Has the digit ratio/feminism/immigration thing been published elsewhere? If not, this is an interesting novel result.
Its also kinda worrying IMO, as it seems to indicate that (surprise, surprise) political reasoning is far more emotional than logical, logic being independent of the hormone balance of the person doing the reasoning. This also explains how open borders and basic income are both really popular, despite being mutually exclusive AFAICT (if one country has both these policies, then loads of poor people would move there, and the system would collapse. If you say that one has to have been resident for n years before being eligible for basic income, then immigrants are second class citizens, which has to cause resentment). In fact, the possibility that mass automation might make basic income necessary is a powerful reason why I am sceptical of open boarders.
If being dominant increases testosterone then this leads to a feedback effect where feminist policies make men less dominant, which lowers testosterone, which makes men more feminist.
Studies published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the journal Diabetes Care, the journal Heart and other major medical journals show that low testosterone levels not only lead to obesity, loss of muscle, weak bones and depression, but also increase the odds of heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimers and other major health problems.
So… is this scientific proof that feminism and belief in open borders are correlated with weakness and poor health (in men)? I know this sounds like I am trying to annoy people, but I can’t see a more charitable way to interpret the data. Of course, these correlations are rather weak, and ‘feminism’ is an umbrella term covering a huge range of opinions.
Its also kinda worrying IMO, as it seems to indicate that (surprise, surprise) political reasoning is far more emotional than logical, logic being independent of the hormone balance of the person doing the reasoning.
I don’t disagree with the conclusion of political reasoning being more emotional than logical, but “hormone balance affects one’s political stance” doesn’t necessarily imply that conclusion. Hormone balance could also affect your values. So even if everyone was a perfectly logical reasoner, hormone balance could still put them in different political camps since their values would be different. (The most stereotypical hormone → values pathway that comes to mind would be that both women and left-wing groups are generally thought to put a higher value on the care/harm axis of the MFT than men/right-wing groups do.)
Has the digit ratio/feminism/immigration thing been published elsewhere? If not, this is an interesting novel result.
Its also kinda worrying IMO, as it seems to indicate that (surprise, surprise) political reasoning is far more emotional than logical, logic being independent of the hormone balance of the person doing the reasoning. This also explains how open borders and basic income are both really popular, despite being mutually exclusive AFAICT (if one country has both these policies, then loads of poor people would move there, and the system would collapse. If you say that one has to have been resident for n years before being eligible for basic income, then immigrants are second class citizens, which has to cause resentment). In fact, the possibility that mass automation might make basic income necessary is a powerful reason why I am sceptical of open boarders.
If being dominant increases testosterone then this leads to a feedback effect where feminist policies make men less dominant, which lowers testosterone, which makes men more feminist.
(via http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/man-up-boost-your-testosterone-level-for-health-power-and-confidence.html)
So… is this scientific proof that feminism and belief in open borders are correlated with weakness and poor health (in men)? I know this sounds like I am trying to annoy people, but I can’t see a more charitable way to interpret the data. Of course, these correlations are rather weak, and ‘feminism’ is an umbrella term covering a huge range of opinions.
I don’t disagree with the conclusion of political reasoning being more emotional than logical, but “hormone balance affects one’s political stance” doesn’t necessarily imply that conclusion. Hormone balance could also affect your values. So even if everyone was a perfectly logical reasoner, hormone balance could still put them in different political camps since their values would be different. (The most stereotypical hormone → values pathway that comes to mind would be that both women and left-wing groups are generally thought to put a higher value on the care/harm axis of the MFT than men/right-wing groups do.)
Yes, you are quite right. My mistake.