Study: Hormones can affect political leanings.

Post Reply New Topic

Source: https://miamistandard.news/2022/05/18/study-testosterone-treatment-turns-democrat-voters-more-conservative/


Source: https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/155441/version/V1/view

It's interesting that a measurable change was detected, and suggests both that other hormones may have similar abilites to alter political leanings, as well as the impact they may have on other aspects of people which hadn't been investigated previously.

It would be interesting to know if this was also a factor in the results of this related study:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34508970/
Which, curiously, seems to conflict with the results of an earlier study:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091020181257.htm

So . . . people in DiSantis’ state have published a study that “proves” that male Democrats are less “manly” than Republicans.

This is like people in 1940s Germany publishing studies that “proved” Aryans were racially superior to non-Aryans.

Studies, by their very nature, are based on weighted statistical correlations, not on direct experimental data.

I interpreted it the very other way... which "head" those guys think with
Because being "manly" and being smart are... let's say, largely independent
There's a lot of stories illustrating how exceptionally high levels of sexual hormones (both genders) don't help with making logical decisions.

I believe we are both correct. Some Floridians seem desperate to justify their use of the wrong “head” by implying that the use of the correct “head” is less manly.

And people IRL wonder why I use the term “Floridiot” when referring to DiSantis and his followers.

I am a biological female with blood testosterone levels above typical. I've always been a hardcore progressive culturally.
In the context of political debate in China, the MtF group shows a significant correlation with the economic left.

I suspect that another statement, "sex hormone levels tend to be more conservative on both ends" would also gain some evidence.
I'm curious why there are no studies done at the female/estrogen level.

Last edited by SkinnedWolf on 22 May 2022, 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

This particular study seems rather pointless to me. Whaty can it achieve that would benefit humanity or the planet in some way?

Nothing. It is Republican/Nationalist propaganda, and therefore worthless.

These studies should always be taken with a grain of salt. Not literally of course, you'd die from the overdose of sodium.

And in related science news, politics can affect, and effect change in, hormone levels,

From:
Some men’s testosterone levels are plummeting thanks to the results of the US election
By Jay Van Bavel
Associate professor of psychology, New York University
Published November 9, 2016

https://qz.com/833019/us-election-democ ... ns-defeat/

(the forum's QUOTE ... /QUOTE print is too small and thin for my eyes to read again today so I'm marking quotes in a way that works for me)

"
Political elections have often been described as a dominance competition, in which political foes establish a social hierarchy with a winner on top and a loser on the bottom. When male mammals—and that includes us humans—win a dominance contest, their testosterone levels tend to rise or remain stable; when they lose, their testosterone levels fall. Research suggests this happens whether you’re one of the competitors in the fray, or watching your favorite sports team from the safety of your living room. In either case, testosterone rises for the winners and decreases in the losers.

In 2008, a team of neuroscientists from Duke University applied this logic to the US presidential election between Barack Obama and John McCain (as well as independent Robert Barr). Researchers asked 183 participants—Republicans, Democrats, and undecided voters—to come to laboratories in Ann Arbor, Michigan and Durham, North Carolina the day before the election. They sent these voters home with a saliva-collection kit and had them provide saliva samples once as the polls closed, and then again minutes after they had learned that Obama had been declared the winner of the presidential race. Participants returned their samples the next day, and the researchers examined whether testosterone levels rose among those who aligned themselves with the winner and losers.

As it turned out, men who voted for the winner (Barack Obama) had stable levels of testosterone, while men who voted for the losers (John McCain and Bob Barr) experienced a drop in their testosterone. There was no effect in women. The study results showed that vicarious defeat was enough to drive down the testosterone levels in vicarious losers. Critically, this effect was not explained by conservatism—which means it should apply to Clinton’s male supporters today as well.
"

Then how come Caitlyn Jenner is a Republican?

Doesnt he hafta get dosed with estrogen to ...stay a she, and not revert to being a he?

One reason behind it seems to be connected to the earlier studies I listed:
The first study (sciencedaily, showing drop in "losing" side\supporters related to a "competition") and second study (nig.gov, showing increase in "losing" side\supporters related to a "competition") show differing results, neither set out what the "starting point" for either side was, so this was, in a way, providing further information\context from which to evaluate the results of the ealier studies.

As mentioned in the article:

The study would also likely have begun around the time that the subject of such "morality pills" was once again [1] gaining traction:
https://theconversation.com/morality-pills-may-be-the-uss-best-shot-at-ending-the-coronavirus-pandemic-according-to-one-ethicist-142601
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2020/08/30/could-a-morality-pill-help-stop-the-covid-19-pandemic/

For such (or similar) items to be developed, an understanding of what may be causing the underlying difference between those who compliantly follow the instructions\guidance\"morality" provided by authorities, and those who questioned\rejected what the authorities are\were telling them, and given in the most recent case the division between the compliant and the "non compliant" seemed to run (for the most part) along political lines, understanding what may be causing these differences would have been seen as important information to have.

[1] This wasn't the first time that the development of such items was publicly discussed. For example:
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2012 ... ality-pill
https://www.theguardian.com/science/hea ... ce-fiction

I'm not buying it! This looks like a rotten, pathetic attempts to mock and shame conservative men---the ones who actually WORK for a living, rather than sit on their butts collecting handouts paid with MY tax money. After all, low testosterone means less masculine, because testosterone is what makes a man a man. I wonder who sponsored this sham of a "study": George Soros, Cacala Harris, or even Bill Gates?

Probably someone like Gates would have wanted people to become more liberal as their testosterone levels increased.