• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The co-evolution of advanced human culture and liberal thinking:

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
norseamd said:
This conjecture is just wrong on so many properties.
Click to expand...

Hay stupid, this is a forum on which, if you don't agree with something, you have the opportunity to argue your case rather than barf horseshit opinion.

For example, see how profound I look when I tell you the conjectures are solid and logical. See I win. Jesus, are you 5?
 
Moonbeam if you were physically next to a male silverback gorilla or a male common chimpanzee which would you be more afraid of?
 
Moonbeam said:
Jesus Christ, did you learn to read in school. It correlates civilization with decreased testosterone in people, men and women, you idiot, about 50,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't (and can't) determine which is cause and which is effect. Perhaps testosterone levels dropped as a consequence of agriculture and the rise of domesticated animals, if you don't have to hunt and kill your dinner every night, you don't need to be all that aggressive. To simply make the leap that humans suddenly became kinder and gentler through a spontaneous mutation is wishful thinking at best.

It's an interesting bit of information, but it reads like agenda driven science, and that ain't science at all.
 
Is this an example of high testosterone?

John Wayne wearing a cowboy hat, smoking a cigarette, and carrying a purse:

tumblr_lm1rctiG6Z1qcs4zto1_500.jpg
 
Astrallite said:
Isn't that just a picture of an Ashenazi Jewish guy? It's been pretty well known they have low testosterone levels as a group for a long time. Hell the joke about the lack of Jewish athletes have been around forever. And while Ashkenazis are very liberal in America, they are very conservative in Israel, so I don't know if theory of low testosterone = liberalism is necessarily true.
Click to expand...

You apparently haven't heard of the bear jew.
 
Greenman said:
But it doesn't (and can't) determine which is cause and which is effect. Perhaps testosterone levels dropped as a consequence of agriculture and the rise of domesticated animals, if you don't have to hunt and kill your dinner every night, you don't need to be all that aggressive. To simply make the leap that humans suddenly became kinder and gentler through a spontaneous mutation is wishful thinking at best.

It's an interesting bit of information, but it reads like agenda driven science, and that ain't science at all.
Click to expand...

You raise very interesting and pointed questions. I gather from the link that scientists know that the kinds of morphology that existed in human skeletons older that 50,000 years ago had features that testosterone creates and that their disappearance and appearance of modern type skulls and bones happen with less testosterone present, hence the theory that either testosterone decreased at that time or for other reasons had less effect. So one of those two things caused the other, the change in skull shape.

So there may be cause and effect there, but it was also at that time that human culture began to show lots of new innovations. The link between one and the other there is more theory and conjecture, I would agree.

I don't think agriculture is a viable counter argument, however, because I think that was more like ten thousand years ago, rather than fifty thousand. You can be less aggressive if you are smarter in catching your dinner too.

But given the nature of evolution, there is some survival benefit generally associated with what genes get passed on. The notion that survival of the fittest created a lot of early theorizing that man as killer ape explained our world dominance as a species but that has begun to come under question.

That notion has been replaced, I believe, with the notion that our success rests on cooperation. I am the one, I think, that put a political spin on that. It amuses me to call conservatives defensive and have them prove it. It is possible, however, that among the scientific community that favors the cooperation angle, there could be some liberal bias. I don't know. But I do think they make a good case.

Furthermore, with regard to conservative defensiveness, all the folk in this thread who favor the notion of aggression as the road to human success and poo poo the notions I suggest are just as humanly modern as I am, all members of the same liberal cooperative race as me. They are all metro-sexuals. Their defensive self hate is what makes them feel like they are being called primitive. 😉 They are trying to defend a type of human that's been gone for 50,000 years.
 
Moonbeam said:
You raise very interesting and pointed questions. I gather from the link that scientists know that the kinds of morphology that existed in human skeletons older that 50,000 years ago had features that testosterone creates and that their disappearance and appearance of modern type skulls and bones happen with less testosterone present, hence the theory that either testosterone decreased at that time or for other reasons had less effect. So one of those two things caused the other, the change in skull shape. So there may be cause and effect there, but it was also at that time that human culture began to show lots of new innovations. The link between one and the other there is more theory and conjecture, I would agree. I don't think agriculture is a viable counter argument, however, because I think that was more like ten thousand years ago, rather than fifty thousand. You can be less aggressive if you are smarter in catching your dinner too. But given the nature of evolution, there is some survival benefit generally associated with what genes get passed on. The notion that survival of the fittest created a lot of early theorizing that man as killer ape explained our world dominance as a species but that has begun to come under question. That notion has been replaced, I believe, with the notion that our success rests on cooperation. I am the one, I think, that put a political spin on that. It amuses me to call conservatives defensive and have them prove it. It is possible, however, that among the scientific community that favors the cooperation angle, there could be some liberal bias. I don't know. But I do think they make a good case. Furthermore, with regard to conservative defensiveness, all the folk in this thread who favor the notion of aggression as the road to human success and poo poo the notions I suggest are just as humanly modern as I am, all members of the same liberal cooperative race as me. They are all metro-sexuals. Their defensive self hate is what makes them feel like they are being called primitive. They are trying to defend a type of human that's been gone for 50,000 years.
Click to expand...

Given that many ignorant and bigoted conservatives are wasps I am wondering why you think they have so much testosterone?
 
And if you are wondering about the emergence of behavioral modernity vs physical modernity that is a very well discussed subject in anthropology but I think that everything is much more complex than you might think it is.

Also be aware that Discover, Scientific American, Popular Science, and Popular Mechanics are what is known as popular science magazines and they are not exactly shining beacons of true science.
 
norseamd said:
Given that many ignorant and bigoted conservatives are wasps I am wondering why you think they have so much testosterone?
Click to expand...

You quoted my answer to that when you posted this question. Those ignorant and bigoted conservative wasps are fully modern humans and have reduced testosterone levels according to this line of thinking. They ARE modern liberals along with their kinfolk who are maybe less ignorant.

norseamd said:
And if you are wondering about the emergence of behavioral modernity vs physical modernity that is a very well discussed subject in anthropology but I think that everything is much more complex than you might think it is.

Also be aware that Discover, Scientific American, Popular Science, and Popular Mechanics are what is known as popular science magazines and they are not exactly shining beacons of true science.
Click to expand...

How much more or less complex the subject may be than you think I think it is, is just your opinion. My opinion, equally worthless and unrelated to the discussion is that you don't have any idea how complex my view is. This is a forum where you have a chance to put some meat on those bones by providing some of that complexity you think I'm missing.

Also, the article was published in Science Daily apparently from a Duke University piece that appeared as a new study in the Aug. 1 journal Current Anthropology finding that human skulls changed in ways that indicate a lowering of testosterone levels at around the same time that culture was blossoming.
 
Carfax83 said:
I call B.S on that whole study. Testosterone has been vilified by foolish Scientists as being the bane of Civilization, but when you look at History, Warfare (a testosterone fueled activity if there ever was one) has been a major instigator in advancing Civilization(s) and technology..

Also men, who have much higher levels of testosterone than women have primarily been responsible for major advances in supposed "liberal" and enlightened thought..
Click to expand...

If the thesis is that testosterone levels were too high for the establishment of civilization until 50,000 years ago, that doesn't mean that any amount of testosterone is antithetical to civilization. Perhaps a certain amount is necessary for drive and determination, while too much interferes with our ability to cooperate.
 
Last edited:
Newell Steamer said:
Liberals aren't the ones cooking up rumors and lies about ACA Death Panels.
Click to expand...

That's all you got? Also, if it was such a cooked up rumor, why did that portion of the ACA get removed right after it got brought to light? Did the right exaggerate about it? Sure they did. Did they cook it up? Hardly. It's also quite ironic you are associating the right and lies about the ACA.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top