Feminist Claptrap about Masculine Hormones
“Everyone knows that testosterone, the so-called male hormone, is found in both men and women. What is not so well-known, is that men have an overdose… Until recently it has been thought that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from testosterone poisoning.”
The theorized link is between male hormones and aggressiveness. Does the link hold? Well, Wikipedia further down tells us that “Neuroscientist Christoph Eisenegger at the University of Zurich has conducted a study and concludes that the evidence debunks the myth that testosterone causes aggressive, egocentric behaviour, suggesting instead that the sex hormone can encourage fair play, particularly if it improves a person’s status. According to a study published in Nature, ‘a single dose of testosterone in women causes a substantial increase in fair bargaining behaviour, thereby reducing bargaining conflicts and increasing the efficiency of social interactions. However, subjects who believed that they received testosterone—regardless of whether they actually received it or not—behaved much more unfairly than those who believed that they were treated with placebo.'” (emphasis and italics added)
The Ultimatum Game
Also from Wikipedia:
“The ultimatum game is a game often played in economic experiments in which two players interact to decide how to divide a sum of money that is given to them. The first player proposes how to divide the sum between the two players, and the second player can either accept or reject this proposal. If the second player rejects, neither player receives anything. If the second player accepts, the money is split according to the proposal. The game is played only once so that reciprocation is not an issue.”
It is a model for social interaction. As the book Priceless tells us (page 120):
“The ultimatum game has become an ur-experiment, the scientific equivalent of a catchy riff that lends itself to endless sampling and remixing. It has been played with members of the globe’s diverse cultures; with children, the autistic, the high-IQ, and men having exceptionally high levels of testosterone; with players who have been given a hormone that increases trust in strangers; even with chimpanzees splitting a prize of ten raisins. The game’s continuing fascination rests on how behavior changes, or doesn’t change, with context. Like a well-oiled weathervane, the experiment’s archetypic economic choice is sensitive to subtle pressures that affect us all the time yet usually go unnoticed.”
Different cultures react differently:
“‘My Israeli game theory professor was proud to note that Israel is one of the few places where low offers were given and accepted’ in the ultimatum game, economist Presh Talwalkar wryly noted. For what it’s worth, the ‘Israeli myth’ owes to a 1991 study comparing behavior in Pittsburgh, Ljubljana, Jerusalem, and Tokyo. The most common proposer offer was 40 percent among Israelis, versus 50 percent for Americans. That’s not much of a difference, really (as we will see). But it led to a mystique of Israelis as the chosen rational people—or else it played into the old Shylockian stereotypes. One of the four-city study’s coauthors, Hebrew University’s Shmuel Zamir, recalls a young Israeli coming up to him, ‘visibly upset.’ He complained, ‘I did not eam any money because all the other players are stupid! How can you reject a positive amount of money and prefer to get zero? They just did not understand the game! You should have stopped the experiment and explained it to them.’
When Colin Camerer described this ‘crosscultural’ study to UCLA anthropologist Robert Boyd, Boyd objected that it was no such thing. ‘Pittsburgh is not a culture,’ he said, ‘it’s a place on a map.'”
It is interesting that some cultures are less inclined to an even 50-50 split. Other research showed that what Fukuyama called “high-trust” cultures are more given to the even split. This leads to an intriguing question: what happens in a culture of low trust? Does such exist?
“To an anthropologist, all four cities were part of the same homogenized global culture. The story got more interesting when one of Boyd’s grad students, Joe Heinrich, performed ultimatum game experiments with the Machiguenga people of eastem Peru. ‘He came back and said, can you come and look at my data?’ recalled Camerer. ‘So I went over to UCLA, and Joe said, “I think I made a mistake because they made a lot of low offers, and they were all accepted. Except for one, and that was even suspicious because I had a Spanish-speaking assistant with me who spoke the local dialect, and that guy kind of bullied him into it: ‘I don’t think you should take that.’ So I think they all were accepted.” ‘
The Machiguenga are among the most asocial peoples on earth.” (emphasis added)
Punishing cheaters is the basis for civilized society
The Israeli who was annoyed at people who wouldn’t accept even token amounts when he would get the lion’s share was doubtless sincere in his confusion. We have moved from a society that valued social cohesion and group progress to one of a “winner-takes-all” mentality. As the Ultimatum Game shows, however, there is an inbred cultural meme in most successful cultures to punish narcissists who profit at the expense of others. This is necessary to social peace and societal advancement. Where does the meme arise, and how is it enforced?
Terence Burnham has also played the Ultimatum Game:
“The ultimatum game is a simple negotiation with the interesting property that people frequently reject offers of ‘free’ money. These rejections contradict the standard view of economic rationality. This divergence between economic theory and human behaviour is important and has no broadly accepted cause.”
He wondered at the effect of that violence-causing, society-destroying androgen, testosterone.
“In a variety of species, testosterone is associated with male seeking dominance. If low ultimatum game offers are interpreted as challenges, then high-testosterone men may be more likely to reject such offers. In this experiment, men who reject low offers … have significantly higher testosterone levels than those who accept.”
So, as this experiment shows, high testosterone men will go out of their way to punish “cheaters” who violate accepted social norms, even if it means foregoing personal gain in the process. That our society has grown less just as it has become more feminized, and that more and more people have a cavalier disregard for established social norms, is part and parcel of the same syndrome. Restoration of Patriarchy, led by manly men, is essential to justice and social harmony.