Religious flamewar is not ok here. We've banned this account.
I had hoped that perhaps you were improving after the last few dozen of your accounts that we've banned. Would you please consider just following the site guidelines? I don't really see what you're getting out of vandalizing HN, or why you would want to create so much extra work for us. It just takes resources away from making HN more interesting, which I assume you must value or you'd be spending your spare hours elsewhere.
Every powerful tool gets co-opted by devils. The devil is not interested in co-opting weak tools. He want's the most powerful ones. The devil wants to corrupt the highest good, the highest truth. So you proclaiming that you have the highest good and highest truth only attracts the devil closer.
Is the problem here that a person with Islamic beliefs wrote this op-ed? Not sure how well you read the piece, because the actual problem in TFA is the author's assertion that Narendra Modi's Hindu beliefs are responsible for people dying.
I suspect polygamy may be the culprit. It makes males have to be ultra-competitive in order to mate such that they are overly aggressive. If some have multiple wives, it means others have zero wives, since there wouldn't be enough females to go around. When competition becomes all or nothing, mayhem and war are the result.
Even if the all-or-nothing competition itself doesn't create more aggressiveness, for the sake of argument, the larger percentage of unmarried men means more men have higher levels of testosterone, being that individual testosterone levels go down once one marries and has kids. That's a medical fact, not speculation. And testosterone on average makes one more aggressive.
Thus, the first part of this theory is indeed speculative, but the second part is pretty much a mathematical truth.
I'm not trying to offend, just presenting an intriguing theory.
> being that individual testosterone levels go down once one marries and has kids. That's a medical fact, not speculation. And testosterone on average makes one more aggressive.
The first part is true, but the later one is false. Testosterone on does not makes one more aggressive, a medical fact researcher started to figure out in the last 30 years or so and have instead found a much better theory what testosterone do and why it so easily get associated with aggression. Testosterone increase the amount of energy a person will spend on defending challenges to social status.
Imagine a male baboon that just raised to alpha status of a flock after a difficult and dangerous fight with the previous alpha male. This is the point where testosterone production spikes. If the new alpha male get challenged and loose then any gained chance of mating would be lost. In addition all the energy and risk of injury that was just spent on rising to the top would be wasted effort.
A low ranking male baboon however might find a better strategy to lay low and wait for a opportunity, such as the moment after someone above them have just been in a fight. If they get challenged and loose then there isn't as much of a loss. A optimal strategy is thus to modulate how much energy is spent on defense based on how high the probability for mating is and how high the risk is that someone else might try to take it away.
The role of testosterone, a sex hormone, should maybe not come as an surprise as being the method in which the body inform itself of this. It also make sense that marriage and having kids reduces the need for high testosterone. You loose social status and the negative effect is not as bad. A better strategy might be to reserve energy and maybe focus on raising the offspring you already have.
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Just because polygamy is permissible doesn't mean it's practiced in a widespread manner, not to mention you don't even know what percentage of marriages are polygamous.
If some have multiple wives, it means others have zero wives, since there wouldn't be enough females to go around.
Historically, following a war, there are too few husbands to go around. In strictly monogamous cultures, the result is that some women cannot find a husband and additionally typically have to also put up with harassment over their lack of a husband and children.
dang|6 years ago
I had hoped that perhaps you were improving after the last few dozen of your accounts that we've banned. Would you please consider just following the site guidelines? I don't really see what you're getting out of vandalizing HN, or why you would want to create so much extra work for us. It just takes resources away from making HN more interesting, which I assume you must value or you'd be spending your spare hours elsewhere.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
mikelyons|6 years ago
By not understanding this, devilry is created.
pixelbath|6 years ago
koonsolo|6 years ago
tabtab|6 years ago
apta|6 years ago
sabertoothed|6 years ago
srbby|6 years ago
tabtab|6 years ago
Even if the all-or-nothing competition itself doesn't create more aggressiveness, for the sake of argument, the larger percentage of unmarried men means more men have higher levels of testosterone, being that individual testosterone levels go down once one marries and has kids. That's a medical fact, not speculation. And testosterone on average makes one more aggressive.
Thus, the first part of this theory is indeed speculative, but the second part is pretty much a mathematical truth.
I'm not trying to offend, just presenting an intriguing theory.
belorn|6 years ago
The first part is true, but the later one is false. Testosterone on does not makes one more aggressive, a medical fact researcher started to figure out in the last 30 years or so and have instead found a much better theory what testosterone do and why it so easily get associated with aggression. Testosterone increase the amount of energy a person will spend on defending challenges to social status.
Imagine a male baboon that just raised to alpha status of a flock after a difficult and dangerous fight with the previous alpha male. This is the point where testosterone production spikes. If the new alpha male get challenged and loose then any gained chance of mating would be lost. In addition all the energy and risk of injury that was just spent on rising to the top would be wasted effort.
A low ranking male baboon however might find a better strategy to lay low and wait for a opportunity, such as the moment after someone above them have just been in a fight. If they get challenged and loose then there isn't as much of a loss. A optimal strategy is thus to modulate how much energy is spent on defense based on how high the probability for mating is and how high the risk is that someone else might try to take it away.
The role of testosterone, a sex hormone, should maybe not come as an surprise as being the method in which the body inform itself of this. It also make sense that marriage and having kids reduces the need for high testosterone. You loose social status and the negative effect is not as bad. A better strategy might be to reserve energy and maybe focus on raising the offspring you already have.
apta|6 years ago
plopz|6 years ago
DoreenMichele|6 years ago
Historically, following a war, there are too few husbands to go around. In strictly monogamous cultures, the result is that some women cannot find a husband and additionally typically have to also put up with harassment over their lack of a husband and children.