Testosterone Doesn't Make You Anti-social Or Aggressive

[Hans]

Another study to debunk that testosterone isn't the bad guy and doesn't make you more aggressive or anti-social. It does make you better at being assertive and not accepting unfairness.

Does competition really bring out the worst? Testosterone, social distance and inter-male competition shape parochial altruism in human males. - PubMed - NCBI
"Our data show that unfair offers were rejected more frequently than fair proposals and the frequency of altruistic punishment increased with increasing social distance to the outgroups. Adding an intergroup competition led to a further escalation of outgroup hostility and reduced punishment of unfair ingroup members. High testosterone levels were associated with a relatively increased ingroup favoritism and also a change towards enhanced outgroup hostility in the intergroup competition. High testosterone concentrations further predicted increased proposer generosity in interactions with the ingroup. Altogether, a significant relation between testosterone and parochial altruism could be demonstrated, but only in the presence of an intergroup competition. In human males, testosterone may promote group coherence in the face of external threat, even against the urge to selfishly maximize personal reward. In that way, our observation refutes the view that testosterone generally promotes antisocial behaviors and aggressive responses, but underlines its rather specific role in the fine-tuning of male social cognition."

 

[ddjd]

similarly I think haidut posted a thread about how testosterone is far from responsible for men being unfaithful in relationships, but rather cortisol

 

[Hans]

similarly I think haidut posted a thread about how testosterone is far responsible for men being unfaithful in relationships, but rather cortisol

Yes and I think estrogen is involved as well. People that can't control their urges might have elevated estrogen whereas high T and low-ish E might make you more "in control" of those urges.

 

[MetabolicTrash]

Good find on more info disproving the myths of testosterone being the "evil, manly hormone of destruction" just as estrogen is touted as the "lovely, women hormones of care and morality" or such.

Basically people have the idea that testosterone is why some guys beat up/get in fights or commit crime and murder -- and that estrogen is what makes some idealistic presuppositions of women be some nice and "perfect" beings in comparison to examples of aggressive/serotonergic male types who are seen as "evil" -- black and white-ish views on sex and etc. This whole flawed premise of hormones is what created and fuels the "war on the sexes" or whatnot.

I do question the findings on the ingroup bias because I'm not certain testosterone alone is what would make one more hostile toward perceived "outgroups" or such by itself -- or would seal off and create an echo chamber of sorts possibly. I mean someone who strives to be intelligent and rational probably will not be blindly supportive of their group over others just because it is their group -- that mindset is more harboring of narcissistic group-think and self-affirmation to any depth than freer, open-mindedness and willing to take in conflicting info. Being more ruthless in competition doesn't mean one has to have tunnel vision. I guess this part is where people draw the line of aggressiveness and competition since overconfidence can easily reach the point of what others would see as delusions or being in denial/unwilling to accept new information thus "stupid" or etc. (as in being biased and developing of a mindset that one is always right aligning with ingroup bias, implicit association differences and possibly even narcissism).

Basically I don't want to think testosterone increases would make one narrow/closed-minded and taken in for group mentality/dynamics so easily, as these things have their obvious downsides. You don't get many free thinkers if people persistently subject themselves to limitations in groups and beliefs so heavily, not ever letting outside info influence them in any way. The very idea of closed mindedness is people only letting in what info supports their initial beliefs and closing off anything much beyond that, which sounds familiar with this whole ingroup bias/favoritism on some level (and possibly even anti-intelligence if taken to extremes sometimes).

I know some people talk of a, "strong character who is set in their ways," or such but this very idea seems more negative or a disservice to me than being more willing to change sometimes and accept new info/ways/understandings. If everything is set in stone, aren't you forever a rock?

 

[Tarmander]

It is a cool study, and isolating hormones out to see what they do is useful.

I also would not piss off a bunch of juiced up bikers because you know that ***t is converting to estrogen

 

[postman]

Good find on more info disproving the myths of testosterone being the "evil, manly hormone of destruction" just as estrogen is touted as the "lovely, women hormones of care and morality" or such.

Basically people have the idea that testosterone is why some guys beat up/get in fights or commit crime and murder -- and that estrogen is what makes some idealistic presuppositions of women be some nice and "perfect" beings in comparison to examples of aggressive/serotonergic male types who are seen as "evil" -- black and white-ish views on sex and etc. This whole flawed premise of hormones is what created and fuels the "war on the sexes" or whatnot.

I do question the findings on the ingroup bias because I'm not certain testosterone alone is what would make one more hostile toward perceived "outgroups" or such by itself -- or would seal off and create an echo chamber of sorts possibly. I mean someone who strives to be intelligent and rational probably will not be blindly supportive of their group over others just because it is their group -- that mindset is more harboring of narcissistic group-think and self-affirmation to any depth than freer, open-mindedness and willing to take in conflicting info. Being more ruthless in competition doesn't mean one has to have tunnel vision. I guess this part is where people draw the line of aggressiveness and competition since overconfidence can easily reach the point of what others would see as delusions or being in denial/unwilling to accept new information thus "stupid" or etc. (as in being biased and developing of a mindset that one is always right aligning with ingroup bias, implicit association differences and possibly even narcissism).

Basically I don't want to think testosterone increases would make one narrow/closed-minded and taken in for group mentality/dynamics so easily, as these things have their obvious downsides. You don't get many free thinkers if people persistently subject themselves to limitations in groups and beliefs so heavily, not ever letting outside info influence them in any way. The very idea of closed mindedness is people only letting in what info supports their initial beliefs and closing off anything much beyond that, which sounds familiar with this whole ingroup bias/favoritism on some level (and possibly even anti-intelligence if taken to extremes sometimes).

I know some people talk of a, "strong character who is set in their ways," or such but this very idea seems more negative or a disservice to me than being more willing to change sometimes and accept new info/ways/understandings. If everything is set in stone, aren't you forever a rock?

Sounds like you're trying to ascribe your personal convictions to this hormone. I don't think there is anything irrational or bad about ingroup preference, it is actually reasonable and healthy. In-group bias doesn't mean you close yourself of or won't listen to others, it just means you're biased. Endless openness and lack of vigilance towards outgroups has many downsides as well, this should be self-evident for any reasonable westerner in this day and age. Most great thinkers came out of very homogenous societies, I think if a theoretical in-group promotes free thinking and innovation, how could a bias to that be considered negative? The study talks about an "outside threat", not responding appropriately to an outside threat is irrational, weak, and culturally/politically/genetically dysgenic. It makes sense that the most healthy and virile males would be the ones to be the most protective. Just because you're open minded doesn't mean that the group you're open minded towards means you well or is genuinly open minded to your group.

 

[Peater]

Autism is known as 'hypermale' brain, but most autists aren't manly men. Testosterone is part of a bigger puzzle.

 

[opethfeldt]

Both testosterone and DHT are associated with components of aggressive behavior. The ratio of DHT to test seems to be very important in terms of determining aggressive behavior.
Androgen levels and components of aggressive behavior in men. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[lampofred]

I think serotonin is responsible for aggressive behavior by stimulating aromatase and it also increases 5a-reductase, increasing the ratio of DHT to testosterone (but this is a protective reaction to the increased estradiol, I think DHT itself is not at all responsible for aggression).

Whenever blood sugar drops (endurance exercise, alcohol, PUFA, etc.), serotonin & estradiol go up. Coconut oil, aspirin, sugar, etc. have the opposite effect.

 

[opethfeldt]

I think serotonin is responsible for aggressive behavior by stimulating aromatase and it also increases 5a-reductase, increasing the ratio of DHT to testosterone (but this is a protective reaction to the increased estradiol, I think DHT itself is not at all responsible for aggression).

Whenever blood sugar drops (endurance exercise, alcohol, PUFA, etc.), serotonin & estradiol go up. Coconut oil, aspirin, sugar, etc. have the opposite effect.

DHT increases adrenaline, which can definitely increase aggression. But it reduces serotonin fueled aggression.

 

[MetabolicTrash]

I think serotonin is responsible for aggressive behavior by stimulating aromatase and it also increases 5a-reductase, increasing the ratio of DHT to testosterone (but this is a protective reaction to the increased estradiol, I think DHT itself is not at all responsible for aggression).

Whenever blood sugar drops, serotonin & estradiol go up.

Same thing I was thinking. The whole testosterone/DHT/androgen making men (or women even) "aggressive/mean/violent/rapists/control freaks" is bunk science.

It is serotonin that likely brings the worst out of people, not testosterone or such. Ideally more testosterone should be anabolic and very much supportive of bringing out more of the best traits, not the worst as many people think.

Unfortunately there are probably too many pseudo "high T" examples people will point to for making a case against this while missing the bigger picture. It should be known that serotonin is associated with irritation, agitation, anger and moodiness, which all plays well with too much estrogen I believe usually.

Of course this is oversimplifying things, but I think this is more along the lines of how it works than just blaming it on DHT/test specifically.