COMMENTS: 122
Could We Blame the Financial Crisis on Too Much Testosterone? Harvard Researchers Say Yes
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email.
When it comes to determining how much of a financial risk-taker a man is, don't look him in the eye, look him in the jaw. Is your financial planner a ringer for Arnold? Does he have a jaw like Viggo?
On further examination, does he have a heavy or "low" brow like Moe, on the Simpsons? Throw in thin lips a la Bruce Willis and as the relatively full-lipped Robert Preston sang, "Ya got Trouble."
Ignore those innocent baby blues: a man's attitude to risk is bred in the bone, which reflects how much testosterone courses through his body. The more he has, the more likely he is to take risks with his money. Or yours.
Or so Harvard researchers report in the science journal Evolution and Human Behaviour.
Economist Anna Dreber and anthropologist Coren Apicella theorize that Wall Street's red-suspendered boys -- or as I think of them, the greedy architects of the new recession -- can't help themselves because they have more testosterone than average, which makes them take big risks to earn big prizes. That's an advantage when chasing woolly mammoths with wooden spears, but it's likely to cause problems in money management.
The scientific findings
Apparently, the rules for rational investing can't counter that evolutionary urge to risk it all on a death-defying feat (with your RRSP). To determine this, the study tested the hormone levels of 100 young men and then gave them $250 and told them they could keep it, invest part of it, or invest it all -- on a coin toss.
Those with testosterone poisoning (not the technical term) invested 12 per cent more than men with average hormone levels. And a man's testosterone levels are written on his face.
The influence of testosterone on facial features is linked to high hormone levels in adolescence, the same point at which men develop their attitudes to risk. Those with exaggerated masculine features -- commonly called "strong" faces -- are inclined to take long shots, which is likely to pay-off in some careers such as sports, movie or rock star. But That Guy is not who you want brokering international peace treaties or running your bank.
With these new findings I'm happy to reconsider my observation that too many men do too much of their thinking with the little head. Turns out that, for some men, the boys are also involved in an unholy trinity replacing rational thought.
Considering the implications
Of course, I'm itching to extrapolate on these findings. But before speculating on how soon corporate criminals will be using the testosterone defence -- maybe the heavy-browed, thin-lipped Conrad Black could appeal? -- let's consider the implications for modern life.
In evolutionary terms, the risk-takers were selected because their actions gave them some success at dipping in the gene pool and keeping their progeny alive. Although, with mammoth-tackling being what it is, it's fair to say that those ancient daredevils probably did more to ensure the survival of their slightly savvier tribe-mates who hung back, took calculated risks, and passed on what is now the average testosterone level. Let's face it, taking point against a one-ton quarry isn't conducive to long life and big families.
So our successful evolution as a species is probably the result of just enough practitioners of hormone-driven irrational acts to provide us with some regular protein. Which makes sense. Until recently, it was obvious that the daring of the few could benefit the majority.
Think about the origins of Canada. Only some sort of madness could explain why men ventured across the Atlantic in tiny boats and settled in inhospitable places like Quebec and Ontario. Imagine what that -40 (with the wind chill) would have felt like sans central heating, Gore-Tex, and Sorrels. Spend one winter in Montreal (contemplating who in his right mind would have settled here in the 17th century) and the community benefits of having had ancestors with a crazy disregard for the downside of risk is obvious.
Today's big-jawed elite
But what happens to the guys with (let's call it Excess Testosterone Effect) in the 21st century, where there's very little call for suicidal risk-taking? Extreme sports and drunk driving will only take out so many of these adventurers. The rest will be hanging around well into their 50s, pushing the limits and loosening regulations on hazardous behaviour in the places like corporate business and politics, where the rewards are mammoth-sized.
Ironically, the relative safety of the modern world has up-ended natural selection turning characteristics that, until recently, were benefiting the species into ones likely to threaten our survival.
The Harvard researchers drew a parallel with Wall Street risk-takers -- a little too late, I'd say, given the credit crisis, failing banks and collapsing markets.
Just think of the impact these heavy-jawed types have on every aspect of our lives.
For example, would anyone who knew about the Excess Testosterone Effect have voted Stephen Harper back in charge of the country?
He may be talking about the steady hand on the economy, but just look at that thick, square jaw (albeit disguised in jowls). His brow is heavy, and the lips are so thin they disappear when he smiles -- on the face of it, he's one of the guys who has out-lived his date with a mammoth.
We got a glimpse of those risk-taking tendencies when he suggested that Canadians stop whining about the stock market crash and start picking up the good buys. His infamous "Let them buy stock," line earned him a rep as Canada's answer to Marie Antoinette, but apparently the people who can spot a PM with a gambling habit don't vote.
The weak-chinned socially responsible
Call me, er, jaw-ndiced, but I can't help but recall Harper's position on healthcare, re-criminalizing abortion and keeping the troops in Afghanistan -- his choices are all risky and life-threatening although, sadly, not for him.
Harper's environmental policies, or lack thereof, take a chance that more than 90 per cent of scientists are wrong and the oil-patch-funding Conservative campaigns won't put the whole species at risk. Of course, Conservatives aren't good at separating scientific theories from myths -- never forget these people think humans and dinosaurs capered together in a Fred Flintstone version of Eden only 6,000 years ago and that vision colours every idea they have about science. Even so, Harper's willingness to take an outrageous risk with everyone's life because it gives him a big reward, seems extreme.
Feel free to apply the Excess Testosterone Effect theory to assessing the man of your choice. Alas, there is no comparable test for female candidates, as women's more complex biology doesn't allow for as delightfully obvious an equation as "extreme masculinity = irrationality."
Besides, voters looking to make snap judgments about women candidates already have the "Is she hot?" test, although its merits have come into question since Sarah Palin's embarrassing rise to prominence.
This new-found connection between excess testosterone and risk-taking has left me wary of all men who appear "strong," but I think it's especially relevant for picking politicians. Now I recall that old Red Tory Joe Clark's weak chin as fondly as his sense of social responsibility. I feel nostalgia for that time when a politician's intellectual brilliance inspired Trudeau-mania, not contempt.
But most of all I wonder how long it will take this science to reach voters and show them that male politicians trading on an appearance of strength are actually the guys who, in evolutionary terms, have outlived their usefulness.
Stay up to date with the latest Economy headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nikofranti on Oct 20, 2008 12:35 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plus, are sentences like the following meant to be taken seriously?
"Ironically, the relative safety of the modern world has up-ended natural selection turning characteristics that, until recently, were benefiting the species into ones likely to threaten our survival."
Or are they meant to make some kind of satirical point? If so, what is that point?
I'm confused...can anyone help me out?
Thanks,
NK
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Is this article satire? The article is satirical, the Harvard study not.
Posted by: nikofranti
» The root cause of the problem
Posted by: Cathyc
» It was a study using...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Physiocrat on Oct 20, 2008 1:43 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, the last people you should be paying attention to in regards to reporting and/or 'studying' this financial/economic crisis accurately is those from Harvard and the other Ivies, as it are these people with their fancy MBAs and such who work in these high positions on Wall Street and in government and who should have taken action sooner to contain this crisis. But nah, they were far too busy PROFITING from this mess to fix it.
There is absolutely no denying that testosterone is a highly beneficial chemical...unless you like being unmotivated, unenergetic, uncreative, fat, and lazy -- you can also consider testosterone to be a terrible thing if you dislike being energetic (mentally and physically), lean, creative, motivated, having strong muscles and bones, and being full of activity. Testosterone has benefited humanity in a myriad of different ways throughout human evolution and history, and they far outweigh this financial crisis which will eventually blow over.
The author keeps on talking about "mammoth hunters" and how we don't need them anymore, but not all or even the majority of the people working on Wall Street are of Northern European origin (where the stereotype says that mammoths were mostly hunted). As is well known, there are a large number of Jews (of Near Eastern origin) who work on Wall Street and in financial firms, not to mention Italians (Southern Europeans, where not many mammoths existed), along with increasing numbers of Hispanics, Indians, and Asians (peoples with no history of "mammoth hunting"). So to blame this all on "mammoth hunters" (AKA White men) is a fallacious and pathetic argument.
While I;m at it, I might as well state that women have also had a HUGE role in this economic crisis as well, maybe even moreso than men. Above all, this is a crisis of DEBT and OVERSPENDING...and who do I and my other male friends know are the people getting in to massive debt and overspending the most nowadays? Why, it's WOMEN of course with their compulsive shopping habits and desire to always look 'fabulous' with the newest and most expensive clothes, biggest houses, and priciest autos. Now, even though women sure like to spend all of this nonexitent money on credit, who is often left paying these mammoth bills when they come due? Why, it's the men in their life (husband(s), father(s), boyfriend(s), rich uncle, etc) OF COURSE.
"This new-found connection between excess testosterone and risk-taking has left me wary of all men who appear 'strong' " -- er, Ms. Rupp, I think they now refer to this as lesbianism...unless you rather prefer these new 'hipster' type guys who seem to have more in common with women physically and mentally rather than with men.
For all of you people out there who hate men (meaning more and more Westerners, especially college educated Western White women) -- who built the home or apartment you inhabit right now? Who mined the coal or runs the nuclear plant which gives you electricity? Who fixes your water pipes or toilet when it breaks? (hell, who built the water treatment plants?) Who trucks/boats/flies all of the food you eat all around the world at all hours of the night and day? Who built the car(s) and roads you use daily? Who has done more in history to advance science, medicine, higher education, and art -- men or women? Who invented the internet and created the computer(s) and software you use to browse it? POINT PROVEN.
Until you acknowledge and appreciate the instrumental role which men and their testosterone have played in making and building human civilization, you really don't have room to continue to talk all of this crap about us.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "all this crap about us"
Posted by: bcgirl125
» Those with testosterone poisoning (not the technical term)
Posted by: cordas
» You're missing the point of yellow journalism if you read this article...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» The Harvard study made a pretty unarguable case
Posted by: Beck
» As posted elsewhere...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: your stereotypes are showing and oh, the woman
Posted by: NYCartist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EJW on Oct 20, 2008 2:32 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When rats are forced into a small space they start attacking each other - I have loved men all my life but find them useless.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» SO YA THINK MEN ARE USELESS, HUH?
Posted by: Physiocrat
» Another way to look at this is ...
Posted by: harryf200
» ... who's worse? McCain or Palin?
Posted by: xvictor
» Wh's worse? McCain or Palin? LOL!
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: SO YA THINK MEN ARE USELESS, HUH?
Posted by: tjg1984
» RE: SO YA THINK MEN ARE USELESS, HUH?
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» SO YA THINK MEN ARE USELESS, HUH?
Posted by: Cathyc
» Who wrecked the economy?
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: This is news?
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: This is news?
Posted by: mejsmith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 20, 2008 2:46 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Well? Go FIGURE ! Why is it ALWAYS about MEN?
Posted by: Beck
» I said it was about men and women, not just one or the other, god damn it !
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Oct 20, 2008 3:08 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most successful rock stars tend to have androgynous looks and mannerisms. The Beatles, The Stones, Led Zeppelin, Bowie, Sir Elton, Elvis, on down the list, even in metal bands--mostly girly men. Ozzie always looked like a girl, and his wife feeds him and changes his diapers...
Even when you consider movie stars, the most famous ones are pretty-boy, girly types like Brad Pitt, Tom cruise, etc. All of those cartoonishly macho, square-jaw types are only in soap operas these days, and only had a period of movie success in the 50s.
While there may be some truth to the theory that high testosterone levels are associated with risk taking and success, I don't think you can tell who they are by looking at them.
Fun article, but very silly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Rock Stars?
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: ock Stars?
Posted by: Lilykins
Comments are closed-
Posted by: weathered on Oct 20, 2008 3:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Arrogant cultures breed arrogant people
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: idmaster2000 on Oct 20, 2008 4:36 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A man can be high-testosterone and competitive without unethical and immoral.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE:You can buy testosterone
Posted by: NYCartist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rst2536 on Oct 20, 2008 4:49 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can’t help themselves. Testosterone
Has helped make gambling their obsession
Since risk’s been bred deep in the bone.
The rules of rational investing
To these are naught but foolish jesting-
They’re out to take the biggest prize
No matter it means our demise.
Consider then the implications
Of trusting your investments to
A man who’s fueled by derring-do.
Why not require of them castrations
And if that doesn’t do the trick
We slice off each and every prick.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 20, 2008 5:28 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have to check later to figure out whether my tax dollars went to researching whether an increase in testosterone can produce an increase in aggressive behavior, even a marginal as these astute authors demonstrate. Who'd have thunk testosterone did that, after only a hundred and fifty years of the effects of sex hormones on mammalian physiology.
Leave it to Harvard to rediscover the wheel, for purely self-serving reasons.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Flawed thinking by a bogger who (apparently) couldn't be bothered to read the study.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
Comments are closed-
Posted by: waldo on Oct 20, 2008 5:55 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: war_on_tara on Oct 20, 2008 6:02 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somewhere there must be statistics about this phenomenon, which would seem to me at least as pertinent as the few statistics in this article.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Jeopardy!" and risk
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Abandoned infants
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Abandoned infants
Posted by: Lilykins
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Oct 20, 2008 6:13 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mexitli on Oct 20, 2008 6:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Replace Testosterone With Estrogen
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Oct 20, 2008 6:38 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the low level minions, there is risk. The casino aspect. We're all exposed to the casino aspect, because we're not elite. But up there the ones who cause the booms and the busts, and who profit from both... they take no risk. The only risk they take is stealing so much that they actually cause a mass awakening. (That's what the trillion dollar pentagon budget is ultimately for.) But I still dont believe they intend to push things that far. They would prefer to keep things on a level of "McCain vs Obama." The idea that there is a difference between McCain and Obama is such a lucrative one for them... such a staggeringly successful investment. It is a brilliant feat of social engineering. The only risk they take is the risk of tearing down that facade.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: For the elite, the system is not based on risk
Posted by: annavan1
» Bringing down the House of Ca(na)rds
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Oct 20, 2008 6:39 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But having worked in Equine Reproduction, There are some Very strong traits assocated with uncastrated males, which Warrant caution.
Of course same can be said for a Mare with a foal....Instincts more than pure hormones I think.
A Stallion does not pose an Issue Unless their is a female present. In fact many will not react unless she is in 'heat'. So personality (and training) carry far more weight even in their decison making process- have no doubt they are Refraining from reacting to a female regardless.We call this 'manners'. Even when going down to Breed, we only allow so much 'Chaos' and that is only to assure the female won't kick the shit out of him- we're watching her more than him.
I've worked with poss. 1000 horses, and it is not the hormones which cause you pause, it's level of Training and Genetics
Some, no matter how much training are SOB's, female or male (intact or Cut). Momma was unpredictable and Daddy was a Maneater. "But Boy ain't that Filly a beauty"..Not a good Start, even before the Hormones kick in. I've
worked with NASTY Foals! They have the whole artillary down pat in the first week- rear,strike, Kick,bite...and I'm just petting 'em!
Believe me I've Met some Wicked 'Mares', and actually can be far more deadly if in 'protection' mode,then any stallion.
The worst thing you can do is Put anything with a "Hot" Temper in the hands of a Tempermental Trainer. A Good Trainer can avoid or Undo bad habits or learned behaviors. But
it is the Trainer who must be able to recognize the Nuance required.A heavy hand only compounds the problem and Indulgement
only feeds it.
It might be nice (and beneficial) If we begin to discuss the Responsibilities which come along with Childbirth.Seems the Focus on 'Pro Birth' has left the committment to Rearing Neglected.Not only that Overindulgence has become par for thecourse, but also failing to
instill any sense of Community responsibilty. The Ability to ignore the 'Hot' temptation in front of you. If a Stallion can ignore not just his Hormones and his instincts when faced with a 'receptive' mare, Certainly a Human should be able to control themselves when faced with a 'Hot' deal.
It is Not hormones- high or Low, Testosterone or estrogen- it is Poor Training and Over Indulgence when dealing with a Fucked Up Genetic predispositon-regardless of gender.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Alsu on Oct 20, 2008 6:56 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: endocrinology... starting to make a real argument!
Posted by: clvngodess
» RE: endocrinology... starting to make a real argument!
Posted by: annavan1
» "just regular old sociopaths". LOL!
Posted by: Cathyc
» Sorry, I meant the 11th...
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: anarchris on Oct 20, 2008 7:08 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It must be her menstrual cycle that causing her to be hateful to men! cause let's face it, women aren't as rational as men due to them being overly emotion creatures! that's what makes women useless and obsolete. and how about them brain stems! no comparison!
my only comfort is that most of the comment appropriately recognizes this for what it is. it's not the presence of lies but the absence of the truth that is the threat to us all. so go ahead and hide behind pseudo science to legitimize your hate,hypocrisy and neo double standards. so long as people see it for what it is, truth and the innocent are secure.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: alternet is sexist
Posted by: annavan1
» RE: alternet is sexist
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: alternet is sexist
Posted by: annavan1
» RE: alternet is sexist
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: OvaryNet is sexist
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: OvaryNet is sexist
Posted by: annavan1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jimsenter on Oct 20, 2008 7:33 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sad fact is, biology has little to do with this mess. Complex human behaviors, such as working in finance, are more determined by social re ality than the biological. What we value, how we view and relate to other people, the kind of organizations we live and work in, all those have more to do with what is going on now than a human sex hormone.
Our job i smuch more difficult than adjusting our hormones.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: biology has little to do with it
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: annavan1 on Oct 20, 2008 7:35 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Furthermore, while men love the image of early humanoids and homo sapiens as these fierce macho hunters, the truth is early humans made piss poor predators. They lacked the speed, jumping, and sensory acuity that one finds in successful predators in the animal kingdom. Early humans were mostly gatherers, and scavengers of carrion killed by other animals. After tools were developed, it improved the odds for humans, but they still remained poor predators, comparatively speaking.
The work of Richard Leakey provides great information on the lives of early humans.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ready to have YOUR Bubble burst?
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H
» RE: eady to have YOUR Bubble burst?
Posted by: badkitty68
» RE: eady to have YOUR Bubble burst?
Posted by: annavan1
» RE: Hate to Burst Your Bubble, but...what's "feminizing"?
Posted by: NYCartist
» RE: Hate to Burst Your Bubble, but...what's "feminizing"?
Posted by: annavan1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zooeyhall on Oct 20, 2008 8:16 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gregy on Oct 20, 2008 8:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I could post 1000 links to study showing how the female hormones makes you a bad lawyer or CEO. Even considering this article as serious is already a mistake.
I am out, was nice here but alternet is also biased and that's not cool at all.
CU ;-)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: OK I('ve) really like(d) alternet but
Posted by: NYCartist
» RE: OK I('ve) really like(d) alternet but
Posted by: secretchief
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nfamous on Oct 20, 2008 8:33 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Not about testosterone
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Not about testosterone
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Not about testosterone
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Not about testosterone
Posted by: tjg1984
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Russianrocket on Oct 20, 2008 8:48 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Disturbingly Similar
Posted by: NYCartist
» RE: Disturbingly Similar
Posted by: Russianrocket
» RE: Disturbingly Similar:not enough for me
Posted by: NYCartist
» RE: Disturbingly Similar:not enough for me
Posted by: Russianrocket
» RE: Disturbingly Similar:not enough for me
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Disturbingly Similar:not enough for me
Posted by: Russianrocket
» RE: Disturbingly Similar:not enough for me
Posted by: Crazy H
» "...why would someone intentionally wreck their own firm?"
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: "...why would someone intentionally wreck their own firm?"
Posted by: Russianrocket
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H on Oct 20, 2008 9:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've always referred to these aggressive morons as "TESTOSTORONS", to denote that unique blend of qualities.
During the first several thousand years of human civilization, social fundamentals rewarded aggressive-and-smart individuals, but severely penalized the aggressive-and-stupid, with the result that the aggressive/stupid were uncompetitive, and marginalized.
At several times, for example in post-Crusades Europe and England, hereditary "rights" to leadership allowed a protected resurgence of the aggressive/stupid strain. The feudal system gradually changed to provide layers of protection for the Important Ones. Just as more Importance meant more protection, less importance meant less. Common citizens typically had no rights or protection, or were accorded rights relative to other commoners whenever such rights did not infringe the prerogatives of nobles. All that protection for Kings and Dukes, and all the exposure for commoners meant that aggressive/stupid (or merely stupid) royals received no blowback from their misdeeds, unless they managed to provoke other royals.
We have now reverted to a similar inequity of remedy: Even though poor people have been in DEpression for decades, and the middle class has been in deepening REcession since 2000, only now, with our wealthy investor class feeling the pinch, does the nation face its financial aggressiveness and stupidity. Poor and middle-class people voicing real problems were "whiners", but billionaires having to postpone buying a second yacht is PANIC!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 20, 2008 10:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The financial crisis is a product of the owning class. Its causatives have much more to do with owning class sensibilities, crass attitudes towards those "beneath" them, owning class racial issues and the uniquely Amerikaan lust to cheat and get rich quick. While I may tend to view this as a rich white male illness because I observe it mostly in white wealthy males, I also understand that more research is required before I can square up the blame on testosterone.
The owning class did this. Misandrous efforts to blame this on a sex hormone is a dangerous distraction. Shannon, you fucked up on this one. You just did.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JayHaden on Oct 20, 2008 10:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Precious few studies have linked our leaders' character to the strength of their limbic or chemical makeup. Even if they could, it would be a mistake to eliminatet the risk takers or even some of our near-sociopathic personalities (i.e., a lot of men and some women). Ruthlessness in the face of grave danger is probably the reason we have such people remaining in our gene pool. There was little that was politically correct in Churchill's prosecution of WWII. Yet when the war was won, his belligerence was not what the UK needed and they tossed him out.
Democracies as well as finance systems probably don't need pre-screening devices. They need more openness, accountability, transparency, planning, feedback, analysis and rules of behavior. Then, as we the people learn the truth in near-real time, we need legal mechanisms to throw the rascals out (like impeachment and prosecution). It's the breakdown (or willful destruction) of these mechanisms that forces us to grasp at weak indicators like testosterone and try to pre-empt the would-be culprits.
The present rankings in the polls of McCain and Obama suggest that, with enough good information on character, a majority of the public will reject the risk taker when the mortgage is literally on the line. Lacking better media feedback and analysis, only a very long campaign process (almost two years) will eventually provide us with enough information on candidates' respective characters to help us make a decision that is in our best interest. Short-circuiting that process by using some indicator having a relatively low, or even moderate, correlation with character would risk throwing out potentially good leaders along with potentially bad ones. Unfortunately, America's hideously long campaigns are the only way we have of getting at character by observing candidates in real time over an extended period.
(Hmm. It occurs to me that by not doing its job, the media stand to rake in a huge amount of cash over a longer time. Where's Dilbert when we need him?)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: websmith on Oct 20, 2008 11:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What happen to the emergency $700 billion, which is heading towards $2.5 trillion, that we told them not to spend? Now Congress wants to give us $150 billion that will temporarily ease our pain just in time for the election so the public servants who went against our wishes can get re-elected?
The population no longer has the money to buy goods and services and companies have no one to sell anything to.
http://ewebsmith.com/Finance/therealproblem.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cherylholmes on Oct 20, 2008 11:27 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some men buy expensive sports cars...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NYCartist on Oct 20, 2008 11:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: article is funny,says feminist
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: article is funny,says feminist
Posted by: NYCartist
» RE: article is funny,says feminist
Posted by: Crazy H
» An oxymoron
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: An oxymoron:how many bookstores&how old
Posted by: NYCartist
» RE: An oxymoron
Posted by: annavan1
» RE: An oxymoron
Posted by: annavan1
» So, like a leftist Ann Coulter type of humor?
Posted by: eeezzz
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Karl.Ben on Oct 20, 2008 11:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nikofranti on Oct 20, 2008 12:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Social behavior is always an *interaction* between genetics and environment, which is a crucial point that the author seems not to understand.
In this case, testosterone is no more (and likely quite a bit less, imo) to blame for the economic crisis than deregulation, or capitalism, or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, etc.
It may well be that within that heavily de-regulated corporate capitalist context, men with relatively high testosterone levels took greater risks and, ultimately, ripped more people off and thus squandered more money than did men with lower testosterone levels.
But that only matters because all of the men (and women) on Wall Street are working within a system that not only allows, but in fact *encourages* and rewards reckless predatory risk-taking behavior. Within such a context, it is no surprise that men with higher testosterone levels would be more dangerous than men with lower testosterone levels, although the difference between them is only a matter of degree. The men (and women) with lower testosterone levels have obviously been engaging in reckless predatory practices as well--they just aren't as good at it!
Thus, let's blame the social-economic context, not genetics. In an economic context that punishes reckless predatory risk-taking, men with high testosterone levels would fair worse than men with low testosterone levels.
Plus, if we merely blame testosterone, without addressing the context, then there's no solution to the problem (other than trying to forcibly alter people's genetic makeup, perhaps--yikes!).
We need to target the root cause in the system (corporate capitalism run amok) not incidental genetic factors that, at worst, merely intensified the reckless damage that is the inevitable result of a system that rewards recklessness.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Hildy-J on Oct 20, 2008 12:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU446HDtGv8
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Oct 20, 2008 12:49 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
> Crisis on Too Much Testosterone?
No. As any evolutionary biologist will tell you, males and male behavior are the result of a breeding experiment run by women. So, using the author's line of reasoning, ultimately women are to blame. If they don't like the results, they need to change the experimental conditions, not blame the lab rats.
When women diss men, they diss the choices in men made by their mothers and grandmothers all the way back up the line.
The more salient question is, if one believes excessive risk-taking is some problem: why have women preferentially rewarded risk-taking men by passing their genes along, essentially breeding risk-taking into human nature (esp. the male side of it)?
Could there be something in male risk-taking for women and their offspring, something which the author conveniently over-looks as it does not furnish her with a text for recriminations against men.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: And the answer is...please give footnotes
Posted by: NYCartist
» You want references?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: And the answer is...please give footnotes
Posted by: MartianBachelor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mnstra on Oct 20, 2008 1:23 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fanny666 on Oct 20, 2008 1:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People forget that we have the same brains that we had 100,000 years ago. So, for example, one of the reasons that we're so effected by stress hormones is that we evolved to have a 5 minute long stressor, after which we'd either recover or be dead. We didn't evolve to be stressed constantly by deadlines, traffic, politics, etc.
I'm a neuroendocrinologist; what it probably my all-time favorite research paper (certainly in the top 5!) is a study correlating the win-loss record of the Washington Redskins against the rate of spousal abuse the following day. On a Monday after a Redskin's victory, domestic violence rates spike. That's because if you are an APE in the wild, you get a burst of testosterone after you become alpha male; it helps you fight off challengers. If you are an APE football fan whose team wins, you may (mistakenly) think that this makes you the alpha male, and you may be so overwhelmed with hormones that your poor little prefrontal cortex is unable to inhibit the behaviors that testosterone causes in apes.
Sad but true!
It may also be the case that "economic bubble" = "I am the alpha" = "I can fight all comers, even cold, hard economic realities." Who knows?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Testosterone's effects on behavior is real:but our knowledge is limited
Posted by: NYCartist
» (domestic violence rates in the DC area are effected)
Posted by: fanny666
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 20, 2008 3:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And then compare testosterone levels in the women who wanted to be seen with a $250 dollar purse.
Now, can I haz $1.5M tax dollars to try this ingenious study, pleze?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: secretchief on Oct 20, 2008 3:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have a retirement fund? You want it to invest in the equities that provide the best return on investment?
Then you are encouraging businesses to cut jobs, cut benefits, screw the environment, etc.
You shop at Wal-Mart because they have the best prices?
Then you are responsible of encouraging lame wages and benefits from the reailer to the shipping company to the manufacturer and his suppliers.
The list goes on. We need to open our eyes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Oct 20, 2008 4:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Turning to substance, I do thank the writer for pointing out this study. Immediately upon reading I googled some pictures of people commonly understood to have money, power and influence, for those who care about such things.
The lantern jaw does indeed frequently appear to accompany excessive ambition as evidenced by, say, Mike Milken, Jay Leno, Adolf Hitler, John McCain, and Arnold Schwartzenegger.
Phrenologists might postulate an inverse relationship between the dimensions of the jaw and the robustness of the follicle, particularly among those involved in business, as opposed to more public pursuits. Henry Kravis, Rudy Giuliani, Jack Welch may be exemplars of such a connection. No equation would be complete, however, without a variable to account for ruthlessness and sociopathic tendencies generally associated with this physiognomy.
Although chin augmentation is always an option, the feature mostly appears to be genetically passed on, rather than acquired, as evidenced by a google image search of those who share the family name Stonecipher, for example. On the other hand, what was legitimately acquired by the hand of nature, may be diminished by the hand of man. Plastic surgery may be counted on to have allowed many to penetrate powerful society whose chin reduction, unbeknownst to all, fools us into thinking they may be benign bumblers simply because they resemble, say, George Formby or Queen Victoria.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Canadian humor
Posted by: leta
Comments are closed-
Posted by: KiwiBR on Oct 20, 2008 5:23 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While we are blaming people lets blame the Blacks and Hispanics for being stupid and buying in to the greed ideal with those ARM loans. Lets blame the Asian's for sending their money back home. Lets blame women for being the eternal victums to stupid to do anything for them selves and stopping the men.
Alternet why did you let this bigot in?
The next step is to get some KKK guys writing articles on how blacks and Hispanic's casue crime becasue of their DNA?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So that's the insight of another guy who can't get laid?
Posted by: Hildy-J
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Q30 on Oct 20, 2008 8:13 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've learned from their ilk that unwanted sexual attention from a man justifies breaking his fingers. By the same standards, it's completely reasonable to do the same to a gay man who gets a little too flirty. The barbarism of "equality, feminist-style" quickly comes to the fore when the sword is thrust in a different direction.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Funny how...unfunny "sword is thrust"...
Posted by: NYCartist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kroltan on Oct 21, 2008 12:33 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nikofranti on Oct 20, 2008 12:35 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plus, are sentences like the following meant to be taken seriously?
"Ironically, the relative safety of the modern world has up-ended natural selection turning characteristics that, until recently, were benefiting the species into ones likely to threaten our survival."
Or are they meant to make some kind of satirical point? If so, what is that point?
I'm confused...can anyone help me out?
Thanks,
NK
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Is this article satire? The article is satirical, the Harvard study not.
Posted by: nikofranti
» The root cause of the problem
Posted by: Cathyc
» It was a study using...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Physiocrat on Oct 20, 2008 1:43 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, the last people you should be paying attention to in regards to reporting and/or 'studying' this financial/economic crisis accurately is those from Harvard and the other Ivies, as it are these people with their fancy MBAs and such who work in these high positions on Wall Street and in government and who should have taken action sooner to contain this crisis. But nah, they were far too busy PROFITING from this mess to fix it.
There is absolutely no denying that testosterone is a highly beneficial chemical...unless you like being unmotivated, unenergetic, uncreative, fat, and lazy -- you can also consider testosterone to be a terrible thing if you dislike being energetic (mentally and physically), lean, creative, motivated, having strong muscles and bones, and being full of activity. Testosterone has benefited humanity in a myriad of different ways throughout human evolution and history, and they far outweigh this financial crisis which will eventually blow over.
The author keeps on talking about "mammoth hunters" and how we don't need them anymore, but not all or even the majority of the people working on Wall Street are of Northern European origin (where the stereotype says that mammoths were mostly hunted). As is well known, there are a large number of Jews (of Near Eastern origin) who work on Wall Street and in financial firms, not to mention Italians (Southern Europeans, where not many mammoths existed), along with increasing numbers of Hispanics, Indians, and Asians (peoples with no history of "mammoth hunting"). So to blame this all on "mammoth hunters" (AKA White men) is a fallacious and pathetic argument.
While I;m at it, I might as well state that women have also had a HUGE role in this economic crisis as well, maybe even moreso than men. Above all, this is a crisis of DEBT and OVERSPENDING...and who do I and my other male friends know are the people getting in to massive debt and overspending the most nowadays? Why, it's WOMEN of course with their compulsive shopping habits and desire to always look 'fabulous' with the newest and most expensive clothes, biggest houses, and priciest autos. Now, even though women sure like to spend all of this nonexitent money on credit, who is often left paying these mammoth bills when they come due? Why, it's the men in their life (husband(s), father(s), boyfriend(s), rich uncle, etc) OF COURSE.
"This new-found connection between excess testosterone and risk-taking has left me wary of all men who appear 'strong' " -- er, Ms. Rupp, I think they now refer to this as lesbianism...unless you rather prefer these new 'hipster' type guys who seem to have more in common with women physically and mentally rather than with men.
For all of you people out there who hate men (meaning more and more Westerners, especially college educated Western White women) -- who built the home or apartment you inhabit right now? Who mined the coal or runs the nuclear plant which gives you electricity? Who fixes your water pipes or toilet when it breaks? (hell, who built the water treatment plants?) Who trucks/boats/flies all of the food you eat all around the world at all hours of the night and day? Who built the car(s) and roads you use daily? Who has done more in history to advance science, medicine, higher education, and art -- men or women? Who invented the internet and created the computer(s) and software you use to browse it? POINT PROVEN.
Until you acknowledge and appreciate the instrumental role which men and their testosterone have played in making and building human civilization, you really don't have room to continue to talk all of this crap about us.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "all this crap about us"
Posted by: bcgirl125
» Those with testosterone poisoning (not the technical term)
Posted by: cordas
» You're missing the point of yellow journalism if you read this article...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» The Harvard study made a pretty unarguable case
Posted by: Beck
» As posted elsewhere...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: your stereotypes are showing and oh, the woman
Posted by: NYCartist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EJW on Oct 20, 2008 2:32 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When rats are forced into a small space they start attacking each other - I have loved men all my life but find them useless.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» SO YA THINK MEN ARE USELESS, HUH?
Posted by: Physiocrat
» Another way to look at this is ...
Posted by: harryf200
» ... who's worse? McCain or Palin?
Posted by: xvictor
» Wh's worse? McCain or Palin? LOL!
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: SO YA THINK MEN ARE USELESS, HUH?
Posted by: tjg1984
» RE: SO YA THINK MEN ARE USELESS, HUH?
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» SO YA THINK MEN ARE USELESS, HUH?
Posted by: Cathyc
» Who wrecked the economy?
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: This is news?
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: This is news?
Posted by: mejsmith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 20, 2008 2:46 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Well? Go FIGURE ! Why is it ALWAYS about MEN?
Posted by: Beck
» I said it was about men and women, not just one or the other, god damn it !
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Oct 20, 2008 3:08 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most successful rock stars tend to have androgynous looks and mannerisms. The Beatles, The Stones, Led Zeppelin, Bowie, Sir Elton, Elvis, on down the list, even in metal bands--mostly girly men. Ozzie always looked like a girl, and his wife feeds him and changes his diapers...
Even when you consider movie stars, the most famous ones are pretty-boy, girly types like Brad Pitt, Tom cruise, etc. All of those cartoonishly macho, square-jaw types are only in soap operas these days, and only had a period of movie success in the 50s.
While there may be some truth to the theory that high testosterone levels are associated with risk taking and success, I don't think you can tell who they are by looking at them.
Fun article, but very silly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Rock Stars?
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: ock Stars?
Posted by: Lilykins
Comments are closed-
Posted by: weathered on Oct 20, 2008 3:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Arrogant cultures breed arrogant people
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: idmaster2000 on Oct 20, 2008 4:36 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A man can be high-testosterone and competitive without unethical and immoral.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE:You can buy testosterone
Posted by: NYCartist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rst2536 on Oct 20, 2008 4:49 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can’t help themselves. Testosterone
Has helped make gambling their obsession
Since risk’s been bred deep in the bone.
The rules of rational investing
To these are naught but foolish jesting-
They’re out to take the biggest prize
No matter it means our demise.
Consider then the implications
Of trusting your investments to
A man who’s fueled by derring-do.
Why not require of them castrations
And if that doesn’t do the trick
We slice off each and every prick.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 20, 2008 5:28 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have to check later to figure out whether my tax dollars went to researching whether an increase in testosterone can produce an increase in aggressive behavior, even a marginal as these astute authors demonstrate. Who'd have thunk testosterone did that, after only a hundred and fifty years of the effects of sex hormones on mammalian physiology.
Leave it to Harvard to rediscover the wheel, for purely self-serving reasons.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Flawed thinking by a bogger who (apparently) couldn't be bothered to read the study.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
Comments are closed-
Posted by: waldo on Oct 20, 2008 5:55 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: war_on_tara on Oct 20, 2008 6:02 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somewhere there must be statistics about this phenomenon, which would seem to me at least as pertinent as the few statistics in this article.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Jeopardy!" and risk
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Abandoned infants
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Abandoned infants
Posted by: Lilykins
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Oct 20, 2008 6:13 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mexitli on Oct 20, 2008 6:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Replace Testosterone With Estrogen
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Oct 20, 2008 6:38 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the low level minions, there is risk. The casino aspect. We're all exposed to the casino aspect, because we're not elite. But up there the ones who cause the booms and the busts, and who profit from both... they take no risk. The only risk they take is stealing so much that they actually cause a mass awakening. (That's what the trillion dollar pentagon budget is ultimately for.) But I still dont believe they intend to push things that far. They would prefer to keep things on a level of "McCain vs Obama." The idea that there is a difference between McCain and Obama is such a lucrative one for them... such a staggeringly successful investment. It is a brilliant feat of social engineering. The only risk they take is the risk of tearing down that facade.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: For the elite, the system is not based on risk
Posted by: annavan1
» Bringing down the House of Ca(na)rds
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Oct 20, 2008 6:39 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But having worked in Equine Reproduction, There are some Very strong traits assocated with uncastrated males, which Warrant caution.
Of course same can be said for a Mare with a foal....Instincts more than pure hormones I think.
A Stallion does not pose an Issue Unless their is a female present. In fact many will not react unless she is in 'heat'. So personality (and training) carry far more weight even in their decison making process- have no doubt they are Refraining from reacting to a female regardless.We call this 'manners'. Even when going down to Breed, we only allow so much 'Chaos' and that is only to assure the female won't kick the shit out of him- we're watching her more than him.
I've worked with poss. 1000 horses, and it is not the hormones which cause you pause, it's level of Training and Genetics
Some, no matter how much training are SOB's, female or male (intact or Cut). Momma was unpredictable and Daddy was a Maneater. "But Boy ain't that Filly a beauty"..Not a good Start, even before the Hormones kick in. I've
worked with NASTY Foals! They have the whole artillary down pat in the first week- rear,strike, Kick,bite...and I'm just petting 'em!
Believe me I've Met some Wicked 'Mares', and actually can be far more deadly if in 'protection' mode,then any stallion.
The worst thing you can do is Put anything with a "Hot" Temper in the hands of a Tempermental Trainer. A Good Trainer can avoid or Undo bad habits or learned behaviors. But
it is the Trainer who must be able to recognize the Nuance required.A heavy hand only compounds the problem and Indulgement
only feeds it.
It might be nice (and beneficial) If we begin to discuss the Responsibilities which come along with Childbirth.Seems the Focus on 'Pro Birth' has left the committment to Rearing Neglected.Not only that Overindulgence has become par for thecourse, but also failing to
instill any sense of Community responsibilty. The Ability to ignore the 'Hot' temptation in front of you. If a Stallion can ignore not just his Hormones and his instincts when faced with a 'receptive' mare, Certainly a Human should be able to control themselves when faced with a 'Hot' deal.
It is Not hormones- high or Low, Testosterone or estrogen- it is Poor Training and Over Indulgence when dealing with a Fucked Up Genetic predispositon-regardless of gender.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Alsu on Oct 20, 2008 6:56 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: endocrinology... starting to make a real argument!
Posted by: clvngodess
» RE: endocrinology... starting to make a real argument!
Posted by: annavan1
» "just regular old sociopaths". LOL!
Posted by: Cathyc
» Sorry, I meant the 11th...
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: anarchris on Oct 20, 2008 7:08 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It must be her menstrual cycle that causing her to be hateful to men! cause let's face it, women aren't as rational as men due to them being overly emotion creatures! that's what makes women useless and obsolete. and how about them brain stems! no comparison!
my only comfort is that most of the comment appropriately recognizes this for what it is. it's not the presence of lies but the absence of the truth that is the threat to us all. so go ahead and hide behind pseudo science to legitimize your hate,hypocrisy and neo double standards. so long as people see it for what it is, truth and the innocent are secure.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: alternet is sexist
Posted by: annavan1
» RE: alternet is sexist
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: alternet is sexist
Posted by: annavan1
» RE: alternet is sexist
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: OvaryNet is sexist
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: OvaryNet is sexist
Posted by: annavan1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jimsenter on Oct 20, 2008 7:33 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sad fact is, biology has little to do with this mess. Complex human behaviors, such as working in finance, are more determined by social re ality than the biological. What we value, how we view and relate to other people, the kind of organizations we live and work in, all those have more to do with what is going on now than a human sex hormone.
Our job i smuch more difficult than adjusting our hormones.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: biology has little to do with it
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: annavan1 on Oct 20, 2008 7:35 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Furthermore, while men love the image of early humanoids and homo sapiens as these fierce macho hunters, the truth is early humans made piss poor predators. They lacked the speed, jumping, and sensory acuity that one finds in successful predators in the animal kingdom. Early humans were mostly gatherers, and scavengers of carrion killed by other animals. After tools were developed, it improved the odds for humans, but they still remained poor predators, comparatively speaking.
The work of Richard Leakey provides great information on the lives of early humans.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ready to have YOUR Bubble burst?
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H
» RE: eady to have YOUR Bubble burst?
Posted by: badkitty68
» RE: eady to have YOUR Bubble burst?
Posted by: annavan1
» RE: Hate to Burst Your Bubble, but...what's "feminizing"?
Posted by: NYCartist
» RE: Hate to Burst Your Bubble, but...what's "feminizing"?
Posted by: annavan1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zooeyhall on Oct 20, 2008 8:16 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gregy on Oct 20, 2008 8:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I could post 1000 links to study showing how the female hormones makes you a bad lawyer or CEO. Even considering this article as serious is already a mistake.
I am out, was nice here but alternet is also biased and that's not cool at all.
CU ;-)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: OK I('ve) really like(d) alternet but
Posted by: NYCartist
» RE: OK I('ve) really like(d) alternet but
Posted by: secretchief
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nfamous on Oct 20, 2008 8:33 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Not about testosterone
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Not about testosterone
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Not about testosterone
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Not about testosterone
Posted by: tjg1984
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Russianrocket on Oct 20, 2008 8:48 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Disturbingly Similar
Posted by: NYCartist
» RE: Disturbingly Similar
Posted by: Russianrocket
» RE: Disturbingly Similar:not enough for me
Posted by: NYCartist
» RE: Disturbingly Similar:not enough for me
Posted by: Russianrocket
» RE: Disturbingly Similar:not enough for me
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Disturbingly Similar:not enough for me
Posted by: Russianrocket
» RE: Disturbingly Similar:not enough for me
Posted by: Crazy H
» "...why would someone intentionally wreck their own firm?"
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: "...why would someone intentionally wreck their own firm?"
Posted by: Russianrocket
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H on Oct 20, 2008 9:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've always referred to these aggressive morons as "TESTOSTORONS", to denote that unique blend of qualities.
During the first several thousand years of human civilization, social fundamentals rewarded aggressive-and-smart individuals, but severely penalized the aggressive-and-stupid, with the result that the aggressive/stupid were uncompetitive, and marginalized.
At several times, for example in post-Crusades Europe and England, hereditary "rights" to leadership allowed a protected resurgence of the aggressive/stupid strain. The feudal system gradually changed to provide layers of protection for the Important Ones. Just as more Importance meant more protection, less importance meant less. Common citizens typically had no rights or protection, or were accorded rights relative to other commoners whenever such rights did not infringe the prerogatives of nobles. All that protection for Kings and Dukes, and all the exposure for commoners meant that aggressive/stupid (or merely stupid) royals received no blowback from their misdeeds, unless they managed to provoke other royals.
We have now reverted to a similar inequity of remedy: Even though poor people have been in DEpression for decades, and the middle class has been in deepening REcession since 2000, only now, with our wealthy investor class feeling the pinch, does the nation face its financial aggressiveness and stupidity. Poor and middle-class people voicing real problems were "whiners", but billionaires having to postpone buying a second yacht is PANIC!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 20, 2008 10:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The financial crisis is a product of the owning class. Its causatives have much more to do with owning class sensibilities, crass attitudes towards those "beneath" them, owning class racial issues and the uniquely Amerikaan lust to cheat and get rich quick. While I may tend to view this as a rich white male illness because I observe it mostly in white wealthy males, I also understand that more research is required before I can square up the blame on testosterone.
The owning class did this. Misandrous efforts to blame this on a sex hormone is a dangerous distraction. Shannon, you fucked up on this one. You just did.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JayHaden on Oct 20, 2008 10:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Precious few studies have linked our leaders' character to the strength of their limbic or chemical makeup. Even if they could, it would be a mistake to eliminatet the risk takers or even some of our near-sociopathic personalities (i.e., a lot of men and some women). Ruthlessness in the face of grave danger is probably the reason we have such people remaining in our gene pool. There was little that was politically correct in Churchill's prosecution of WWII. Yet when the war was won, his belligerence was not what the UK needed and they tossed him out.
Democracies as well as finance systems probably don't need pre-screening devices. They need more openness, accountability, transparency, planning, feedback, analysis and rules of behavior. Then, as we the people learn the truth in near-real time, we need legal mechanisms to throw the rascals out (like impeachment and prosecution). It's the breakdown (or willful destruction) of these mechanisms that forces us to grasp at weak indicators like testosterone and try to pre-empt the would-be culprits.
The present rankings in the polls of McCain and Obama suggest that, with enough good information on character, a majority of the public will reject the risk taker when the mortgage is literally on the line. Lacking better media feedback and analysis, only a very long campaign process (almost two years) will eventually provide us with enough information on candidates' respective characters to help us make a decision that is in our best interest. Short-circuiting that process by using some indicator having a relatively low, or even moderate, correlation with character would risk throwing out potentially good leaders along with potentially bad ones. Unfortunately, America's hideously long campaigns are the only way we have of getting at character by observing candidates in real time over an extended period.
(Hmm. It occurs to me that by not doing its job, the media stand to rake in a huge amount of cash over a longer time. Where's Dilbert when we need him?)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: websmith on Oct 20, 2008 11:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What happen to the emergency $700 billion, which is heading towards $2.5 trillion, that we told them not to spend? Now Congress wants to give us $150 billion that will temporarily ease our pain just in time for the election so the public servants who went against our wishes can get re-elected?
The population no longer has the money to buy goods and services and companies have no one to sell anything to.
http://ewebsmith.com/Finance/therealproblem.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cherylholmes on Oct 20, 2008 11:27 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some men buy expensive sports cars...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NYCartist on Oct 20, 2008 11:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: article is funny,says feminist
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: article is funny,says feminist
Posted by: NYCartist
» RE: article is funny,says feminist
Posted by: Crazy H
» An oxymoron
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: An oxymoron:how many bookstores&how old
Posted by: NYCartist
» RE: An oxymoron
Posted by: annavan1
» RE: An oxymoron
Posted by: annavan1
» So, like a leftist Ann Coulter type of humor?
Posted by: eeezzz
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Karl.Ben on Oct 20, 2008 11:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nikofranti on Oct 20, 2008 12:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Social behavior is always an *interaction* between genetics and environment, which is a crucial point that the author seems not to understand.
In this case, testosterone is no more (and likely quite a bit less, imo) to blame for the economic crisis than deregulation, or capitalism, or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, etc.
It may well be that within that heavily de-regulated corporate capitalist context, men with relatively high testosterone levels took greater risks and, ultimately, ripped more people off and thus squandered more money than did men with lower testosterone levels.
But that only matters because all of the men (and women) on Wall Street are working within a system that not only allows, but in fact *encourages* and rewards reckless predatory risk-taking behavior. Within such a context, it is no surprise that men with higher testosterone levels would be more dangerous than men with lower testosterone levels, although the difference between them is only a matter of degree. The men (and women) with lower testosterone levels have obviously been engaging in reckless predatory practices as well--they just aren't as good at it!
Thus, let's blame the social-economic context, not genetics. In an economic context that punishes reckless predatory risk-taking, men with high testosterone levels would fair worse than men with low testosterone levels.
Plus, if we merely blame testosterone, without addressing the context, then there's no solution to the problem (other than trying to forcibly alter people's genetic makeup, perhaps--yikes!).
We need to target the root cause in the system (corporate capitalism run amok) not incidental genetic factors that, at worst, merely intensified the reckless damage that is the inevitable result of a system that rewards recklessness.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Hildy-J on Oct 20, 2008 12:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU446HDtGv8
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Oct 20, 2008 12:49 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
> Crisis on Too Much Testosterone?
No. As any evolutionary biologist will tell you, males and male behavior are the result of a breeding experiment run by women. So, using the author's line of reasoning, ultimately women are to blame. If they don't like the results, they need to change the experimental conditions, not blame the lab rats.
When women diss men, they diss the choices in men made by their mothers and grandmothers all the way back up the line.
The more salient question is, if one believes excessive risk-taking is some problem: why have women preferentially rewarded risk-taking men by passing their genes along, essentially breeding risk-taking into human nature (esp. the male side of it)?
Could there be something in male risk-taking for women and their offspring, something which the author conveniently over-looks as it does not furnish her with a text for recriminations against men.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: And the answer is...please give footnotes
Posted by: NYCartist
» You want references?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: And the answer is...please give footnotes
Posted by: MartianBachelor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mnstra on Oct 20, 2008 1:23 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fanny666 on Oct 20, 2008 1:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People forget that we have the same brains that we had 100,000 years ago. So, for example, one of the reasons that we're so effected by stress hormones is that we evolved to have a 5 minute long stressor, after which we'd either recover or be dead. We didn't evolve to be stressed constantly by deadlines, traffic, politics, etc.
I'm a neuroendocrinologist; what it probably my all-time favorite research paper (certainly in the top 5!) is a study correlating the win-loss record of the Washington Redskins against the rate of spousal abuse the following day. On a Monday after a Redskin's victory, domestic violence rates spike. That's because if you are an APE in the wild, you get a burst of testosterone after you become alpha male; it helps you fight off challengers. If you are an APE football fan whose team wins, you may (mistakenly) think that this makes you the alpha male, and you may be so overwhelmed with hormones that your poor little prefrontal cortex is unable to inhibit the behaviors that testosterone causes in apes.
Sad but true!
It may also be the case that "economic bubble" = "I am the alpha" = "I can fight all comers, even cold, hard economic realities." Who knows?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Testosterone's effects on behavior is real:but our knowledge is limited
Posted by: NYCartist
» (domestic violence rates in the DC area are effected)
Posted by: fanny666
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 20, 2008 3:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And then compare testosterone levels in the women who wanted to be seen with a $250 dollar purse.
Now, can I haz $1.5M tax dollars to try this ingenious study, pleze?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: secretchief on Oct 20, 2008 3:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have a retirement fund? You want it to invest in the equities that provide the best return on investment?
Then you are encouraging businesses to cut jobs, cut benefits, screw the environment, etc.
You shop at Wal-Mart because they have the best prices?
Then you are responsible of encouraging lame wages and benefits from the reailer to the shipping company to the manufacturer and his suppliers.
The list goes on. We need to open our eyes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Oct 20, 2008 4:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Turning to substance, I do thank the writer for pointing out this study. Immediately upon reading I googled some pictures of people commonly understood to have money, power and influence, for those who care about such things.
The lantern jaw does indeed frequently appear to accompany excessive ambition as evidenced by, say, Mike Milken, Jay Leno, Adolf Hitler, John McCain, and Arnold Schwartzenegger.
Phrenologists might postulate an inverse relationship between the dimensions of the jaw and the robustness of the follicle, particularly among those involved in business, as opposed to more public pursuits. Henry Kravis, Rudy Giuliani, Jack Welch may be exemplars of such a connection. No equation would be complete, however, without a variable to account for ruthlessness and sociopathic tendencies generally associated with this physiognomy.
Although chin augmentation is always an option, the feature mostly appears to be genetically passed on, rather than acquired, as evidenced by a google image search of those who share the family name Stonecipher, for example. On the other hand, what was legitimately acquired by the hand of nature, may be diminished by the hand of man. Plastic surgery may be counted on to have allowed many to penetrate powerful society whose chin reduction, unbeknownst to all, fools us into thinking they may be benign bumblers simply because they resemble, say, George Formby or Queen Victoria.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Canadian humor
Posted by: leta
Comments are closed-
Posted by: KiwiBR on Oct 20, 2008 5:23 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While we are blaming people lets blame the Blacks and Hispanics for being stupid and buying in to the greed ideal with those ARM loans. Lets blame the Asian's for sending their money back home. Lets blame women for being the eternal victums to stupid to do anything for them selves and stopping the men.
Alternet why did you let this bigot in?
The next step is to get some KKK guys writing articles on how blacks and Hispanic's casue crime becasue of their DNA?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So that's the insight of another guy who can't get laid?
Posted by: Hildy-J
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Q30 on Oct 20, 2008 8:13 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've learned from their ilk that unwanted sexual attention from a man justifies breaking his fingers. By the same standards, it's completely reasonable to do the same to a gay man who gets a little too flirty. The barbarism of "equality, feminist-style" quickly comes to the fore when the sword is thrust in a different direction.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Funny how...unfunny "sword is thrust"...
Posted by: NYCartist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kroltan on Oct 21, 2008 12:33 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Tax the Corporations and the Rich or Take Draconian Cuts -- the Decision Is Ours
Fury at Wall St. Banks Fuels Public Action for Move Your Money Campaign
Why Congress Wants You to Shun Your Local Bookstore and Shop at Amazon Instead




