The effects of hormones on gendered behaviour....again!

[ScottCheggJnr]

I've decided to create this thread so as not to derail the other thread about the difference in learning between boys and girls. The below study is one I'd bookmarked a while ago to read at a later date and then forgotten about until said thread reminded me about it.

I'm personally very interested in the effect of hormones, not least because I've noticed a significant change in my character since taking testosterone for a medical problem and noting significant changes in going from a very low to a high level.

I'm about to read the article in full, but below are some pretty controversial statements that stand out, which are particularly relevant to some of the heated discussions I've read on here previously.

I'd be very interested to hear the interpretations of those posters who are more scientifically minded than myself.

Confidence has increased that early androgens affect gender development, in light of recent studies that confirm, extend, and clarify previous findings. Activity interests and participation – from childhood toy preferences to adult hobbies and occupations – continue to be strongly linked to prenatal androgen exposure.

Androgen effects on interest and engagement in male-typed occupations was seen to have economic consequences: women with exposure to high levels of prenatal androgens due to congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) were more likely than controls to have income in the top 20th percentile, reflecting employment in male-typical, higher-paying jobs (despite having lower education, and more psychosocial problems).

Prenatal androgen effects on the tendency to prefer careers that involve things versus people reinforce other suggestions that women might be engaged by STEM when emphasis is placed on its social relevance.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4681519/

I thought there was recent evidence which suggested that simulated violence (may have been video games) actually lowered violent behaviour, maybe as some kind of outlet. Although the debate is far from settled.

Although I'd concur that violence has no place in porn or prostitution (outside of consensual role play, which some women undoubtedly enjoy being the primary consumers of violent pornography according to the most recent study on Pornhub's user demographic).

I do however believe that hormones are a large part of male violence (not an excuse mind) which many would contest.

Watch the bbc doc - there's a part in he first one that explains it more.

Thanks Neuro, I'll give it a watch.

Vegilante - awesome critique.

It focuses on how stereotypes mould this stuff with a comment on how male violence can be tracked to lack of emotional literacy.

Interestingly male hormones can be affected / lessened by taking on caring roles.

Although I'd concur that violence has no place in porn or prostitution (outside of consensual role play, which some women undoubtedly enjoy being the primary consumers of violent pornography according to the most recent study on Pornhub's user demographic)

That is a rather conflicting statement.

Is it, some women who are the primary consumers of violent porn,
or are women the primary consumers of violent porn then?

You won't get far with your argument if you are saying that women are the primary consumers of violent porn.

Ah, I can see you are talking about consensual role play.
I still fail to see how women are primary consumers of violent porn within the context of consensual role play.

Ah, I can see you are talking about consensual role play.
I still fail to see how women are primary consumers of violent porn within the context of consensual role play.

Sorry, I was a bit vague but didn't want to derail.

Pornhub (world's largest porn site) recently allowed an analyst to look at their user data which is, I believe, the first time that such a large scale review has been undertaken. They found that it was predominently female users who were viewing violent porn.

Their method of obtaining this data was the use of Google analytics which is generally regarded to be fairly accurate over a large sample size but still not 100% accurate.

The analytics would look at such things as the name you use to sign up to Google services and similar (Gmail, Google+ YouTube, etc), your channel subscriptions, your browsing habits etc, and it benchmarks them against trends. Websites using it have access to the collated demographic analysis.

As I said it's not 100% but its fairly accurate. People tend to use their real names when signing up to Gmail etc (not necessarily in the username but in the subscription data) not least because it's often linked to another email address in case you need to reset a forgotten password - it would likely raise more alarm bells if you tried to access an email account from another one with a different name and gender selected as it wouldn't look like the original user was trying to access it.

Outside of the minute number of people who are trans, it's fair to assume that a person who creates an email account using the name 'Sarah' and who subscribes to a lot of female focused channels and browses a lot of female orientated sites is likely a female. Of course there are many crossover interests between the sexes, but there probably aren't many blokes called Sarah who subscribe to channels about women's fashion and purchase women's clothing.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_uk/article/bm9w7v/why-are-so-many-women-searching-for-ultra-violent-porn

Booyakasha!

Just popped up on my fb feed...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2185295-there-is-no-fundamental-difference-between-male-and-female-brains/?utmmedium=SOC&utmm_source=Facebook

(Unfortunately I cant read all of it as I've maxed out my free amount this month.)

(I think the same author is linked on the other thread too. Sorry, not sure if same article or not)

Oh man, want to read this. Do I get a certain amount of free tokens if I register? Happy to do so and post here if allowed.