Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu
From: geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: sex/gender
Message-ID: <3144@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>
Date: 26 Jul 89 15:10:28 GMT
References: <8907071844.AA10158@cattell.psych.upenn.edu> <10546@polya.Stanford.EDU> <12869@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <10781@polya.Stanford.EDU> <3118@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> <43161@bbn.COM>
Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Reply-To: elroy!ames!cadre.dsl.pitt.edu!geb (Gordon E. Banks)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 57
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R


In article <43161@bbn.COM> elroy!ames!BBN.COM!rshapiro (Richard Shapiro) writes:
>
>Yes, indeed, it's well known that testosterone levels in (non-human)
>animals are directly correlated with something we might call
>"aggression". But raw aggression in this sense is so thoroughly
>regulated in human society that it's not at all obvious that
>testosterone has any significant effect on human behavior.

I'm not sure what controlled studies have been done, but patients
receiving testosterone replacement definitely know when their levels
are too high or low (or perhaps their wives and coworkers can tell
better) by their touchiness.  One of the major problems with
atheletes on anabolic steroids is their aggressivness.  In football,
perhaps this is an asset (not always, if you get tossed from the games).
You seem to be making some very unjustified assumptions yourself.  First,
who says that human aggression is better regulated than in animal societies?
Our societies are extremely violent, with crimes and wars occurring all the
time.  What makes you think we are any less aggressive than animals?
Animals have social conventions that have been very well studied
for preventing aggression (see the studies on wolves for example).
I don't think you have a leg to stand on making the argument that
humans are any different in this regard.  The testosterone makes the
animals so they breach the social conventions and you have males
of lower rank attacking larger and stronger males even though they
normally would submit to the hierarchy.  

Next, the chemical structure of the hormone is extremely similar
in humans and animals, the receptors are present in the same tissues
(including brain).  Thus there is every expectation that it serves
the same purpose in humans as it does in every other species.  If
you are claiming it doesn't, shouldn't you be providing a reasonable
alternative explanation, with some evidence to back it up?  

[There appears to be very little concrete evidence one way or the other on
*either* side of this.  Both sides could stand to assume the burden of
proof if they're to garner any acceptance. - MHN]

>The obvious questions to me are: why this *insistence* on claiming a
>physiological basis for these behaviors? Why are you so anxious to
>make this reduction, when there isn't any evidence for it (despite
>diligent searches for such evidence)? What other assumptions are you
>making that lead you to approach the issue in this way?

I suppose I read evidence differently than you do.  My inclination
is to seek explanations for *all* phenomena that I see around me in the
natural world, rather than consider them to be separate or part of a
different realm.  I have been this way ever since I can remember,
having read books about astronomy, physics, and biology from the time
I learned how to read.  I can certainly imagine that a sociologist
or a humanist would see things differently.  But saying that a social
order is based in nature (as all of them really are) does not
mean it is being justified as good or the only possible course.
I believe that humans have (by nature) more complex social structures 
than other animals and indeed *can*
override the more bestial aspects of our natures.  Yes, I do believe
that males are naturally more aggressive and that women are oppressed
and subjected largely because of male natures, which we have inherited
from our animal forbears.  However, I also believe that we can
use the thinking part of our nature to evolve ethical and social
systems whereby we can suppress and overcome our "baser" tendancies,
and that the fact that these baser natures exist does not mean
that we should just let "nature take its course".