Posted on 04/05/2005 8:39:50 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Testosterone has a bad reputation. The public image of it is closely linked to the idea of dumb aggression, to the caveman. But this is a far from complete image. In recent years new research is starting to show that it would be more accurate to associate this much maligned hormone with Newton, Da Vinci, Einstein and Edison than the rough and brutal Neanderthal. Testosterone, it seems, could be the true driver of our civilisations.
Satoshi Kanazawa at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, studied the biographies of 280 scientists and plotted their intellectual achievements against their ages. He discovered something extremely revealing: the curves of age-achievement in scientists was not only repeated in jazz musicians, painters and authors, but mirrored the curves of age-criminal activity in criminals. Furthermore, both criminal activity and intellectual achievement seemed to drop off when the scientist or crock got married and started a family.
Interesting, don't you think?
Criminal and high-level intellectual activity have the same underlying motor according to Kanazawa: testosterone.
This would also explain why most criminal and high level intellectual activities are carried out by the male of the species.
Testosterone is a hormone that males produce in far greater quantity than females. It begins production while the individual is still in the womb, and effects brain development. Testosterone levels tend to peak in the early twenties, and by middle age drop off dramatically.
High levels of testosterone have been reported to be correlated with dominant behaviour. This dominance does not necessarily express itself aggressively. It is more of a general competitive response. Also, interestingly, the relationship between testosterone levels and behaviour works both ways: taking part in competitive activity can raise levels of testosterone; furthermore, winning can increase it, losing can make it decrease.
Kanazawa's paper is not absolute proof that testosterone is the key driver of exceptional male behaviour, but it is an elegant and persuasive argument. Should it really be such a surprise that males have historically had a monopoly on both criminal activity and genius-level accomplishments? Are we really to believe that this is all a co-incidence, and the true reason for male behaviour is the 'Patriarchy', as feminists and political correctoids would have us believe?
A related area to testosterone's drive for dominance is the sex-drive.
Sex-drive is an elusive concept. It is hard to measure because it can only really be objectively measured by activity (i.e. amount of sexual activity one indulges in). However, this measurement is a vector. A vector is a combination of two factors (in this case: opportunity to have sex + drive to have sex; or lack of willpower to refrain from sex x drive to have sex) therefore we cannot resolve out these two factors and determine whether the person has a high sex drive or merely has lots of opportunities to have sex OR a low willpower to resist their drive.
Nevertheless, even if we can't always measure the sex-drive of a person objectively, that does not mean it doesn't exist. And sometimes things that one cannot measure objectively can simply be observed or perceived through common sense. Men certainly, at least historically, have had a greater expression of sex drive than women. Particularly young men, who are often in a frenzy to sleep with as many females as possible.
Sexual desire – like water – can be managed and channelled, but it is much harder to eliminate. Rather, you should seek to give it other channels of expression.
Maybe sex-drive is another way to measure achievement, or rather the sublimation of sex drive into purposeful goal-driven behaviour.
Leaders are readers, and one book stands out more than any other in history as a bible of the wealthy: 'Think and grow rich' by Napoleon Hill. Mr Hill spent years studying the rich and working out what made them that way. He then wrote many books on the subject, of which the most famous is 'Think and grow rich'. Chapter 10 of the book is entitled 'The mystery of sex transmutation'.
Here are a few interesting quotations from this chapter:
"Destroy the sex glands, whether in man or beast, and you have removed the major source of action. For proof of this, observe what happens to any animal after it has been castrated. A bull becomes as docile as a cow."
"A teacher who has trained and directed the efforts of more than 30,000 salespeople, made the astounding discovery that highly sexed men are the most efficient salesmen. The explanation is, that the factor of personality known as "personal magnetism" is nothing more nor less than sex energy."
And here is the most important quote:
"I have discovered, from the analysis of over 25,000 people, that men who succeed in an outstanding way, seldom do so before the age of forty, and more often they do not strike their real pace until they are well beyond the age of fifty.
The major reason why the majority of men who succeed do not begin to do so before the age of forty to fifty is their tendency to dissipate their energies through over-indulgence in physical expression of the emotion of sex.
The majority of men never learn that the urge of sex has other possibilities, which far transcend in importance that of mere physical expression. The majority of those who those who make this discovery, do so after having wasted many years at a period when the sex energy is at its height, prior to the age of forty-five to fifty. This is usually followed by noteworthy achievement.
Biographies of American industrialists and financiers are filled with evidence that the period from forty to sixty is the most productive age of man."
Well, there you have it. When young men chase women for sex, they are throwing their wild oats into the wind. They are dissipating their energies, short-circuiting their currents to get a quick spark of pleasure which then leaves them in darkness. In order to get a continuous light-source there needs to be an element of resistance (called the filament in a light-bulb). Resistance builds strength.
We undoubtedly live in a sexually charged time. Sex is used constantly by advertisers and marketers to entice men to buy things. Also, women and girls today routinely dress in extremely provocative clothes, even in the workplace. All this adds up to more invitations to think about sex today than men suffered in the past. If it were not for my hatred of the language of victimology I would call this is a form of sexual harassment of men.
This plays brilliantly into the hands of women, who obviously would like nothing more than to 'bump up' the market value of their sexual favours. Indeed, this relationship between the need to increase their sexual market value and the increasing 'sexiness' of women's appearance can be observed in society. As women have become more harsh and less feminine in some of their behaviours (thus depleting the attractiveness of their personalities to men) they have had to compensate by turning up the volume of their physical appeal: shorter skirts, lower-cut tops, exposing their stomachs etc. This ends up harming them though, as they are only wanted for sex, and not their personality.
A more temperate attitude towards sex would be healthier for both men and women. It would allow men to concentrate on more important things, and it might allow women to develop their personalities and not just their looks.
Science references:
'Why productivity fades with age: The crime–genius connection', Kanazawa, S., Journal of Research in Personality 37 (2003) 257–272
'Testosterone and dominance in men', Mazur,A. and Booth, A., Behavioral and Brain Sciences (1998) 21, 353–397
Darren Blacksmith is the webmaster of http://www.cooltools4men.com
Some years ago there was a Dilbert cartoon with Wally shedding excessive testosterone all around, IIRC.
"Testosterone is a hormone that males produce in far greater quantity than females. It begins production while the individual is still in the womb, and effects brain development."
Obviously-- the word he wants here is "affects". ;)
I don't think there can be any doubt that the greater competitive drive of males is the result of sex hormones. But the idea that intellectual achievement is associated with very high levels of testosterone is almost certainly wrong.
Nuts.
Obviously-- the word he wants here is "affects". ;)
Yes, you are right. It seems unlikely that testosterone alone is responsible for brain development in general. On the other hand, the person doing this research is saying that testosterone effects a particular type of behaviour, not simply affecting it but producing it. As the article says, "Criminal and high-level intellectual activity have the same underlying motor according to Kanazawa: testosterone."
I posted the article, because I found it interesting, but personally, I don't know how any "researcher" could ever truly prove a theory like this. One would have to exhume Bach, Handel, Einstein, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Racmaninoff etc...........to see if their testosterone levels were as high as Jeffrey Daumer's, Ted Bundy's or "The Birdman of Alcatraz" et al.
Yes, I know that "effect" can also be used as a verb. ;)
Oh yeah?!? How do you account for all those "little brains" out-er-gunning the big brains that sit on top of their shoulders, huh !?!?!?! ;-P
Your uninformed bias is showing, madam.
Well then, tell me more. Who am I biased for or against?
Far as I'm concerned, I'm biased in favor of the facts. The data that we have right now are fairly consistent in showing that men with high spatial ability have testosterone levels that fall toward the *low* end of what is normal for a male. Musical talent is not nearly as well studied, but I believe there is at least one study with a similar finding. There is also a study of more than 3000 Vietnam vets showing a significant difference in education, pay grade, and test scores by hormone levels; the lowest testosterone group always outperformed the highest.
Did you think my comment was some kind of bash against males? It wasn't. I have defended Larry Summers here (despite his liberal leanings) since this controversy broke out. All I was saying is that the mechanism of male superiority in math, science, and probably other intellectual endeavors is unlikely to be excessive levels of testosterone. The amount of testosterone associated with optimal spatial ability is more than most women have, but less than very muscular men have.
Yes, the person who wrote the article does too. I thought you were saying that the theory was overstated. Was that your meaning?
Yes, it was an interesting article. At the very least the role that testosterone plays needs more study.
I'm beginning to think you're as thick as he is.
"Testosterone is a hormone that males produce in far greater quantity than females. It begins production while the individual is still in the womb, and effects brain development. Testosterone levels tend to peak in the early twenties, and by middle age drop off dramatically. "
Is it reasonable to conclude that the author truly meant to say that testosterone is wholly responsible for brain development, that it causes it? Of course not. What he meant to say was that it influences brain development, but that isn't what he said. I merely thought it was funny because it was such a delightfully embarassing spot to make such a flub. I knew without looking that the author was male. ;)
You, on the other hand, understand language, but for some inexplicable reason feel like you must defend the honor of this goof. Lighten up, buddy.
At least I got a post from you without a smiley. Progress.
Yep, everything we do boils down to wanting to get laid. hehehehe
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.