Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

It's interesting in clinical studies of the effects of testosterone given to women, that it's always a mixed bag - that is, they always seem to find behavioral changes that can be viewed as positive, but also find changes that can be viewed as negative. This makes sense from an evolutionary point of view: if some trait is always good in every situation, every individual would evolve to have it. The fact that some do, some don't have a specific trait either means that there are both good and bad aspects to it, or that it's not important whatsoever. But if it's not important, you also wouldn't expect it to correlate well with other traits greater than random chance.

If there's a difference between members of a population that is maintained over evolutionary time, then there must be both pro's and con's to having that difference - in this case, levels of testosterone.

[alexandertnt]

I did some searching and found that Estrogen (primary female sex hormones) is quite important for the sexual drive of male mice. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15555924).

Hormones are complex

[Neonivek]

What makes hormones especially complex is that you often can never know if one hormone is responsible for one function.

Because often an increase in one hormone increases another or decreases a different one. As well some hormones work in tandem rather then isolated.

It is all a balancing act your body does.

[Angle]

First, I am NOT pro drug, I don't even like coffee or caffeine, so I think taking hormones on a whim is a terrible idea- If you're concerned go to a doctor.

That said, I think you are vastly oversimplifying the issue. There are a lot of hormones in the human body, and they interact in complex and unpredictable ways. I'm quite certain that there is more to the human sex drive than testosterone. thus, it does not follow that since men have more testosterone, they have a greater sex drive.

[scriver]

No, no, let's not try to challenge Gervassen on this. Clearly he knows these things best. I mean, gods above, he learned it in a locker room! We just can't compete with the scientific integrity of such facts.

[Gervassen]

No, no, let's not try to challenge Gervassen on this. Clearly he knows these things best. I mean, gods above, he learned it in a locker room! We just can't compete with the scientific integrity of such facts.

Personal experience counts. Welcome to real life. Many's the over-intellectualised university student nowadays with a fine sheepskin, unemployed amid job ads for people with three years relevant experience. 

University has its place, but it is not the only source of knowledge in an enlightened man's life. To hold that position is a stunted viewpoint. Confucius said that, if he walked with two men, in at least one of them he would find his teacher. I'm glad to see that you are wiser than him.

[scriver]

Oh yeah, and Confucius totally said that in the context on psychoneuroendocrinological knowledge learned in locker rooms. Glad to see we're not just trying to cover up foolishness behind famous names and out-of-place quotes here.

[Gervassen]

I'm just saying that people who have taken steroids and rubbed shoulders with others doing the same can know quite a lot about what physical, emotional, and psychological effects have occurred during wide swings in testosterone levels. You get that on a cycle. You feel that personally. On some visceral level, even a researcher collecting that data will never fully know what they know. I maintain everything and cover up nothing. The question is, why are you being so aggressive? Are you trying to cover up your mistake of idolising science like a tower of babel? Or are you just stacking deca with d-bol and filled with roid rage, bro?

But seriously, why you so mad, bro?

[Reelya]

There's truth in both positions. Clearly, testosterone does actually have mood, and other psychological effects. Those things, the locker-room observations, aren't in dispute. Testosterone is also actually used to treat both women and men for low libido.

But that still doesn't really say anything about whether men or women at normal 'average' hormone levels have higher libidos. That's just conjecture.

There are women with higher libidos than most men, and I'm sure they don't all have testosterone levels higher than the average man. Maybe women respond better to the relatively low levels of testosterone they already have or something - i.e. there's a different baseline/tolerance level.

[BurnedToast]

No, no, let's not try to challenge Gervassen on this. Clearly he knows these things best. I mean, gods above, he learned it in a locker room! We just can't compete with the scientific integrity of such facts.

Personal experience counts. Welcome to real life. Many's the over-intellectualised university student nowadays with a fine sheepskin, unemployed amid job ads for people with three years relevant experience. 

University has its place, but it is not the only source of knowledge in an enlightened man's life. To hold that position is a stunted viewpoint. Confucius said that, if he walked with two men, in at least one of them he would find his teacher. I'm glad to see that you are wiser than him.

Personal experience is called an anecdote, and it's almost completely worthless in a scientific sense.

If you don't care about that, then I suppose you can believe whatever you want. You will have to forgive the rest of us for wanting a cite more rigorous then "something some guy on the internet said he heard in a locker room" though.

[alexandertnt]

Gervassen, no irrelevant drivel about unemployed university students makes what you say any less baseless.

Are you trying to cover up your mistake of idolising science like a tower of babel? Or are you just stacking deca with d-bol and filled with roid rage, bro?

This is bizzare nonsense.

But seriously, why you so mad, bro?

This is borderline trolling.

[Vector]

Sure, the "womb problems" diagnosis was totally wrong

I was literally discussing this, and only this. The stereotype of people thinking that women went crazy when they didn't get enough sex led to a lot of bad science.

[Toady One]

(Gervassen is a ban-dodge account.  Situation has been remedied.)

[Tiruin]

o-o

Gervassen, I really think you should in the least analyze your own viewpoint in these matters. Science, in its most basic state, aims to understand the world around us and our selves. Psychology, Biology, Endocrinology...all branches of the tree of science, so to speak. Science is based on observations-records, ideas. Compared, analyzed, point-by-point made into understanding concepts that mere personal observation does not hold unless you could explain the idea you push to its miniscule idea, or in the least explain it in enough detail that it makes universal sense.

What I could glean from your...note on science there seems like you've a different idea on it. Or...not a vast enough observation or exposure to such ideas to detail it well. You have good points, but some points are just erring in the wrong.
^{I mean its not like most of my questions were ignored too but >_>}
I mean, given your details, what I can glean is that you've discovered what it is to know...'man'...because of steroid use. That by some vague degree, its what defines manliness, or by some reason states that hormones should be the ones to govern you.
What I'd like to know are the roots of these things rather than superficial details. Causes. Roots. Answers to Why and How.
^{And I'd like my questions answered too, so it would be clear.}


PPE:
Oh huh, I felt something was really off there.

[Angle]

O-O indeed.

I am now picturing a giant toad dropping out of the sky and crushing Gervassen, then jumping back to whence it came._{Do not anger the toad.}

Anyway, where were we?