Equating aggression with masculinity is a social construct.
In other times, masculinity was measured by refinement, manners, erudition and other pro-social behaviors. Aggression was considered boorish and uncouth. Did those men lack testosterone? Or were they just socialized differently?
Nope. Hormones are associated with aggression in both sexes and estrogen is as potent an "aggression hormone" as testosterone. So while hormones have a role to play in aggression in a general sense, they don't decide what "masculinity" is. That's all social.
MISTRA has been debunked on a number of grounds, most notably by Jay Joseph. The original study was flawed, omitted key data, and was funded by a racist eugenics think tank.
When the data was properly analysed, the opposite result was shown: IQ was correlated with nurture far more than nature.
What my dad lived through and accomplished would make most guys crumble today, but he was never an aggressive jerk. He was socialized, and had innate empathy & maturity. That’s the difference. You can’t just excuse a monster because of body chemistry. At some point you have to take responsibility.
Comments
In other times, masculinity was measured by refinement, manners, erudition and other pro-social behaviors. Aggression was considered boorish and uncouth. Did those men lack testosterone? Or were they just socialized differently?
Hormones predict much, but not everything.
The Minnesota twin study says no.
When the data was properly analysed, the opposite result was shown: IQ was correlated with nurture far more than nature.
Which one should be listened to.