Maybe that guy isn’t a jerk; maybe he’s just low on oxytocin.
A new study conducted on macaques has generated this proclamation:
Oxytocin, the “love hormone” that builds mother-baby bonds and may help us feel more connected toward one another, can also make surly monkeys treat each other a little more kindly. [article source]
In the experiment, macaques in the experimental group were administered oxytocin–a hormone we humans share–via an inhalation mask. Relative to the control group, these monkeys displays greater pro-social behavior, as gauged by their willingness to give some sweet juice to their cohorts.
I wonder: would outfitting automobile air conditioners with an oxytocin injector eliminate road rage?
Why do more female doctors go into pediatrics than male? Why do more female teachers choose elementary education than male? Why do more males choose long-haul trucking as a career than females? (Etc.)
Sure, the answer is likely partly cultural. Maybe a big part, maybe a small. But to suggest that “hormones” may be some of the reason–and you tread on thin ice. Culture is okay to target, biological differences, not so much.
Even members of the skeptical/atheist community, when contemplating, “Why aren’t there more female skeptics?” will focus exclusively on culture, on what external force is preventing women from participating.
Call me a heretic, but I think our biology, including hormones, influences our orientation. And not just the orientation of our genitals.
No, it’s not all hormones. Of course not! But to deny this is as biased as any other form of bias. It is to fly in the face of solid evidence to the contrary.
In an intriguing piece of recent research I read . . .
The researchers studied teenagers and young adults with congenital adrenal hyperplasia — a genetic condition — and their siblings who do not have CAH.
People with CAH are exposed to more androgen — a type of male sex hormone — than is normal while in the uterus. Females with CAH are genetically female and are treated as females, but their interests tend to be more similar to stereotypically male ones. [source, bold added]
Interesting. Of course, the inquiring mind would like to know how much more? That’s pretty important information.
The findings as they relate to career:
The researchers report in the current issue of Hormones and Behavior that females with CAH were significantly more interested than females without CAH in careers related to things compared to careers related to people. The researchers also found that career interests directly corresponded to the amount of androgen exposure the females with CAH experienced — those exposed to the most androgen in the uterus showed the most interest in things versus people.
Of course, just as completely neglecting findings like these is to engage in bias, so too is making more of them than is warranted. Because this bit of science dovetails with a substantial amount of other research, I give it some credence. Not full, and hopefully not overblown and undeserved, but some. Definitely.
The political self is difficult to divorce from the intellectual. But the committed skeptic must strive to do it. Again and again and again.
Have you heard? It seems that Extra testosterone reduces your empathy. An experiment (good) conducted on women (interesting) found -
[A]n administration of testosterone under the tongue in volunteers negatively affects a person’s ability to ‘mind read’, an indication of empathy.
As a quick tangent, I wonder if this explains why most “psychics” are female. Not for the “ability to ‘mind read’” part, but for the empathy part. The better psychics (if they can be better) are likely good readers of subtle responses in their customers. They are better cold readers. Anyway….
Of course, women do have naturally occurring testosterone. Men simply have a lot more, and it plays a crucial role in masculinizing the male body and male behavior. In woman in plays a role in sex drive, aggressiveness, and more.
While the measure of the first variable, testosterone, was straightforward, the measure of the second, less so. This is what the researchers used -
[A] ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ task as the test of mind reading, which tests how well someone can infer what a person is thinking or feeling from photographs of facial expressions from around the eyes.
Does this research support the stereotypical notion that men are the relatively feeling-insensitive sex — that, relative to women, the average male has difficulty being empathetic? Well, maybe. As the article states -
[C]urrent levels of testosterone directly affect the ability to read someone else’s mind. This may help explain why on average women perform better on such tests than men, since men on average produce more testosterone than women.
But here’s reason for pause – the 16 women in the experiment were under the temporary influence of increased blood testosterone levels. Would the result have held if the testosterone levels were increased and held? Was the result not about testosterone level, but an increase in the level? Also, and quite disappointingly, the size of the measured difference in empathy was not noted. Boo. Okay, so testosterone reduced empathy. But how much? Important question.
As for the temporary increase element, it may not negate the implication.
The researchers not only found that administration of testosterone leads to a significant reduction in mind reading, but that this effect is powerfully predicted by the 2D:4D digit ratio*, a marker of prenatal testosterone. Those people with the most masculinized 2D:4D ratios showed the most pronounced reduction in the ability to mind read.
I can certainly see how not an increase in testosterone, but a higher level itself, could influence empathetic propensities. Just as prenatal exposure to testosterone will have long-term influences on behavior (in terms of sex, aggression, and risk-taking), it may have long-term influence on a person’s social traits of the pro-social type. But for now, we can only state that a short-term increase in females causes them to be less empathetic, according to one measure.
—
*Numerous studies have found that those individuals with a greater difference in finger length between their “index” and “ring” fingers have been prenatally exposed to more testosterone (go ahead, take a moment to look at your hands . . . ). For some strange reason, one of the consequences of relatively high testosterone levels during fetal development is shorter index fingers relative to ring fingers. Fascinating.
Yesterday, in How Birds Are Like Humans, I wrote this about testosterone levels in males, both avian and human -
Too high means too much risky behavior, which leads to health-endangering fights and predation, etc. Too little means poorer territory (which includes poorer access to food and less desirable/safe nesting sites) as well as poorer reproductive success.
This morning I encountered this article: Research shows personality can predict fertility. And this finding -
In the study of men, individuals with above average levels of extraversion, prone to be sociable and outgoing, had 14% more children than men with below average extraversion.
I suspected that testosterone and extraversion may be associated. And so I entered the two terms into a Google Scholar search, just out of curiosity. And yes, as many studies suggest, there does seem to be a link. Makes sense. Males that more ease-ily venture into novel social situations will encounter more females and show greater confidence in talking to them. In making the sale to mate.
But just because something makes sense doesn’t mean it is fully true, of course. Until I see good evidence supporting the links I make, I tend to refrain from putting full confidence in an idea. At least I try to.
In many ways, birds are like humans. Or maybe humans are like birds. No, that’s not right. Maybe both are animals and, as distantly related animals, share some attributes.
For instance, the behavior of both male humans and male birds is influenced by testosterone levels. While male birds don’t have external testes (can you imagine flying with those? — running upright is bad enough!) they do have internal testosterone-producing gonads. And new research has found that male birds with intermediate blood levels tend to do better.
In Costs and Benefits of Testosterone in Birds we learn that having high enough testosterone is good for a male bird’s mating success and survival. Testosterone gives a guy bird the starch in its spine (not the technical language) to acquire and defend a territory as well as the sexual drive to find/attract mates and . . . mate with them.
But while “enough” is good, “even more” is not better. In fact, it’s worse. The experimenters found that of the birds with their levels experimentally manipulated, those with levels near the wild average did the best. Too high means too much risky behavior, which leads to health-endangering fights and predation, etc. Too little means poorer territory (which includes poorer access to food and less desirable/safe nesting sites)as well as poorer reproductive success.
In another bird study, scientists found Wild Birds Opt for Conventional Food Over Organic, Study Shows.
Lead researcher Dr Ailsa McKenzie:
“We showed that when given free choice, wild birds opt for the conventional food over the organic, and the most likely explanation is its higher protein content.”
It may simply be an unfounded stereotype, but many human males, and a fair share of females, too, seem to prefer a fat and protein laden steak dinner over high-vegetable-content alternatives. For dessert: a calorie-rich but nutrition-poor piece of pie. Why? It’s elemental: our evolutionary history placed a premium on what was then higher value foods: protein and calories. Green leafies — a belly full of that would give you the energy to last a day at best. And for building muscles salad alone gets a failing grade.
While animals — birds and humans and thousands of other types — live in a present environment, their body plans and functioning physiology was shaped years ago, in one past. How well do they fit their immediate environments? Only time will tell.
Recent Comments