Following our nature is easy, we just do it naturally. Opposing our baser instincts is hard, so a lot of people don't. The greatest leap as a species we can take is if we can make it a social imperative to act against those urges, but in today's corporate-controlled world, our "corporate overlords" want us to react on instinct to purchase expensive, wasteful, and useless items and services. Until we figure out how to hold a corporation to the same ethics and morals we hold individuals, that won't happen.
> The greatest leap as a species we can take is if we can make it a social imperative to act against those urges
As likely most geeks and office warriors can vouch for, fighting your endocrine system leads to depression, anxiety and "finding yourself" problems.
Rather than fighting nature, which is a losing battle from the concept itself, I think the ideal is to find a balance with it, this means (however Jungian it sounds) accepting both our darker and lighter sides, both intellectual and physical.
"This brain region has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, and moderating social behavior."
When you think about it though, for all our sophistication we...
>Can only hold ~7 unique items in mind
>Have relatively low resolution memory, and instead of just seeing it like that, unsure/unknown details are filled in almost arbitrarily
>Are absolutely entirely single threaded - best form of multitasking is quick switching at a rate that obscures the switching - switching is still occurring though and is observable
>Use language with lots of complexity maybe, but in simple algorithmic/programmed ways (grammer isn't straightforward, but lots of typical interactions are basically algorithms we naturally act out)
We are a collection of narrow intelligences which are quite powerful, and when combined result in a working general intelligence (to different degrees of success). That general intelligence sees the power of the narrow bits that make it up and proclaims "wow, I am complex and powerful" when its really just the cobbled together result.
It can be very tempting to jump to superficial conclusions by reading these publications e.g. imagine a direct correlation between testosterone and need for status.
Instead there can be a million confounding variable that depend on psychology and society.
Testosterone affects sex drive in women as well. The study only concerned male participants, but it’s possible that women are also affected in the same way.
From the abstract “... testosterone increases positive attitudes toward positional goods when they are described as status-enhancing, but not when they are described as power-enhancing or high in quality.”
I would think power-enhancing things would improve one’s ability to achieve social dominance, but the effect they uncovered here seems to be even more crude and instead only has effect on stimulating a desire for immediate “improved” perception.
>testosterone increases positive attitudes toward positional goods when they are described as status-enhancing, but not when they are described as power-enhancing.
I'm not sure what this means. I thought status was a power-enhancing attribute. And that that was the reason people want it.
Hmm, I think they would target the snacks towards low-testosterone men, to increase their desire for status. The men already in the store are likely already high-testosterone. Serving the snacks in their stores would be preaching to the choir.
I've always wondered, we know that testosterone levels have an effect on people's behavior, preferences, and disposition. We know that men and women have, on average, different levels of testosterone. Yet we know that men and women do not differ on average behavior, preferences, or disposition; that the two groups are equal. How is that possible? It seems like a shockingly simple line of logic to me but it must break down somewhere.
If this is true and the stereotype of middle aged men looking for status via large purchases (boat, car, hobbies), what would dosing middle aged men do to their purchasing habits?
I suspect this stereotype may have a signal-to-noise problem. Consider that many men who buy a corvette at mid-life may have wanted one since their childhood, and mid-life happened to be the earliest point at which they could afford one.
Exactly this. “Mid life crisis” is just a fabricated pejorative meme. The reality is that for most middle class men, they can only afford to spend money on long sought after expensive hobbies once they hit midlife.
Depression causes you to engage in behaviors which reinforce your depression, and I would expect low-testosterone would work similarly. In other words, the men seeking status goods are not the ones suffering from low-testosterone, but rather the ones whom are already high-testosterone.
You should’ve seen the $600 silk shirts I was looking at after rolling through Neimy’s. Must be the T. Lol. I’m serious about the former, but I dunno: my T level is always average. Not sure status has anything to do with it because they’re damn comfortable shirts and any shirt without a clothing tag gets my vote.
32 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 76.9 ms ] threadAs likely most geeks and office warriors can vouch for, fighting your endocrine system leads to depression, anxiety and "finding yourself" problems.
Rather than fighting nature, which is a losing battle from the concept itself, I think the ideal is to find a balance with it, this means (however Jungian it sounds) accepting both our darker and lighter sides, both intellectual and physical.
citation needed
> Rather than fighting nature
What? Humans have a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex for impulse control.
"This brain region has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, and moderating social behavior."
>Can only hold ~7 unique items in mind
>Have relatively low resolution memory, and instead of just seeing it like that, unsure/unknown details are filled in almost arbitrarily
>Are absolutely entirely single threaded - best form of multitasking is quick switching at a rate that obscures the switching - switching is still occurring though and is observable
>Use language with lots of complexity maybe, but in simple algorithmic/programmed ways (grammer isn't straightforward, but lots of typical interactions are basically algorithms we naturally act out)
We are a collection of narrow intelligences which are quite powerful, and when combined result in a working general intelligence (to different degrees of success). That general intelligence sees the power of the narrow bits that make it up and proclaims "wow, I am complex and powerful" when its really just the cobbled together result.
It can be very tempting to jump to superficial conclusions by reading these publications e.g. imagine a direct correlation between testosterone and need for status.
Instead there can be a million confounding variable that depend on psychology and society.
Edit: Looks like this effects happen in men only.
We have sort of established that testosterone amplifies risk taking, aggressiveness and desire for social dominance. So of course status goods?
(Not a snark comment. Asking a CS/Math graduate.)
You will be disheartened to know that many non-propecia-taking men and women outside the blue bubble agree with many of his policies.
https://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/
Being right is always easy when you decide what's true and what's false.
I would think power-enhancing things would improve one’s ability to achieve social dominance, but the effect they uncovered here seems to be even more crude and instead only has effect on stimulating a desire for immediate “improved” perception.
I'm not sure what this means. I thought status was a power-enhancing attribute. And that that was the reason people want it.