The politics of testosterone

[Skybird]

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0007543

Background

Political elections are dominance competitions. When men win a dominance competition, their testosterone levels rise or remain stable to resist a circadian decline; and when they lose, their testosterone levels fall. However, it is unknown whether this pattern of testosterone change extends beyond interpersonal competitions to the vicarious experience of winning or losing in the context of political elections. Women's testosterone responses to dominance competition outcomes are understudied, and to date, a clear pattern of testosterone changes in response to winning and losing dominance competitions has not emerged.
Methodology/Principal Findings

The present study investigated voters' testosterone responses to the outcome of the 2008 United States Presidential election. 183 participants provided multiple saliva samples before and after the winner was announced on Election Night. The results show that male Barack Obama voters (winners) had stable post-outcome testosterone levels, whereas testosterone levels dropped in male John McCain and Robert Barr voters (losers). There were no significant effects in female voters.
Conclusions/Significance

The findings indicate that male voters exhibit biological responses to the realignment of a country's dominance hierarchy as if they participated in an interpersonal dominance contest.

Funding: This research was supported by departmental funds from Duke University (to KSL) and the University of Michigan (to JCB) and a McClelland Postdoctoral Fellowship (to SJS).

Funny only at first glance. Just imagine what it means that hormone-driven junkeys are not only controlling the election party, but also: stock exchnage markets. International diplomacy. Economic competition. Questions of war and peace. Personal antipathies between international actors. The world is not in such a catastrophic condition for no reason. Somehow we made it to become like that.

Since years I say that man is not really a creature controlled by reason, but by drives and hormones. It is true for women, too, only that their typical sexual hormones have other results ("babble-syndrome" for example , a female fetus produces up to seven times as many talk-movements with chin and mouth like a male fetus). From the way we interact with our friends (and pick them) to the interaction with the other sex in all aspects, from buying a new car to to social menners of behaviour: first we are driven by hormones and naturla drives, most often sexual ones. Only secondly we may have learned to counter and balance that a bit with reason - or not. Freud very correctly said that the layer of paint of civilisation that is covering our animalic heritage on the surface, is very, very thin.

[Platapus]

I just gots one thing ta say:

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

[Skybird]

Yes and no, Platapus, although it may lead a bit beyond this study, maybe I should have made that clear. But when I recall the aggressiveness and poison in the last campaign as well as the passions and emotions that often go far beyond the argument, I cannot avoid the very strong assumption that hormones also play a role not only in reacting to a victors, but also in motivation that goes ahead of the action. Which in case of adrenaline is almost a bagatelle information to mark, no serious scientist would deny it. However, testosterone also is linked to aggression and aggressive behavior.

[Platapus]

In reading the methodology I am concerned about some facts

- There was no sub-sample group that did not participate in the election at all. A null control group. If the null control group experiences no change in testosterone and the "N" was large enough to be representative, then this study might, just might, have some validity.

- The saliva was collected in an uncontrolled environment

- Some of the participants were drinking alcohol during the study

- Comparisons were made (and conclusions also made) with the results of the female test despite:

It is more difficult to measure salivary testosterone accurately in women than in men, and this could have contributed to the null finding in women

and

Moreover, the biological mechanism that mediates males' rapid testosterone changes (via the testes) in response to winning and losing does not have a well-researched parallel mechanism in females (via the ovaries and adrenal glands) . In combination, these factors may explain the null finding in women from both methodological and biological perspectives.

And their conclusion?

To conclude, the present results suggest that male, but not female, voters respond with testosterone changes to the outcome of presidential elections as if they had personally fought to ascend a social dominance hierarchy.

I could just see the expression on my faculty member's face if I gave her this.

I am finishing up my Doctorate. If I want to make a simple survey, I have to jump through so many academic control gates to ensure statistical and academic integrity it drives you nuts.

Then I read so some "study" where the "N" is 183 and the collection of the data is unsupervised/uncontrolled and more than half of the test subjects may be biologically unmeasurable and they are making conclusions.

I am in the wrong school. I gotta transfer to Duke for the easy grades.

[Skybird]

This is really bothering you, eh? take it easy. the findings are not that sensational that one would want to spend so much thought on them. I would say it pretty muczh tends towards what would have been expected anyway.

And a controlgroup in this case you could not have had, because almost every being in the civilised world knew that the election was held and that Obama was one candidate.

Also, some of the things you accuse them of having failed at, they have exmained for sure.For example social surrpunding of alcohol consummation had been separately tested, with a result of "None of these factors absorbed a significant portion of the variance (all Fs<1.0), and the Time x Outcome (Win/Loss) interaction was still significant and of the same magnitude (F(2, 94) = 3.27, p = 0.04). "

Also, their conclusion is quite a bit more differentiated than you quote them.

All in all they just boost the long-held theory of physiologists and behavior scientists that variations in self esteem are not only a purely cognitive process, but also have strong endocrine component.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Skybird

This is really bothering you, eh? take it easy. the findings are not that sensational that one would want to spend so much thought on them.

If you did not want to discuss it, why did you start the thread?

Have it your way though. No longer worth discussing.

[Skybird]

I loved the irony in it, and the small dose of provocation.

[MothBalls]

I love the way Wired reported this:

"Obama Win Turned Male Republicans Into Girlie Men"

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...-testosterone/

[SS107.9MHz]

Originally Posted by Platapus

In reading the methodology I am concerned about some facts

- There was no sub-sample group that did not participate in the election at all. A null control group. If the null control group experiences no change in testosterone and the "N" was large enough to be representative, then this study might, just might, have some validity.

- The saliva was collected in an uncontrolled environment

- Some of the participants were drinking alcohol during the study

- Comparisons were made (and conclusions also made) with the results of the female test despite:



and



And their conclusion?

I could just see the expression on my faculty member's face if I gave her this.

I am finishing up my Doctorate. If I want to make a simple survey, I have to jump through so many academic control gates to ensure statistical and academic integrity it drives you nuts.

Then I read so some "study" where the "N" is 183 and the collection of the data is unsupervised/uncontrolled and more than half of the test subjects may be biologically unmeasurable and they are making conclusions.

I am in the wrong school. I gotta transfer to Duke for the easy grades.

Everytime I hear "a recent survey says..." on tv, I feel the hars in the back of my neck shrivel... The majority of these so called study's are done so poorly they don't mean anything at all (although this one may have got something going there though, ehehehe)...

But anything resembling scentific content apearing in the news has to be taken with a few grains of salt, since the nature of today's news agenies is to simplify to the most any content, so it can be given to anyone in the shortest amon of time possible... I findit hard to see, read or hear an article about anything scientific wich hasn't at least one mistake about the original source, sometimes even turning the original meaning of the discovery completely around... It goes to show that news agencies need better scientific revisers or something like it...