> Speaking of aggression, people often suspect the famous hormone testosterone as one of the prime causes. But Robert Sapolsky's (one of his papers is cited in OP's analysis) book, Behave shows something different: "While testosterone is inextricably tied to aggression, it is far less relevant to aggression than usually assumed."

It's a very common thing, even among serious scientists, to immediately go searching for gendered factors and treat them as special, whereas often other factors are far larger, and far more interesting.

I find it telling that politics and science focuses so much on say, gender and race factors in terms of influence on academic achievements whereas very simple things such as what time of year one is born in is actually a more telling factor.

http://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/resources/neuromyt...

> gender and race factors in terms of influence on academic achievements

The focus of the politics on these factors is because, within living memory, they were grounds for exclusion from academia entirely. There is therefore an effort to make sure the exclusion is not being carried on covertly instead of overtly.

Bad ideas take a long time to replace.

> The focus of the politics on these factors is because, within living memory, they were grounds for exclusion from academia entirely. There is therefore an effort to make sure the exclusion is not being carried on covertly instead of overtly.

So was poverty, citizenship, family lineage, and many other things they aren't so interested for to demonstrate that they are more significant influences than many other factors.

I would simply say that these scientists care a great deal for gender and race in their own social matrices, and simply treat a man differently based on his gender or race, but aren't so interested in doing so based on citizenship, or birth cycle.

as I'm getting older I'm making an effort to lift weights (just 20 mins with a deadlift every other day) in addition to cardio (running) and I notice my body really needs this to feel as good as I used to.

The running gives me quick highs but the weight lifting does have an affect on my testosterone production and sex drive it seems. I was a little low few years ago (I tested because after reading pseudoscience research I wanted to know) but since building this into my routine my levels are back to normal. N Taleb wrote about it and I was a bit skeptical but then thought why not give it a try it's free and will not hurt (or make some quack rich).

> whereas very simple things such as what time of year one is born in is actually a more telling factor

interesting. I wonder if this might have to do with school starting in autumn and kids born in autumn might then be more likely to start the year after - instead pushing themselves in for an early start this very year when they're legally able to start school. it would be obvious if kids that are actually a year older then the classmates had more time to be ready for school than their peers. Otherwise it would also be interesting to see this repeated in the Southern hemisphere where autumn is actually spring.

Many Japanese I know would laugh at Astrology but are 100% convinced that blood-type affects personality.

> interesting. I wonder if this might have to do with school starting in autumn and kids born in autumn might then be more likely to start the year after - instead pushing themselves in for an early start this very year when they're legally able to start school. it would be obvious if kids that are actually a year older then the classmates had more time to be ready for school than their peers. Otherwise it would also be interesting to see this repeated in the Southern hemisphere where autumn is actually spring.

That is indeed the typically proffered explanation: they are older than their peers when being taught anything.

> Many Japanese I know would laugh at Astrology but are 100% convinced that blood-type affects personality.

It's interesting from my frame of reference, that Japanese fictional characters often defy any plausible racial phænotype, but are carefully designed around the stereotypes of their stated blood type.

If I remember the book correctly, Sapolsky goes further and claims that Testosterone regulates pro-social behavior. But, “pro-social” is culturally dependent. For example, in one culture, it may mean being more nurturing. In another, being more aggressive and violent. But, it’s always about “climbing the ladder”.

Your recollection is almost close :-). He does mention how testosterone even promotes—a few notches up from "regulate"—prosocial behaviour, but only in the right setting:

"In one [study], under circumstances where someone's sense of pride rides on honesty, testosterone decreased men's cheating in a game. [...] Engineer social circumstances right, and boosting testosterone levels during a challenge would make people compete like crazy to do the most acts of random kindness. In our world riddled with male violence, the problem isn't that testosterone can increase levels of aggression. The problem is the frequency with which we reward aggression."

Behave piqued my interest enough to make me pick up a robust neuroscience textbook. (For those curious, I went with the fourth edition of this one, by Bear et al—https://openlibrary.org/books/OL27999902M/Neuroscience. I strongly recommend it; it's written with excellent pedagogic skill.)

> rather than causing X, testosterone amplifies the power of something else to cause X.

That still means that testosterone is a cause of X, doesn't it? Not a deterministic cause of course, but in a causal graph there would be a directed path from "testosterone" to X?

It's worth reading the full summary point from the Sapolksy's book, from a chapter titled "Hours to Days Before" [a behavior occurs] — the realm of hormones:

"[...] Within the normal range, individual differences in testosterone levels don't predict who will be aggressive. Moreover, the more an organism has been aggressive, the less testosterone is needed for future aggression. When testosterone does play a role, it's facilitatory—testosterone does not "invent" aggression. It makes us more sensitive to triggers of aggression, particularly in those most prone to aggression. Also, rising testosterone levels foster aggression only during challenges to status. Finally, crucially, the rise in testosterone during a status challenge does not necessarily increase aggression; it increases whatever is needed to maintain status. In a world in which status is awarded for the best of our behaviors, testosterone would be the most prosocial hormone in existence."

Does the exponent of a variable make the variable large or does it describe the characteristics of how it gets large?

I would say the exponent of a variable makes (contributes to making) the result large.

Given that a negative exponent makes a result smaller, I'd say that it describes rate at which it'll change.

What if the base is less than one?

I think the question "does it make it larger or does it describe how it gets large?" implies that the transformation is increasing.

My intention was to say that the exponent describes the characteristics of a change, not to imply that the effects are only positive.

My first thought on reading the article's four kinds of aggression, is that the difference among them as to whether or not testosterone is associated with might explain some of the differences that different research(ers) finds. If you're studying different categories, or worse yet lumping them all together, you may miss an important affect, or apply one to categories that it doesn't belong in.