Are men really more violent than women?

[Francesca R]

Yeah, keep guessing Lonewulf

 

[Lonewulf]

Yeah, keep guessing Lonewulf

Of course, if I were wrong, the the most educational step you could commit to (helping to put the E in JREF, as so many talk about) would be explaining your intended tactic in this thread, instead of useless commital to pith. Seriously, do you plan on paying for the pixels you killed with a post with such a lack of content?

Either way, it seems like honest debate isn't intended. Anything that dares to contradict the pre-drawn conclusions are met with dismissals and claims of "using statistics to lie".

Such a pity, as you're about as unopen as you can be. Not necessarily dishonest, but not up front either.

 

[Lonewulf]

I have very little time today but I do just want to say this: there is absolutely no reason to suppose that a propensity to violence is inherent: and if that is what you think I am arguing I deny it completely.

Then perhaps we agree more than we disagree.

What I find interesting is how uncontroversial your statement seems to be, even though others seem to have already drawn the conclusion that men are innately violent...

As with all social issues the situation is extremely complex and in my view it is folly to imagine that causation has been established: I do not believe it is possible to do that even in principle; though of course research can give us clues.

The problem here is nothing to do with causation: even if you believe that we could answer that in principle we are not there yet, are we? As this thread shows we are not even agreed that there is anything to investigate and that is what the op addresses.

There are those who are arguing that in some mysterious sense both genders are equally violent. If that is true then we have nothing to discuss after that fact is established. I do not think it is true and so far what we have as evidence of it is on the one hand a mystical attribution in the absence of behavioural indicators: and on the other some assertions that research into domestic violence shows that in that context women are equally violent. I have not had time to address the latter point properly but the evidence propounded so far is suspect on both methodological and interpretative grounds. Sceptigirl and others have dismissed it in shorthand but in fact what I have read so far does tend to support the idea that you can get to this conclusion only if you count "slamming doors" the same as "breaking jaws" (that is a bit of an exaggeration but it does make a serous point, and that point is so far ignored in this discussion. It has only been answered on the basis of greater physical strength but this is not adequate because some of that same research is claiming that injury is more severe in female on male domestic violence: we cannot have it both ways.

However that turns out (and I will give this more time when I have it) it is counter intuitive: science often is but if it is it needs to be robust because the evidence of violent crime is evidence and any alternative explanation not only has to be possible it has to be able to account for the other facts in at least a plausible way: there are many stories we can tell about how things happen: but in this case, again, we are not at the stage of explanation or interpretation: we are arguing about whether there are facts to explain. I think there are. I think the crime statistics cited show that there are: and I think they must be included if we are to discard those facts or reframe them.

I do not think those who blithely assert it is testosterone or social conditioning or anything else are necessarily wrong: but for the purpose of this thread they have skipped a stage. It is perfectly possible to skip that stage and to be honest a lot of us are weary of having to re-invent the wheel every five minutes: we are a bit more concerned in how to reduce the level of violence: less with philosophical speculation about its cause. And if that is your concern then having to continually "prove" that men carry out most acts of violence in our society at this time is frustrating: because so much evidence supports that conclusion. But hey ho: emotions run high and there is clearly a strong will to debunk that. I don't mind that and I will engage, but it is a bit like the search for a gay gene. Some issues never go away and are the subject of ongoing research long past the stage where that makes any sense at all. They are often emotive issues and this is not something that is likely to change. If such research eventually finds something which does not involve denying observable facts: which does not violate the normal rules of investigation and interpretation: which does not rest on semantics rather than substantive information: then that will be marvellous. But, while I will try to address any such evidence honestly, I have not seen anything yet which seems robust in face of cross cultural agreement about higher rates of male violence: careful collation of records of actual instances of violence in all sorts of contexts (crime statistics; hospital admissions of both genders; the evidence from actual behaviour in response to what appears to be well-founded fear of sexual violence as compared to fear of false allegations of sexual assault): and all the other evidence and anecdote which underpins this conclusion.

If we are to be truly sceptical a possible story is not enough: there has to be evidence and then a different interpretation which fits ALL of the facts better than the current one.

A little much to go into right now. However, I do believe that there is more to research in the subject. For instance, why are female youth seemingly rising up in violence in certain countries? Are the reasons social, biological, genetic? It seems to center around the former. There certainly seems to be more to study here than the content-free posts of others here seem to note.

But I'll be declared a PC crybaby or whatever, even though ultimately I seem to agree with you more than disagree.

 

[Fiona]

I resent that Lonewulf. Insofar as there has been some shorthand you and others are correct to draw attention to that and to ask for elaboration: nothing wrong with that. But now you are just dismissing substantive points and constructing strawmen.

There is absolutely no difficult in applying the same wider perspective to this issue as to the over-representation of certain races in the crime statistics and indeed if the fact of greater male violence is accepted that is the next step. If that is what you wish to discuss then I am happy to do that too.

But this is not what we are talking about. The fact that black people are over-represented in the crime statistics and in jail is not disputed. There is some argument about the extent to which this is due to social circumstances; false conviction; biased policing; etc etc. Most commentators I have read tend to say that there is an element of injustice in these findings; but also that the social and economic circumstances do actually lead to more crime in those groups. Of course if you draw the group in a different way (eg on the basis of social class) some of those differences disappear and this teaches us something - this has been shown in relation to the educational achievement of boys in the uk: black boys do worse in comparison with the general population but not in relation to the poorest white boys: this is important because a simplistic focus on colour has led to corrective policies based on a false premise and has incidentally led to increased racial tensions through resentment on the basis of what is perceived as "privilege" in terms of allocation of resource).

I think the same kind of comparison is what gumboot is trying to achieve with his focus on domestic violence. His rationale for using that situation is not persuasive to me, though it is possible he can make a better case than he has done so far. Gumboot does accept that men are more violent, though. Sometimes he does. Then he seems to withdraw that. Then he says it again. This is what I am trying to clarify. Because if the proposition is that men and women are equally violent then that is an extraordinary claim and it need strong evidence to counter what we already know. It has no so far been provided.

At other times he (and others, including you, I think) seem to have a problem with the word "prone" because you seem to assume it entails some inherent property. It does not. It implies a pattern of behaviour and has nothing to say at all about causation. Really. Nothing at all. That is a different question.

For the record I am not in any gang. I am not generally a team player. I do try to address what people are saying and if I get that wrong I am open to being corrected. Please extend the same courtesy. Shorthand is not so good where we do not share premises and where that turns out to be the case more elaboration is required. Ed knows I am apt to over-explain - it gets me lynched in the mafia games quite often . But this is why I do

For example - someone said that the greater incidence of male violence was due to testosterone. I do not hold that view as it happens: but I recognise this (and if I am putting words in the mouths of those who do hold it then I am happy for them to correct me too): the school of thought which sees this is not addressing whether the difference exists - they take that as read because of the evidence which we currently have. They have moved on to try to explain it. Testosterone explanations are underpinned by cross cultural findings that a preponderance of male violence is found across time and space. This is a common approach to the analysis of variance and many fields accept that where a finding is replicated across cultures that is evidence of a biological component: and there are methods for finding out how large that is. I am not myself that interested in such findings for reasons which are not especially relevant here. My point is that you should do your opponents the courtesy of assuming they have reasons for their views and if you do not understand them then you should explore rather than constructing straw men only to dismiss them.

We learn best when our opponents present their best case. We none of us always to that at first for lots of reasons - an assumption of shared premise which turns out not to be true: frustration at going through the same old argument time and again: or any number of other reasons. There is no reason to suppose that anyone here is glib because they have nothing better: find out.

I am sorry if this feels like an attack on you but I am massively disappointed by your contributions to this thread: it is so unlike you. And the topic happens to be important to me. Important enough to put me in danger of losing objectivity certainly and I am conscous of that: but also important enough to put up with what seems to me to be frivolity and at times outright misogyny. I try to keep rational and calm because the topic is important and it deserves that. You are not making it easy, however

ETA: cross posted. I apologise again if this is over the top, especially in light of your last post, Lonewulf. I am really pushed for time today and cannot say more, but I do recognise this is emotive for us all and that my frustration is mirrored by that of the other side. I would like to post about that too, at some point: but not today

 

[Darat]

...snip... And if that is your concern then having to continually "prove" that men carry out most acts of violence in our society at this time is frustrating: because so much evidence supports that conclusion.


...snip...

Isn't it that there are quite legitimate questions and claims raised about whether what we see from the statistics can then be used to argue that men are "inherently", "more prone" or whatever phrase you want to use to commit acts of violence then women are?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'd be interested in a source of this information. I was under the impression there was a direct correlation even if it wasn't absolute or the only factor.

http://mesomorphosis.com/articles/bahrke/bahrke05.htm

3.2.3 Testosterone Levels and Aggression in Prisoners

Relating testosterone levels to mood, behaviour, and psychological inventories in other populations has been somewhat easier and is no doubt responsible for the seeming consensus that testosterone levels are related to aggression in humans. In 1972, Kreuz and Rose (1972) studied levels of plasma testosterone, fighting and verbal aggression in prison, and past criminal behaviour in 21 young prisoners. Several psychological tests [BDHI, IPAT Anxiety Scale, and Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlow 1960)] were administered. Although plasma testosterone levels, measured over 2 weeks, did not differ in those classified as fighting and nonfighting individuals based upon prison records, the 10 prisoners with histories of more violent and aggressive crimes in adolescence did exhibit significantly higher levels of testosterone than the 11 prisoners without such a history. Unlike Persky et al. (1971), Kreuz and Rose found that, although there were significant correlations among psychological tests, none of the test scales (hostility, anxiety, and social desirability) correlated with plasma testosterone. Nor did any test scales correlate with fighting behaviour. Perhaps the most important contribution of the Kreuz and Rose study is the presentation of the hypothesis that within a population that is predisposed by virtue of social factors to develop antisocial behaviours, levels of testosterone may be an important additional factor (a promoter rather than an initiator) in placing individuals at risk for violent or criminal behaviour.

Far more info. on the site than just the above snippet. Basically it is unclear how testosterone relates to aggressive behaviour. For example:

In contrast to the above studies, Meyer-Bahlburg et al. (1974) in a replication of the Persky et al. Study, with a sample of normal male undergraduate students selected on the basis of 4 BDHI subscales which constitute Buss and Durkee’s factor II, found no significant differences in the blood production rate, plasma levels, or urinary levels of androgens in 5 low-aggression and 6 high-aggression subjects. Monti et al. (1977) likewise failed to find any correlation between aggression (as measured by the BDHI or as derived from observer ratings) and the concentration of circulating testosterone in 101 healthy 20- to 30-year-old males, who displayed a wide range of both testosterone values and BDHI responses.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Then you are also stuck with a chicken-egg situation: does higher testosterone cause aggression, or does being aggressive raise testosterone levels?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I'm certainly glad you all have it all figured out. I'm sure that you also draw the conclusion that blacks are innately more violent as whites; the statistics back you up, so it must therefore be evident, right? Or is it a "warped application of the principle of 'sceptical (sic) analysis'" just "warped" by OMG PC PEOPLE when they question judging by sex instead of by race?

I do find it interesting to see how you will justify either judging African Americans based on race alone, or find a way to describe why I'm using a "warped application" of "sceptical analysis" works one way but not the other...

This fallacy is called a false analogy.

If you want to argue that the discrepancy between men and women in jail is based on the same underlying reasons as the discrepancy between black men and white men in jail you need to address what your hypothesis is. You would need to show the difference is in lawyers, sentence length and severity and so on. But the actual difference is in the crimes committed themselves. Your analogy fails.

 

[Lonewulf]

This fallacy is called a false analogy.

If you want to argue that the discrepancy between men and women in jail is based on the same underlying reasons as the discrepancy between black men and white men in jail you need to address what your hypothesis is. You would need to show the difference is in lawyers, sentence length and severity and so on. But the actual difference is in the crimes committed themselves. Your analogy fails.

"The actual difference is in the crimes committed themselves"? Explain for the slower members of the class, please.

So you are willing to draw the conclusion that men are innately violent, but ignore that the same kind of evidence would point to African Americans to being innately violent, given the same conclusion you leaped to?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then you are also stuck with a chicken-egg situation: does higher testosterone cause aggression, or does being aggressive raise testosterone levels?

I just saw a relevant educational program that provides the theory behind the evolution of more violence in men (besides the obvious hunter vs gatherer roles and so on).

Math, game theory and observation in the animal world has resulted in an equation for evolving a mix of competitive vs cooperative behaviors in all animal species including humans.

Here's the simplified version:

For the aggressive strategy to be successful you have a cost. The aggressor wins, loses or wins but suffers damage. Taking two aggressors competing for food/reproduction you have the reward minus the cost divided by 2. Taking 2 cooperating animals you have the reward divided by 2 which results in a higher number mathematically.

So when there is sufficient reward, cooperating results in a higher number, when there isn't then the aggressive strategy may be better. The evolutionary result is a mix of these behaviors within and between animal species.

It's no surprise men evolved to be more violent than women and that women evolved to be more cooperative than men. It's also no surprise that this is not an absolute. There are smaller numbers of violent women and cooperative men within each group.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"The actual difference is in the crimes committed themselves"? Explain for the slower members of the class, please.

So you are willing to draw the conclusion that men are innately violent, but ignore that the same kind of evidence would point to African Americans to being innately violent, given the same conclusion you leaped to?

[Edited, I reread it.] Crimes committed is pretty clear. Are women getting off on murder and violent assaults that men are going to jail for? No.

The answer to the second question is yes because you are ignoring all the additional variables and evidence. Your analogy is false. You are cherry picking one aspect of the analogy and trying to equate the two things. That is what is meant by false analogy.

False analogy^WP

In false analogies, though A and B may be similar in one respect (such as color) they may not both share property X (e.g. size). [1] Thus, even if bananas and the sun appear yellow, one could not conclude that they are the same size.

Thus even though the difference in numbers between men and women in prison and between blacks and whites in prison is the same property, the reasons for the difference and the means of coming to a conclusion about the underlying cause of the different numbers in each case is not the same.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is more than just the obvious prison evidence, the crime evidence, and the abuse evidence. While M Thatcher may have sent England to war with Argentina and perhaps a few other Queens and women leaders in history were also responsible for wars, the general rule is men start and fight wars way more often than women do.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually in terms of domestic violence, women are more likely to use lethal weapons than men.....

So what then, we just have poorer aim?

This argument is pure bull as are the majority of the references you cited claiming women are just as violent domestically as men or more so. I debunked those sources in another thread which made these same BS claims. The studies you cited are lies published by groups such as the "Los Angeles chapter of the National Coalition of Free Men group that raises awareness of gender inequalities".

Explain why women are seriously injured and murdered by their male partners at such higher rates than men are seriously injured and murdered by their female partners?

WA Post

The number of women killed by current or former partners fell from 1,572 in 1993 to 1,159 in 2004, or 26 percent. The number of men killed dropped from 698 to 385, or 45 percent.

The number of men here includes men killed by male domestic partners. The number of Lesbians who killed domestic partners is minimal.

 

[Lonewulf]

I resent that Lonewulf.

Uh, which part?

Insofar as there has been some shorthand you and others are correct to draw attention to that and to ask for elaboration: nothing wrong with that. But now you are just dismissing substantive points and constructing strawmen.

I'm responding to what I see posted, and responding to the tone in which it is presented.

Furthermore, it is difficult for me to take this discussion seriously when anything that doesn't back up what posters like Francesca think as "mumbo jumbo" and using statistics dishonestly. It demonstrates that there is lack of an honest desire to actually discuss the topic, outside of yourself, of course. Francesca, for instance, has further rejected articles out-of-hand. So I fail to see how there's much hope for this debate in the first place.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh. We'll see.

There is absolutely no difficult in applying the same wider perspective to this issue as to the over-representation of certain races in the crime statistics and indeed if the fact of greater male violence is accepted that is the next step. If that is what you wish to discuss then I am happy to do that too.

I consider it an important step in this discussion, yes.

And I haven't disagreed with there being a greater amount of violence, at least statistically.

But this is not what we are talking about. The fact that black people are over-represented in the crime statistics and in jail is not disputed.

No, merely ignored.

There is some argument about the extent to which this is due to social circumstances; false conviction; biased policing; etc etc. Most commentators I have read tend to say that there is an element of injustice in these findings; but also that the social and economic circumstances do actually lead to more crime in those groups.

I know of at least one person who's been falsely arresting for defending himself from a girlfriend that wielded a knife at him (he was criticized for not restraining her instead of fending her off). However, I'm willing to admit that such cases are very rare.

I do think that social circumstances have an effect here (what Skeptigirl refers to as "[fill in the blank by some contrived reason]"); I do think that males are, on a higher average, more encouraged and accepted as the "troublemaker". I do think that this has an influence myself.

Of course if you draw the group in a different way (eg on the basis of social class) some of those differences disappear and this teaches us something - this has been shown in relation to the educational achievement of boys in the uk: black boys do worse in comparison with the general population but not in relation to the poorest white boys: this is important because a simplistic focus on colour has led to corrective policies based on a false premise and has incidentally led to increased racial tensions through resentment on the basis of what is perceived as "privilege" in terms of allocation of resource).

*Nods*

I think the same kind of comparison is what gumboot is trying to achieve with his focus on domestic violence. His rationale for using that situation is not persuasive to me, though it is possible he can make a better case than he has done so far. Gumboot does accept that men are more violent, though. Sometimes he does. Then he seems to withdraw that. Then he says it again. This is what I am trying to clarify.

I suppose that in the end, I'm a bit more neutral on this subject than I may otherwise seem. I just respond with contentless pith harsher than most, I think. Those that show a lack of respect deserve none, IMO.

I'm not sure what Gumboot believes on this subject, and you are free to get a concrete answer from him all you want, naturally.

Because if the proposition is that men and women are equally violent then that is an extraordinary claim and it need strong evidence to counter what we already know. It has no so far been provided.

At other times he (and others, including you, I think) seem to have a problem with the word "prone" because you seem to assume it entails some inherent property. It does not. It implies a pattern of behaviour and has nothing to say at all about causation. Really. Nothing at all. That is a different question.

This claim is made, but I'm not sure that no one in this thread truly believes that. They do seem to believe that men are innately violent, and as Skeptigirl said above, Evolution made them that way; society has nothing to do with it.

I do believe that society and childhood experiences are more important than some are making it out to be here.

For the record I am not in any gang. I am not generally a team player.

Neither am I, really. Hence the name.

I do find it interesting how many posts end up more as "Rah rah!" posts more than anything. It seems like people are backing each other up as if they were making a football defense more than an argument.

I do try to address what people are saying and if I get that wrong I am open to being corrected. Please extend the same courtesy.

Okay.

Shorthand is not so good where we do not share premises and where that turns out to be the case more elaboration is required.

I understand.

Ed knows I am apt to over-explain - it gets me lynched in the mafia games quite often . But this is why I do

It seems like you were cut off here a bit...

Ironic that you'd leave a sentence half finished while talking about over-explaining.

For example - someone said that the greater incidence of male violence was due to testosterone. I do not hold that view as it happens: but I recognise this (and if I am putting words in the mouths of those who do hold it then I am happy for them to correct me too): the school of thought which sees this is not addressing whether the difference exists - they take that as read because of the evidence which we currently have. They have moved on to try to explain it. Testosterone explanations are underpinned by cross cultural findings that a preponderance of male violence is found across time and space. This is a common approach to the analysis of variance and many fields accept that where a finding is replicated across cultures that is evidence of a biological component: and there are methods for finding out how large that is. I am not myself that interested in such findings for reasons which are not especially relevant here. My point is that you should do your opponents the courtesy of assuming they have reasons for their views and if you do not understand them then you should explore rather than constructing straw men only to dismiss them.

I don't believe that I constructed straw men, but I see your point here. Okay.

We learn best when our opponents present their best case.

It's hard for me to believe that anyone is intending to present their best case when they post some of what they have posted. I seem to be seeing more pith than anything so far.

We none of us always to that at first for lots of reasons - an assumption of shared premise which turns out not to be true: frustration at going through the same old argument time and again: or any number of other reasons. There is no reason to suppose that anyone here is glib because they have nothing better: find out.

I am sorry if this feels like an attack on you but I am massively disappointed by your contributions to this thread: it is so unlike you.

I am massively disappointed by the other contributions to this thread I've seen myself, so it's even all around.

And the topic happens to be important to me. Important enough to put me in danger of losing objectivity certainly and I am conscous of that: but also important enough to put up with what seems to me to be frivolity and at times outright misogyny.

Misogyny? That's an interesting assessment. I fail to see how you would draw that conclusion.

Is it possible to be misogynous and PC at the same time?

In fact, I think that I might have more cause to make a case for androgyny than you would misogyny, although I don't care to. That would confuse the issue, not clarify it anyways.

I try to keep rational and calm because the topic is important and it deserves that. You are not making it easy, however

Well, I don't have a reputation of making it easy on most people. I'm not exactly a popular poster here anyways, and I admit fault in most situations.

ETA: cross posted. I apologise again if this is over the top, especially in light of your last post, Lonewulf.

Well, aside from the suggestion of misogyny, I'm not sure if I would refer it to as over the top. Very wordy, perhaps.

Maybe you could co-author the novel I'm writing from NanoWriMo? I need about 39,800 more words in 8 days.

I kid, I kid.

I am really pushed for time today and cannot say more, but I do recognise this is emotive for us all and that my frustration is mirrored by that of the other side. I would like to post about that too, at some point: but not today

Well, I can only say in my defense (and I admit it is a sparse one), that I responded to most posts in the same light as they were made in the first place, at least in my view.

 

[Lonewulf]

I don't know what you mean by "slower members of the class".

C'mon, we both know I'm the stupid one here. I admit it, I tend to be slow and get lost in big words, at least in the scientific sense. I'm more of a writer of fiction than science, and a reader as well.

The fact that I'm reading these posts while stressed for unrelated reasons and usually tired out of my mind isn't helping matters.

The answer to the second question is yes because you are ignoring all the additional variables and evidence. Your analogy is false. You are cherry picking one aspect of the analogy and trying to equate the two things. That is what is meant by false analogy.

Only one aspect? Okay...

False analogy^WPThus even though the difference in numbers between men and women in prison and between blacks and whites in prison is the same property, the reasons for the difference and the means of coming to a conclusion about the underlying cause of the different numbers in each case is not the same.

I thought that skepticism as to the underlying cause of the different numbers was the whole reason for this debate in the first place.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://mesomorphosis.com/articles/bahrke/bahrke05.htm



Far more info. on the site than just the above snippet. Basically it is unclear how testosterone relates to aggressive behaviour. For example:

I think the problem here is in filtering out the other variables. We do know that taking anabolic steroids to build muscle results in pathologic aggression, for example. I'll take a closer look later.

 

[Lonewulf]

We do know that taking anabolic steroids to build muscle results in pathologic aggression, for example. I'll take a closer look later.

Are you referring to Roid Rage, or is that a separate condition?

I was under the impression that "Roid Rage" was under controversy, and nothing was demonstrated conclusively.

From the Wikipedia article (yes, Wikipedia, so sue me):

"Roid rage"

Another condition that is frequently discussed as a possible side effect of anabolic steroids is known as "roid rage"; however there is no consensus in the medical literature as to whether such a condition actually exists. Testosterone levels are indeed associated with aggression and hypomania, but the link between other anabolic steroids and aggression remains unclear.[95] While some studies have shown a correlation between manic symptoms and anabolic steroid use,[96] later studies have questioned these conclusions.[97] Currently, three blind studies have demonstrated a link between aggression and steroid use, but with estimates of over one million past or current steroid users in the United States, an extremely small percentage of those using steroids appear to have experienced mental disturbance severe enough to result in clinical treatments or medical case reports.[98][99] Individual studies vary in their findings, with some reporting no increase in aggression or hostility with anabolic steroid use, and others finding a correlation.[100][101] Including a study of two pairs of identical twins, in which one twin used anabolic steroids and the other did not, found that in both cases the steroid-using twin exhibited high levels of aggressiveness, hostility, anxiety and paranoid ideation not found in the "control" twin.[102]

It has previously been theorized that some studies showing a correlation between angry behavior and steroid use are confounded by the fact that steroid users are likely to demonstrate cluster B personality disorders prior to administering steroids.[103] In addition, many case studies have concluded anabolic steroids have little or no real effect on increased aggressive behavior.[97][81][104][105]

From here.

One of the cited articles is here:

Ann Clinn Pyschiatry.

N Engl J Med. 1996 Jul 4;335(1):1-7

Various other sources seems to come to similar conclusions. I'm not sure if I am willing to throw as much surety in the subject as you are.

The italicized seems to be pretty damning though. I'll have to look into that; I missed that when citing the article.

EDIT: Hm, looks like it may be less controversial than I originally had thought.

According to Eur Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;21(8):563-9. Epub 2006 Mar 16 (the source cited in the italicized), the study found "high levels of aggressiveness, hostility, anxiety and paranoid ideation in the twins who used AS. The non-user twins showed no deviation from their initial status. CONCLUSION: The use of AAS induced several important psychiatric changes in monozygotic twins which were not present in the twin who did not use AAS."

So yeah, okay. I'm willing to accept your conclusion now, when it comes to the use of anabolic steroids.

(Wonder if I should just delete this post).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's funny, Lonewulf. I started to say your link said this:

Testosterone levels are indeed associated with aggression and hypomania, but the link between other anabolic steroids and aggression remains unclear.[95]

Then I got to the end of your post.

I didn't know the steroid side effects of rage were in question. I see now they aren't. But leave the post. It's an example of what we should be doing, changing our views when the evidence supports changing them.

 

[Lonewulf]

That's funny, Lonewulf. I started to say your link said this:

Then I got to the end of your post.

I didn't know the steroid side effects of rage were in question. I see now they aren't. But leave the post. It's an example of what we should be doing, changing our views when the evidence supports changing them.

Well, there does seem to have been some controversy as to the aggression part of steroid use (there are side effects of steroid use that have nothing to do with increased aggression, after all), although I'm pretty darn persuaded by the evidence.

I am not immune to being wrong, after all.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Then you are also stuck with a chicken-egg situation: does higher testosterone cause aggression, or does being aggressive raise testosterone levels?

It's been proven that the testosterone levels of ALL men dramatically increased after Ozzy Osbourne bit that head off the live chicken. So yes, it is a chicken/egg scenario.

Oh wait, that was a live bat. Ergo, we have a bat/man scenario.