Thought this was interesting and worthy of discussion and had to share...



ScienceDaily (Dec. 9, 2009) - New scientific evidence refutes the preconception that testosterone causes aggressive, egocentric, and risky behavior. A study at the Universities of Zurich and Royal Holloway London with more than 120 experimental subjects has shown that the sexual hormone with the poor reputation can encourage fair behaviors if this serves to ensure one's own status.

Popular scientific literature, art, and the media have been attributing the roll of aggression to the arguably best known sexual hormone for decades. Research appeared to confirm this -- the castration of male rodents evidently led to a reduction in combativeness among the animals. The prejudice thus grew over decades that testosterone causes aggressive, risky, and egocentric behavior. The inference from these experiments with animals that testosterone produces the same effects in humans has proven to be false, however, as a combined study by neuroscientist Christoph Eisenegger and economist Ernst Fehr, both of the University of Zurich, and economist Michael Naef of Royal Holloway in London demonstrates. "We wanted to verify how the hormone affects social behavior," Dr. Christoph Eisenegger explains, adding, "we were interested in the question: what is truth, and what is myth?"

For the study, published in the journal Nature, some 120 test subjects took part in a behavioral experiment where the distribution of a real amount of money was decided. The rules allowed both fair and unfair offers. The negotiating partner could subsequently accept or decline the offer. The fairer the offer, the less probable a refusal by the negotiating partner. If no agreement was reached, neither party earned anything.

Before the game the test subjects were administered either a dose of 0.5 mg testosterone or a corresponding placebo. "If one were to believe the common opinion, we would expect subjects who received testosterone to adopt aggressive, egocentric, and risky strategies -- regardless of the possibly negative consequences on the negotiation process," Eisenegger elucidates.

Fairer with testosterone

The study's results, however, contradict this view sharply. Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum. "The preconception that testosterone only causes aggressive or egoistic behavior in humans is thus clearly refuted," sums up Eisenegger. Instead, the findings suggest that the hormone increases the sensitivity for status. For animal species with relatively simple social systems, an increased awareness for status may express itself in aggressiveness. "In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behavior secures status, and not aggression," surmises study co-author Michael Naef from Royal Holloway London. "The interplay between testosterone and the socially differentiated environment of humans, and not testosterone itself, probably causes fair or aggressive behavior."

Moreover the study shows that the popular wisdom that the hormone causes aggression is apparently deeply entrenched: those test subjects who believed they had received the testosterone compound and not the placebo stood out with their conspicuously unfair offers. It is possible that these persons exploited the popular wisdom to legitimate their unfair actions. Economist Michael Naef states: "It appears that it is not testosterone itself that induces aggressiveness, but rather the myth surrounding the hormone. In a society where qualities and manners of behavior are increasingly traced to biological causes and thereby partly legitimated, this should make us sit up and take notice." The study clearly demonstrates the influence of both social as well as biological factors on human behavior.

(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132241.htm)

I'm still getting my castration. I don't trust this study. I'm 64 this February and, from what I have seen in life, I have concluded

IbPervert (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:22 am that testosterone causes aggressive

ness in animals and humans. I know that I need to lose my T if I am to function as an old man who needs peace and tranquility. I think this is not a good study and why Nature magazine would publish it ... perhaps to sell more magazines: the study is sensational and controversial. This sells magazines. The study however didn't sell me.

My experience is the same. With low testosterone I was crabby, mean etc. Once I got on HRT (post op) and was in normal levels I was much "nicer"

Having studied sociology, I don't find this surprising at all. The importance of social factors is all too often overlooked in favor of purely biological ones. That said, the interplay is very complex and one can predict only trends, not how every individual will be affected, and every trend has its exceptions. It's entirely possible that those among us who feel our T makes us too aggressive are responding to a deeply ingrained belief that's been "programmed" into us almost since birth. However, it is said in sociology that if a thing is perceived to be real, it will be real in its consequences, and so castration may still be a viable solution for those who find themselves in this predicament. It might be advisable, however, to have one's T levels checked first to make sure one isn't actually suffering from low testosterone. It would surely be ironic to have your balls cut off only to learn, after the fact, that what you really needed was more T, not less!

Think the study did not have a real control group. Any one that deals with hormones knows you need to know the starting level. If the person is at castration levels the results will be far different then if he was in the normal range. Adding more hormones to a person in the more normal range may have far less effects.

Think most studies with animals show with out question a changed animal. Why do you think pets (male) most likely are neutered. Makes them more easy to be around. Why would any one think the same would not be true in a human. We are animals and are driven by our genes and hormones. Wounder just how much of someones money was spent in trying to study this.

It all depends what you consider to be "aggression" and exactly what you would consider the motives to be for this "aggression". I have heard that in the Chinese view of things eunuchs tended to be viewed as much more opportunistic than other folks. If you consider "opportunism" to be a form of "aggressiveness" then having less instead of more testosterone would be what is making you more aggressive which is an exact reverse of the notion of "the non-aggressive eunuch". And of course I do know a lot of opportunistic women and children which obviously do not have all that much testosterone. So I just don't think that this study really tells you anything.

This study doesnt make any sense and doesnt seem to conform to any real standards.

I don't think Testosterone causes aggression (at least having been diagnonsed as low for years, and then getting on TRT) in my own experience. However the near complete removal of T from a man, would remove a lot of his energy/fuel.

To put it better, adding T to a normal male, isn't the same as completely removing T from a man's body...two very different things.

bobberlove (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:25 am I'm still getting my castration. I don't trust this study. I'm 64 this February and, from what I have seen in life, I have concluded

IbPervert (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:25 am 1260386520]
that testosterone causes aggressive

ness in animals and humans. I know that I need to lose my T if I am to function as an old man who needs peace and tranquility. I think this is not a good study and why Nature magazine would publish it ... perhaps to sell more magazines: the study is sensational and controversial.
[/quote]
This sells magazines. The study however didn't sell me.

I absolutely agree with bobberlove on this one.

I also do NOT trust this study.

I also believe very strongly that this "science" is flawed, and these "findings" were cooked up to sell magazines and get the quack's names and institutions into the mainstream media (i.e. Christoph Eisenegger, Ernst Fehr, and Michael Naef).

Did anyone here ever hear of or even know of any of these "scientists" before these "findings" were published? Did anyone here ever hear of the "University of Zurich" or the "Royal Holloway London " before today?

This soooooooo reminds me of an episode of "The Big Bang Theory" where Doctor Kuthrapali had been named one of People Magazine's "30 under 30" and was basking in the glory and newfound recognition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eRPGlLu ... re=related

The university's science department director (Dr. Gabelhouser) had come by Dr. Kuthrapali's cubbyhole office to tell him that he was to be given a new and much better office...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQRaR850 ... re=related

At 1:11 on this clip, the Director asks them "What is this place all about?" His answer... "Money!"

I will bet that similar scenes, albeit not comical, are taking place at the University of Zurich and the Royal Holloway London.

This study, with it's earthshattering discovery that goes completely against what the rest of the world thinks, is just another case of "man bites dog news" that is I suspect, mostly fabrication.

Instead of some very costly study, I offer something that anyone can observe on their own; go to the nearest pig farm and try to deal with a boar, (intact and not castrated male pig) and then deal with a castrated pig.

If you must see the testosterone effect in humans, and refute the pigs animal behavior, then look at the human population. Seriously, look at any society, and tell me, how many of the violent convicted felons are eunuchs? Again, look at the human population, it is a long established, scientifically proven fact, that most violent prison inmates have significantly higher levels of testosterone than the non-convict population.

Possibly, I say only possibly, these researchers have stumbled upon something, but their findings are skewed I am sure. Further, they are economists and a neuroscientist, they might have education in scientific research method, but would you ask a baker about butchering? Would you ask a butcher about candlesticks? I want to see what trained endocrinologist, psychologist and other profession

bobberlove (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:25 am als have to say on this subject.

Like bobberlove says,

"This sells magazines. The study however didn't sell me."

Not at all a well-designed or controlled study. Repeat it with better controls and methods, and we'll see.