T: The Story of Testosterone, the Hormone that Dominates and Divides Us (Carole Hooven)

"Solving problems requires understanding their causes"

Hooven makes the compelling argument, it seems to me, for many of her points about the “nature” of men, the origins of certain things in nature, and how it is that society and culture can actually help to ameliorate these things, a reduction in violence brought about by, “[C]enturies of large cultural and social changes, including the monopolization of violence by the state.”  The author does not play down the back and forth that exists between nature (testosterone) and the social environment; channeling he inner Thomas Sowell, “I can’t say it enough: culture matters”; the intersection between culture and “biological predispositions.”  But, humans are, in fact, animals, albeit the only animal with the capacity for abstraction, and as such, many things such as status and competition have natural origins, regardless of whether you like these things or not; “[E]volution equips males to compete for mates, thus explaining why they are frequently larger, brighter, or more pugnacious than females.”  “Culture matters, but there is no evidence that it can account for the consistent patterns of sex differences in sexuality across the globe.”  Men overwhelmingly account for all manner of, let’s be frank, stupid activities, from traffic fatalities to homicide to assault.  Contra many narratives about what is and is not natural, postulates, “For men, successful reproduction has less to do with energy-sucking reproductive physiology—growing and feeding a baby with one’s own body—and more to do with finding, competing for, and attracting mates.”  Explains (rare) genetic origins of complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, caused by a “a typo in one letter out of Jenny’s three billion DNA bases.”  Points out the kinds of play boys and girl in vary greatly, from “heroes battling bad guys” to “relationships, romance, and domestic concerns…” “[P]lay is… a way for young animals to learn and practice adult behaviors that they need to survive and reproduce.”  “The norm in much of the rest of the [non-Western] world, in less industrialized and small-scale societies, is for men to have lower levels [of T] overall.”  Goes into the biology of body differences, citing an example woman who, “[C]onverts more of her consumed energy into fat rather than muscle” which helps in producing children but can be a drag when it comes to sports.  Men alone do not have a monopoly on aggression, however, “Evolution can produce high rates and intensity of aggression in female animals, particularly when they need to compete directly for resources like food, nesting sites, or males… but overall… females benefit more from being safe and cautious and living a long, healthy life. And lower levels of aggression help to make that possible.”  Thus, fewer auto accidents.  Hooven argues that men with too much T are actually evolutionary losers, because they take too many risks that wind up in their premature death, in addition to not paying proper care to their young; “[A] human dad’s T levels tend to drop when they are in a romantic pair bond and involved in caring for their offspring... this decline in T helps direct attention away from rivals and new sexual prospects and toward one’s mate and children.”  Regarding group vs. individual aggression, “[P]roactive aggression is more likely to be perpetuated by groups of people or even institutions. [Richard Wrangham] describes a type of “coalitionary” proactive aggression that is at the heart of such atrocities as war, torture, executions, slavery, and massacres.”  Individual aggression is more likely to be “reactive.”  Echoing Francis Fukuyama, Steven Pinker, and many others on the violent history of mankind, “High rates of male aggression appear to have long been a feature of the human condition, tracing back to our distant ancestors. Ancient fossil skulls show evidence of violent conflict, including cracks and holes that are thought to result from attacks with clubs, rocks, or spears… [even] among the hunter-gatherer populations remaining today, the sex differences in homicide rates are comparable to those in the rest of the world: men commit almost all murders, mostly against other men.”  They also tend to be the ones that try to engage in heroic, if physically dangerous, activity.  As with other evolutionary accounts, points out humans, “[E]volved in response to a social environment that bears little resemblance to that of today… Strangers are therefore a novel feature of the modern human environment.”  This leads to fear.  Furthermore, our status anxiety stems from our evolutionary conditions in a small group where status mattered so much, where “[A] lack of anonymity means that any particular behavior could have far and long-lasting reputational consequences.”  “For men, high social status is more reproductively advantageous than it is for women.”  Fear, pain, and anxiety increase our likelihood of survival, evolutionary speaking; “We tend to get a rush of dopamine when we do something adaptive (or that was adaptive in our evolutionary past)” (such as intimidating a competitor).  A monkey with increased testosterone, “[B]eats up only on those beneath him on the totem pole and remains polite toward the higher-ups” – deference to authority.  But, testosterone in humans, “[D]epends heavily on individual and environmental factors, and in humans especially, winning and achieving high status can often be accomplished without any physical aggression at all.”  Thus, ferocious competition in things like business.  But, keeping with human variation, “[I]f you shot up a bunch of Buddhist monks with testosterone, it would lead not to violence but to random acts of kindness.”  Regarding male promiscuity, “[I]f another fertile female comes around, that’s another opportunity to leave offspring that may be too good to pass up… men want to do [have sex] more often, and with a greater number of people.” “An Angolan man aptly nicknamed “Big Dad” recently died, reportedly leaving behind 156 surviving kids and 250 grandkids.”  Ultimately, human children can survive without their father.  Stereotypes in men and women have origins in reality, as author approves of Andrew Sullivan’s concise analysis, “What does a lesbian bring on a second date? A U-Haul. What does a gay man bring on a second date? What second date?” – in gay men and lesbian women, our stereotypes are played up to the nines; “[T]here is truth in the stereotypes… gay men do have many more sexual partners.  Lesbians do not, and are much more likely to be sexual within committed monogamous relationships.”  Cites the experience of various transgender people, including one who transitioned and then transitioned back; “I slowly realized that my body was not the problem… I’m now… much happier overall., though still struggling with my expectations of womanhood and being myself.”  Women, “[H]ave higher rates of depression, and having lower T may have something to do with it…evidence here is not straightforward.”  Hooven takes the position that aggressive male behavior or other social problems must be understood in terms of their actual causes, instead of looking away from troubling realities.  “Solving problems requires understanding their causes. If we consistently downplay one set of potential causes (say, biological) in favor of another (say, social), then we have failed to do our best to get to the truth. And that means that we have also ignored opportunities to increase women’s safety and equality between the sexes.”  Oftentimes, “[M]en are exploiting their positions, through whatever means necessary, to have sexual encounters with a series of younger and attractive women.”  Cites Steven Pinker (and echoes Camille Paglia) on the potentially terrible nature of nature, “[T]he naturalistic fallacy is ‘the belief that whatever happens in nature is good.’… Nature is full of wonderful things, but it’s also full of truly awful things.”  Citing Pinker directly, “As soon as we recognize that there is nothing morally commendable about the products of evolution, we can describe human psychology honestly, without the fear that identifying a “natural” trait is the same as condoning it.”  What is natural, whatever that is, is not inherently good or bad.