gave this space to you, to share your incapabilities with a major public…”
What are my ‘incapabilities’? How and why am I wrong here? You won’t explain it, so why do you say these things that you cannot back up?
Just try to ask DIRECTLY each of my comment parts as i try to do with your comments… or not…
Yes, you are ”consciously” smarter as cells.. period.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/11971/20140803/lower-testosterone-levels-human-civilization.htm
Testosterone levels can also affect social interactions of our primate relatives, according to researchers. Male chimpanzees experience a large increase in testosterone levels during puberty, while concentrations among bonobos is small. When chimps become stressed, their bodies release additional testosterone, while cortisol, a hormone related to stress, floods the bloodstream of bonobos.
Testosterone is what make chimps more aggressive than bonobos.
Lower T levels are also link to civilisation.
Commenters here are right to be suspicious about RR’s claims that T have no effect on aggression.
“Testosterone levels can also affect social interactions of our primate relatives, according to researchers. Male chimpanzees experience a large increase in testosterone levels during puberty, while concentrations among bonobos is small. When chimps become stressed, their bodies release additional testosterone, while cortisol, a hormone related to stress, floods the bloodstream of bonobos.”
Humans aren’t chimps. It’s like saying that something will hold true for humans just because, since it was tested in chimps they had the same effect.
“Lower T levels are also link to civilisation.”
I’m aware.
The most ‘civilizational-ized” people have the highest testosterone (East Asians).
This is is such shitty logic.
Ancient hominids had larger brow ridges which we can infer that to mean they had higher levels of testosterone.
Evolution from our ancestors to us decreased the size of our brow ridges which we can infer to mean that testosterone decreased.
Ancient hominids were more aggressive than we were, while crime has been decreasing in our species over the millenia.
Testosterone is purported to increase aggression.
Therefore, lower T levels lead to less violence which in turn lead to civilization since higher levels of testosterone lead to increased aggression and criminal behavior.
Using the same logic I’ve shown is wrong with my sources on aggression and testosterone and my arguments about crime.
“Commenters here are right to be suspicious about RR’s claims that T have no effect on aggression.”
No, they aren’t.
Half of Yanomami men get killed violently by other Yanomami. Yet look at their testosterone levels:
We observed that Yanomamis present lower levels of testosterone (414 ng/dL) in relation to other ethnic groups (502/512 ng/dL), but still within normal limits (350-1000 ng/dL).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4752100/
So even lower than other Indians tested, and near the lower end for healthy American men. Weird…
Brow ridges got smaller, indicating a decline in testosterone levels, but at the same time, chins got a lot bigger, as did noses. Higher testosterone causes these traits, so how on earth do we explain this? It isn’t synchronised at all. It’s chaotic.
Good points. We also don’t know how our chins evolved if I recall correctly.
And that’s the really bizarre thing about it. We know bony protrusions of the cranio-facial area are perceived by the rational mind as harsh and ugly, so why have brow ridges been selected against whereas more prominent noses and chins have been selected for? This is something I touch upon in my essay. They say larger noses might have evolved due to colder climates, as in Neanderthals, but negroes have broad noses with very large nostrils, so that’s contradictory. Protuberant chins might have something to do with changing diets and mastication, but then why is it a sexually dimorphic trait? Of course, there is a rational element to men having larger chins and brow ridges than women. It’s heavier, more intimidating, more aggressive-looking, and such physical features reflect the psychological characteristics of the male mind. Female skull is more gracile and paedomorphic, reflecting the maternal instinct and the desire to nurture and befriend. It’s beautifully logical.
They say larger noses might have evolved due to colder climates, as in Neanderthals, but negroes have broad noses with very large nostrils, so that’s contradictory.
As we know, a lot of traits evolved at random and not because they were adaptive. Selection is only one cause of evolution.
“They say larger noses might have evolved due to colder climates, as in Neanderthals, but negroes have broad noses with very large nostrils, so that’s contradictory.”
Nose differences come down to climate. “Negroes” is an incredibly broad term. Different Africans have different noses based on where they evolved.
People from MENA and places close to this part of the world have more proeminant noses. I have said it might be link to the semi-desertic environment of these places where dust have to be stop from reaching nasal mucosa, then people with more proeminant noses with a lot of hair in it might have been less likely to die from infection caused by dust.
“The most ‘civilizational-ized” people have the highest testosterone (East Asians).”
How the hell does their T shows up then ? If East Asians have the highest it would mean that T is just useless. They don’t have facial hair, nor deep voices, low muscularity and small genitalia, and they are the most submissive people on Earth.
“Half of Yanomami men get killed violently by other Yanomami. Yet look at their testosterone levels”
Ok. I never said T was the only factor but there is obviously a link. You have admitted it yourself. Small correlation can have big effects. And as PP said on the other thread T levels vary a lot during a day so the small correlation could simply be due to this variation.
“How the hell does their T shows up then ? If East Asians have the highest it would mean that T is just useless. They don’t have facial hair, nor deep voices, low muscularity and small genitalia, and they are the most submissive people on Earth.”
Read ethnic muses. Small genitalia? Lol Rushton.
” Ok. I never said T was the only factor but there is obviously a link. You have admitted it yourself. Small correlation can have big effects. And as PP said on the other thread T levels vary a lot during a day so the small correlation could simply be due to this variation.”
Sure there’s a link. An extremely small one. That implies more factors influence aggression then testosterone. That doesn’t mean testosterone *causes* aggression.
You don’t need to tell me about diurnal variation in testosterone. Just read my blog. This levels are assessed at 8 am in good studies, testosterone decreases as the day goes on. To catch any possible malaise testosterone must be tested in the morning as that’s when levels are highest, implying they dip down as the day goes on.
Some studies are or can be (((falsified))) or (((modified))) for (((ideological purposes))), example, that study which ”found” that conservatives are more prone to score high in psychoticism [lean anti social personality] …
“Some studies are or can be (((falsified))) or (((modified))) for (((ideological purposes))),”
Prove this is the case here. Saying things are “((()))” is stupid and doesn’t address data. That tells me a lot about you that you use “((()))” to be honest.
“Read ethnic muses. Small genitalia? Lol Rushton. ”
As we all can see you are hidding behind sarcasm because you are not able to answer the damn question.
So, again, lol Rushton.
I think T cause dominance seeking and high sex drive which ultimately can lead to violent behaviours.
That is a very rational notion, Lyrion, hence I am inclined to believe you are correct. However. we seem to be living in a largely irrational universe, so who knows what counter-intuitive nonsense might turn out to be the truth.
“That is a very rational notion, Lyrion, hence I am inclined to believe you are correct. However. we seem to be living in a largely irrational universe, so who knows what counter-intuitive nonsense might turn out to be the truth.”
Sure it’s rational and sound logically. Does that mean it’s true? Nope. My comments in this thread attest to that. I know none of you who challenge me on this have read the relevant literature as much as I have. If you had, you wouldn’t be so dogmatic in your position.
I used to believe testosterone caused crime and aggression. Then I wised up and learned about testosterone, how it’s produced in the body, why it’s needed and used and how it doesn’t cause crime or aggression.
I advise you and Lyrion to jump into the literature—the actual literature and not pop science articles.
You are attacking a straw man. I never said testosterone alone cause aggression. But when you are a situation when violence is the only and best way to assert dominance T helps you being more violent than men who have lower T than you have.
The articles and studies you have cited agree with me.
I have, proven-ly, slight below avg total test and lower free test
total 346,20 ng/dl (175 a 781) free: 8,737 ng/dl (17-40 anos: 3,4-24,6 ng/dl)
but i’m easily irritable. How explain this**
Seems, lower T also can cause irritability, not exactly by dominance…
“I have, proven-ly, slight below avg total test and lower free test
total 346,20 ng/dl (175 a 781) free: 8,737 ng/dl (17-40 anos: 3,4-24,6 ng/dl)”
See a doctor.
Click to access InsultAggressionAndTheSouthernCulture.pdf
Read this RR.
Southerners react more aggressively than Northerners when insulted. They also show a significant rise in their T levels as shown by the graph above.
There is a clear link between T and aggressive behaviour.
PP don’t approve the other comment I didn’t respond to Lyrion.
I’m aware. I’ve read that paper before. I’ve read all their articles and the book. It was falsified though for southerners (in regards to explaining homicide).
Although we analyze similar data and address the same conceptual issues, we find no support for the Nisbett-Reaves hypothesis. Overall, white male homicides in rural counties in the South do not vary as predicted by Nisbett’s theory. Moreover, for some estimates of white male homicide rates, when county homicides are adjusted for differences in white poverty, the patterns are directly opposite to the Nisbett-Reaves predictions.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200904/is-southern-violence-due-culture-honor
There are arguments (very good ones) that honor culture explains why young black men with little education have higher testosterone (and if you’ve read the relevant race and testosterone literature then you’d see that it’s a viable hypothesis).
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fsoc.2016.00001/full
My arguments on testosterone aggression are still unchallenged. Small correlation with between testosterone and aggression. Still not good enough.
“There are arguments (very good ones) that honor culture explains why young black men with little education have higher testosterone (and if you’ve read the relevant race and testosterone literature then you’d see that it’s a viable hypothesis).”
Not sure what you mean here. If honor culture cause testosterone as you seem to imply then it mean that testosterone is useful in a culture where you have to be aggressive. Then it totally go in the opposite direction of your argument of T having no link with aggression.
“If honor culture cause testosterone as you seem to imply then it mean that testosterone is useful in a culture where you have to be aggressive. Then it totally go in the opposite direction of your argument of T having no link with aggression.”
Honor culture causes higher testosterone due to the environment. Watching your favorite sports team win a game raises your testosterone. Environment can raise and decrease testosterone, due to the physiological system.
Abstract:
Participation in the “honor culture” of poor black inner cities puts young men on constant alert for challenges to their reputations. Hypothetically, this vigilance raises their testosterone (T), which in turn facilitates dominance contests that may end violently. One prior study reports the predicted hormonal pattern including higher T among young black men with low education, compared to young white men with low education, but no race difference in T between young men who are better educated or in older men (Mazur, 1995). However, an attempt to find this pattern on another large sample failed to do so (Mazur, 2009). The present results, using the NHANES 2011–2012 data set, do replicate the predicted pattern among men. The pattern is not seen among teenage boys or among females.
So conflicting data. Mazur’s hypothesis says that poor blacks have higher testosterone than better educated blacks. So it’s not seen in teenage boys (including blacks), and the teen years are when testosterone increases so the difference isn’t seen there. This implies that an environmental factor is the cause of those variation since better educated blacks of the same age have lower testosterone. (I’m worried about the pretty low levels of T though.)
One way this hypothesis can be tested is to assay two neighboring towns, one with poor blacks and the other with middle class blacks (or even just poor and middle class neighborhoods) and if the middle class blacks have lower testosterone than the lower class blacks then this is evidence for the hypothesis. Mazur even showed evidence for this in his analysis.
Dominant contests also don’t always end violently. Mazur has other papers on this matter.
“I’m aware. I’ve read that paper before. I’ve read all their articles and the book. It was falsified though for southerners (in regards to explaining homicide).”
Ok, ok but how do you explain the graph I put above if T have no link with aggressive and dominant behaviour ?
I just did in my previous comment. It doesn’t directly cause it. People can be aggressive without testosterone. Eunics have been seen to still be aggressive, even without testicles.
I’m aware. I’ve read it before. I’ve read all their articles and the book. It was falsified though for southerners (in regards to explaining homicide).
Although we analyze similar data and address the same conceptual issues, we find no support for the Nisbett-Reaves hypothesis. Overall, white male homicides in rural counties in the South do not vary as predicted by Nisbett’s theory. Moreover, for some estimates of white male homicide rates, when county homicides are adjusted for differences in white poverty, the patterns are directly opposite to the Nisbett-Reaves predictions.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200904/is-southern-violence-due-culture-honor
There are arguments (very good ones) that honor culture explains why young black men with little education have higher testosterone (and if you’ve read the relevant race and testosterone literature then you’d see that it’s a viable hypothesis).
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fsoc.2016.00001/full
My arguments on testosterone aggression are still unchallenged. Small correlation with between testosterone and aggression. Still not good enough.
if capitalism were held to the standard its apologists held soviet communism to it would be deemed a failure in the US and the UK. despite the civil war and ww ii living standards improved for soviets, then in the 70s it is claimed there was stagnation. so stagnation from 1975 to 1991 prove communism doesn’t work? hahaha. the truth is:
1. the soviet economy continued to grow despite the arms race and isolation all the way up to the dissolution of the USSR.
2. real wages for male workers have been stagnant in the US and the UK from the 70s to today. that’s an extra 26 years of stagnation.
3. those developed countries where wages have increased the most are like france, more socialist than the US or UK.
in anything approximating a genuine democracy, socialism happens. how would cuba and n korea be doing if they had been democracies that opted for communism and had never had trade sanctions?
Chomsky continues to insult our intelligence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QxWD41m7KM
The question was the bond between conservative America and Israel . I don’t see any logical fallacy in Chomsky answer :
– Christian millenarism
– army technology contracts and alliance against Arab nationalism
– a common settler culture (hypothesis)
Whats unrelated is :
– the gun culture (maybe white killing black like Jewish would kill Muslim)
– the fact that republican being the party of billionaires families have to invent fake social issues to be elected
– the fact that white will be outnumbered in the USa
– some leftwing conspiracies theories
But for a on the spot answer , I don’t see anything stupid even if, being pro Israel , I don’t agree with the guy but I like him. He seems to me as a clever old guy .
But what I don’t like is the Echo (the three parentheses) highlighting is a Jewish guy. That means that even when you criticize Jews , antisemitic people would still hate you for being j wish. Chomsky should sue the white the editor of the video .
So for me , the only flaw of Chomsky here, is contribution to self hate, wich is frequent among extremely intelligent people . I like the guy .
”That means that even when you criticize Jews , antisemitic people would still hate you for being j wish.”
This reasoning lines look so superficial…
extremely reductionist as if some people hate others because they are like that,
this type of DIRECT antipathy is true most of time for
personality types
sexual orientation
but not for
jewishness
black people
“this type of DIRECT antipathy is true most of time for
personality types
sexual orientation
but not for
jewishness
black people”
You say that because you are gay.
“You say that because you are gay”
Sounds like heavy bias to me…
RR, i think in terms of personal bias you are the mister universe, a worldwide champion….
so
just…
Lyrion,
you, at least, tried to think why i wrote this**
I will explain you firstly,
ALL the time we are self-projecting and at priori, it’s not wrong, otherwise, it’s the first step of thinking.
Because i’m not suicidal or self-hater, i find quite valid defend one of the my existential identities AND specially when this identity is always being targeted by morally idiotic people.
Secondly,
what is the difference between racism and homophobia**
MOST people, even the most naziest people in the world, discriminate SPECIALLY the behavior and not the physical phenotype. It’s even ridiculous someone say that racists discriminate [in negative ways] black people [FOR EXAMPLE] just because their physical-phenotypical features…
ALL the time people discriminate behavior BUT often associate it with racial features.
This is a INDIRECT [negative] discrimination. People, even the most heaviest racists, don’t hate black people, on avg, because they are blacks, racially speaking, but because they tend to behave badly [or there are disproportionate rate of individuals who behave badly]
About homophobia: most homophobics don’t care if homossexuals, ON AVG, behave good or not, because what they hate is not bad behavior but homossexuality, which itself is not a morally bad behavior. This is a DIRECT [negative] discrimination.
I’m not suggesting that racism will be always like that, a indirect discrimination, or that homophobia will be always like this, a direct discrimination, because we have a spectrum of different types of both, BUT the core for both, and in the case of ”white racism against black race”, this reality i tried to show seems quite correct.
Also, homophobia tend to be more homogeneously direct than racism.
This help us to explain why there are civil wars even among people with the same racial strains.
“RR, i think in terms of personal bias you are the mister universe, a worldwide champion….”
Citations needed. I change my views with sufficient evidence. That’s the opposite of biased.
LOL…
What’s so funny?
Besides you*
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-testosterone-alone-doesnt-cause-violence/
Interesting article. It says the same thing as I have said. T cause dominance seeking rather than violent behaviour directly.
But saying T have no link with violence is retarded since violence is still in a lot of situations a way of asserting dominance.
It’s not retarded. I cited this Scientific American article here and in my article on testosterone and crime. It buttresses my point. I’ve stated here and on my blog that testosterone causes dominance. That doesn’t mean it causes aggression. You can’t make that leap because of the other evidence available.
You say testosterone have no link with aggression which is retarded. A man with high T will be more likely to use violence if it’s a way of asserting dominance. And violence it’s still use as a way of asserting dominance in a lot of situation.
If you mean that, then you express yourself very badly. What you said looks like more than T have no link with aggression, ever. Like men with high T will always be no more violent than low T men no matter the situation, which is of course not true. As shown by the same article you cited.
I have the weird impression that you didn’t really meant that and you didn’t really get it as soon as I explain it to you.
I showed a low correlation. Therefore there is a ton more that affects aggression other than testosterone. The low correlation implies that high or low testosterone men will be aggressive. See that Yanomami cite I provided yesterday. Most violent group in the world, yet testosterone levels on the low end of Americans.
From the scientific American article:
“[Historically,] researchers expected an increase in testosterone levels to inevitably lead to more aggression, and this didn’t reliably occur,” says Frank McAndrew, a professor of psychology at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill. Indeed, the latest research about testosterone and aggression indicates that there’s only a weak connection between the two. And when aggression is more narrowly defined as simple physical violence, the connection all but disappears.
Another quote:
For example: regardless of their gender, the most violent prisoners have higher levels of testosterone than their less violent peers. Yet scientists hypothesize that this violence is just one manifestation of the much more biologically and reproductively salient goal of dominance.
Causation literally wasn’t untangled in these studies, mostly done by Dabbs. I’ve cited other studies showing no difference in T between socially dominant and non dominant prisoners. The relationship isn’t as easy as you make it out to be.
What Dabbs didn’t address was whether this correlation was the cause or an effect of the environment these men found themselves in. Which is to say, are high-testosterone males more likely to become violent criminals, or does being a violent criminal raise a man’s level of testosterone?
As I stated previously.
“From what we can tell now, testosterone is generated to prepare the body to respond to competition and/or challenges to one’s status,” McAndrew observes. “Any stimulus or event which signals either of these things can trigger an increase in testosterone levels.”
A case I’ve made myself.
You really need to read my citations and stop reading pop sci articles. They refer (though not in name) the the Archer et al 2005 study I cited on the .08 correlation between testosterone and aggression.
Do some reading on this. You’re woefully misinformed.
And I thought science had a track record of proving that logical, rational reasoning is what turns out to reflect reality. I guess my faith was misplaced. Looks like we really are up shit creek.
So testosterone causes mental and phenotypical traits that are logically associated with aggression, yet doesn’t cause aggression itself… this is getting very abstract and nonsensical, I must say. It sounds like something a postmodernist would have us believe.
Blah blah blah. Your postmodernist shtick is really annoying. I’ve explained myself until I’m blue in the face (blue in the fingers?) and the same things continue getting repeated.
Yes, it’s nonsensical. Simply because T doesn’t directly cause aggression RR will say both things have no link with one another. But the reality is that T cause dominance seeking and that aggression is a common way to assert dominance.
“Yes, it’s nonsensical. Simply because T doesn’t directly cause aggression RR will say both things have no link with one another. But the reality is that T cause dominance seeking and that aggression is a common way to assert dominance.”
I got something for you in a bit. You’re wrong, but I know you will not admit you’re wrong. The audience will see that for themselves though.
No, you are.
regardless of their gender, the most violent prisoners have higher levels of testosterone than their less violent peers.
And you’re completely jumping to an unfounded conclusion based on your bias because you don’t understand the mechanisms behind testosterone production nor the literature on it. I’ve explained it to you. You can just read this whole thread to see it.
You’ve already claimed testosterone causes violence and there may be (believe it more than me) racial differences in penis size. Do you also believe that the races differ in testosterone by a large amount and that is the cause for part of the crime difference?
Either way, you’re not addressing my arguments and are making unfounded conclusions based on the data. There is a cite here showing that men injected with exogenous testosterone up to 600 mg per week doesn’t change anger or aggression levels. Direct evidence that testosterone doesn’t cause crime (along with my own arguments).
What RR is saying in his article is we can’t assert with 100% certainty that East Asians have smaller penis because there is not enough data. Not because there is data showing that they don’t have smaller penis.
But we have a lot of reasons to think this is the case. Even japanese porn actors have small penis despite being bigger than the average japanese.
“But we have a lot of reasons to think this is the case. Even japanese porn actors have small penis despite being bigger than the average japanese.”
Is this supposed to be scientific?
Science seems unable to state on penis size differences for now. But real world observations indicate us where to look.
I agree with you and the data we currently have points to no.
“But real world observations indicate us where to look.”
Like…. Porn? You think that’s representative? It’s not. No where near. There’s not mechanism nor hormonal reasons there would be racial differences there. And no, just saying “there are racial differences for X and Y, why not Z?” So the data we have points to no. That’s good enough for me. Science > ideology.
RR say himself that what matter is free T, so East Asians having more T overall doesn’t mean shit.
Free testosterone levels are unreliable. I misspoke. Bioavailable testosterone matters more.
A quote from Richard et al 2014:
Free testosterone can be examined in two ways, by serum extraction followed by equilibrium dialysis (Pardridge & Mietus, 1979) or by calculation from concentrations of SHBG, testosterone and albumin and the laws of mass action (Sodergard et al., 1982).
Most studies use the laws of mass action. So it’s not too reliable.
i have another question for rr or whoever could answer.
what about estrogen levels do they differ by ethnicity ? what are the effect on body and behaviour ?
i know i can google search but i prefer some synthetized answer.
Black women have higher levels.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21849524
Effects on the body, menstruation, growth and development of secondary female characters, along with the regulation of the menstrual cycle and reproductive system.
any influences on the behaviour ?
what about asian vs white women ?
interesting insights from commenter lyrion btw.
Yes, interesting but wrong.
not sure you proved him wrong, rather the opposite.
Can you explain? Go and read all of my articles on testosterone and get back to me. He is wrong.
believe it or not there are battered husbands. but…
what explains the violent crime rate being so much higher for males if not t? even if you exclude the violent crime with economic motivation, like armed robbery or killing a rival drug dealer, men still commit more violent crime. a lot more. don’t they?
i’ve even heard that the few female mass killers prefer poison to gunshot. slow acting poison. less violent.
i know the answer. i’m just testing rr.
do men’s much higher t levels account for most of the differences in behavior between men and women?
Whoever contests my claims on testosterone and aggression, read it and weep:
If you have problems, either comment on that article specifically or copy and paste what is wrong, why it’s wrong and provide data for your assertions.
Youre a stange man. Normallly id call someone who says the things you say;, a hack. But you seem to be earnest about what you claim and just have bad reasoning.
Point out my flawed reasoning in that piece, preferably with quotations.
rock looked like…
“this guy is gonna stab me in the neck if i say anything.”
proves my point.
whites may be inferior athletes…
but when it comes to being evil…
they win!
What is wrong in what I said ? T cause dominance seeking which can lead to more violence in situations in which the only way to assert dominance is by being violent.
The most violent inmates have the highest T because in the criminal world you assert dominance by being violent.
What I said is both supported by articles and studies cited by RR.
Maybe the fundamental question is not the absolute levels of T, free or total, but the levels of sensitivity to this hormone which by logic tend to correlates with highest leves of T, just like in one of the possible mechanisms which cause homossexual phenotype, sensitivity to hormone during pre-natal instead highest or lowest levels of the hormone during this period of biological development.
Also, testosterone have other functions, not just behavioral ones, so would be good identify and isolate, if it’s possible, this part of T to see how it will correlates with aggressive and predictive-aggressive [dominance, for example].
“Maybe the fundamental question is not the absolute levels of T, free or total, but the levels of sensitivity to this hormone which by logic tend to correlates with highest leves of T, just like in one of the possible mechanisms which cause homossexual phenotype, sensitivity to hormone during pre-natal instead highest or lowest levels of the hormone during this period of biological development.”
Already covered.
Ok i will see.
No it’s not really supported. Read the link above you’re wrong.
… testosterone wasn’t associated with violent behavior in men, but it was in women
The most violent inmates have higher T. This alone prove than T cause one to be more violent when he is in a situation where you assert dominance by being violent.
For the rest you are attacking a straw man, I never said what you say I said.
And again causation was never untangled. Dabbs showed correlations, he didn’t show that testosterone caused violence and aggressive behavior. Rest of what? I didn’t write that article for you. It just happened to show that male aggression wasn’t related to testosterone, as I keep arguing.
Then stop repeting yourself here like a complete retard.
As for the rest T appear to be link with violence in environments where violence is a way of asserting dominance. Like in prisons. I didn’t make this up and never said anything more.
“Then stop repeting yourself here like a complete retard.”
Repeating *
I’m repeating myself because you’re saying the same things I’ve rebutted numerous times. You’re not addressing any of my arguments against it. Animal models show that testosterone causes aggression and violence. I’ve shown that it doesn’t cause it in humans. The times that the most crimes are committed there is a sharp spike at 9 am, 12 pm and 3 pm for people under 18 (when they enter school, go to recess and leave school), and 10 pm for people over the age of 18. Testosterone is highest at 8 am and decreases as the day progresses. What does that tell you?
“As for the rest T appear to be link with violence in environments where violence is a way of asserting dominance. Like in prisons. I didn’t make this up and never said anything more.”
And I’ve shown which way the causation runs. You just refuse to read my cites and grasp what I’m saying and have been explaining here for five days. I’ve shown so many times that testosterone does not cause aggression and you still repeat the same things, especially the prisoners and testosterone. Literally an example of “correlation doesn’t imply causation”.
And now for his next trick, RaceRealist will empirically prove that shit DOESN’T stink! Who knows what other self-evident realities will be obliterated when this guy’s in town. Stay tuned, folks!
You’re a clown.
regardless of their gender, the most violent prisoners have higher levels of testosterone than their less violent peers.
You are the only clown here. Everyone litterally laugh at your stupidity. You can’t even understand studies you are citing.
And you’re still not understanding correlation and causation. You repeat things, don’t understand the hormone. The media has you believe bullshit. I’ve more than proved my point. You just have a bias here.
Dabbs et al never untangled correlation and causation. Other studies show different things and prove my point. Clown.
What Dabbs didn’t address was whether this correlation was the cause or an effect of the environment these men found themselves in. Which is to say, are high-testosterone males more likely to become violent criminals, or does being a violent criminal raise a man’s level of testosterone?
You’re clueless and literally only seeing what you want to see. I know which way causation runs and have explained my point numerous times. You just say ‘nuh uh’.
I never talked about correlation nor causation. I’m simply pointing out a link between testosterone and violence in environment where violence is a commonly used way of asserting dominance.
You have huge comprehension issues. Your IQ being inferior to 110 doesn’t surprise me one bit.
No one denies the link. I showed that you don’t know what you’re talking about. I have no comprehension issues. I’ve shown which way causation runs and you still repeat the same things.
You using ad hominem attacks because you don’t know anything about testosterone nor the literature doesn’t surprise me one bit.
Say the guy who start to call everyone a clown when he is pissed nobody ‘s buying his bullshit.
Because I’ve repeated my self too many times. What “bullshit”? Take my challenge. Sift through the citations in the crime article and point out what’s wrong and why. Put up or shut up. You won’t do it because you can only ad hom.
Please tell me what’s wrong in what I said instead of calling everyone a clown and bragging about your supposedly knowledge of the human body.
Put up or shut up.
I’ve told you how you’re wrong numerous times. Causation isn’t, in the prison studies, thst high testosterone cause aggression. The environment they’re in does. I’ve demonstrated thus numerous times with numerous citations that you didn’t read.
I called one person a clown, not “everyone” and I know more about the human body than anyone on this blog. You’ve shown me that you don’t anything about hormones or physiology. Good job.
You called myself and Mr.Elliott a clown. That’s not one person. Again you distort reality at your conveniance.
I never talked about causation. Try again.
“You called myself and Mr.Elliott a clown. That’s not one person”
Conceded. Like an intelligent being, I admit I am wrong.
“Again you distort reality at your conveniance.”
Wrong.
“I never talked about causation. Try again”
Yes you did. You said “I’m simply pointing out a link between testosterone and violence in environment where violence is a commonly used way of asserting dominance.”
No one denies the environment link. The environment causes the raise. Fact. And I’ve even cited other studies calling the last part of your sentence into question. Again you don’t know this literature and it’s very clear.
“The environment causes the raise.”
The environment causes the raise in the most violent prisoners but not in the less violent ? It doesn’t make any sense.
the gallagher brothers are a great example of…
if you have family members who are retarded…
it doesn’t mean you can’t be a genius.
smartest guy i’ve known in pure IQ terms…”my brother is a bonehead.”
and he was.
guy graduated harvard and wharton and works in the city last time i checked.
he was a red haired gentile.
the genius brother proves he doesn’t need the dumb brother.
Noel lived up the street from me in london. My buddy had a convo with him about jis mayo parents. Great man. A lot of brti musicians are actually irish. More than stat likely id say anyway.
Musicians are more weird or add than outright retarded (unless ure talking about rap). The misicians ive known are intuitive but always suck especially at math like athletes. Reall naturals dont have the concentration for school. But they can hold a convo on deep topics and are more interested in alternative ideas especially.
gallagher from the tv show shameless ? is that based on a true story ?
weird coincidence i didn’t realised we weren’t talking about the same gallagher.
gallagher family in shameless tv show are a white trash family and one of the son is a genius.
lip gallagher when he was illegally taking the SAT for rich kids:
really weird coincidence.