Testosterone, Blacks, Honor, and Sporting ability

Hey everyone, its my first post, so bear with me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Ok, so I've recently completed a thesis on testosterone, and I think I'm on to something.

First: the basics. Testosterone increases in males whenever a challenge is percieved or a competition is being prepared for. It also increases any time a competition is won, and decreases when the competition is lost (only if a real competitive challenge is percieved). I also read about something called "Honor subcultures", in which the subculture dictates that personal attacks of any sort are taken to be more offensive and more deleterious to reputation. Inner city neighborhoods and the deep south are examples of this in America. It has been empirically shown that black males from innercity neighborboods have more Free T than black males from other, less competitive environments. The link between Testosterone and sporting ability has also been established.

So wouldnt this kill the idea that blacks are innately better at sports, and that anyone that recieves constant T boosts from their competitive environments has an equal chance to perform excellently in sports? Surely it follows that a white player, endowed with high prenatal testosterone and a very competitive environement could perform equally. This might seem trivial, but the question, "Why there are so many blacks excelling in professional sports?" has always been a discussion within my social groups. I also think that, because of the short time span, any hypothesis about artifical selection for awesome athletes during the slavery period must be ruled out. What do you guys think of this?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts,
LVM

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Extremely interesting! And likely!

It interests me especially, since I'm working on masculinlity issues, and wish to understand several aspects of gender (masculinlity and femininity especially in males!).

This probable link between testosterone and sporting ability as well as competitiveness is also very likely.

Most of all what interests me about this thread is the link between 'honour' of men and testorsterone or 'masculinity'.

I'll keep an eye on this thread.

You may also want to read the following threads:

- Is gender biological?

- Men and masculinity

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cool. I forgot to mention: the most thorough review article on Testosterone (and the source of much of my information for my thesis and this thread) is

Booth, A. & Mazur, A. (1998) Testosterone and dominance in men. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 353-397.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If what you're saying is right, then it supports my observations about natural masculinity.

That we are born with natural masculinity but which needs to be cultivated and developed. And the most important way of doing it is through male bonding --- an exercise which also has a lot of scope for healthy competition.

So if we are deprived of this opportunity to relate with other men, it has a negative effect on our natural masculinity, which could be seen in terms of a lower testosterone level. Perhaps this explains why and how the pressures of social masculinity --- that is a social mechanism which denies 'manhood' status and thus the opportunity to relate with other men unless men conform to male roles --- are so effective in controlling men and their behaviour.

 

So the concept of 'honour' amongst men, and men's touchiness about that subject are not just 'vain' concepts as most women tend to think.

 

I think you should define masculinity better. But yea, male bonding is ripe with competition (I dont know if its "good" competition). If by masculinity you mean the tendency to be aggressive or dominant in social contexts, then I'm also not sure if it needs to be "cultivated and developed". It can be cultivated and developed, but it doesnt follow that it "needs" to be. Lets clear a few things up about Testosterone for the future.

All humans have testosterone, and it serves a multitude of functions in both sexes, including (but not limited to) sex drive maintenance, mediation of dominance behavior, muscle growth. The links between T and aggression in humans are not so well established.

Humans have a "basal" testosterone level and a "fluctuating free" testosterone level. These are the two most discussed domains in T literature. The basal level is determined during early development (see: Digit Ratio by John T. Manning for an interesting correlate with prenatal T), and is mostly genetic and heritable. Free T is measured through salivary tests, and represents the amount of usable testosterone in the body. Free T fluctuates to a large extent, dependent on the social environment. Possible chances for sexual encounters and other competitive contexts are two domains in which T spikes initially, and then spikes/plummets dependent on the outcome. These effects are seen in males and not females. Someone correct me if I'm blatantly wrong somewhere, but I think that is the best I can sum it up in a paragraph.

LVM

 

Those may be non sequitors and overgeneralizations; suffice to say that honor and hormones are intertwined.

 

It is well known that blacks have much higher levels of testosterone then all other races.

The much higher levels of testosterone is one of the reasons why blacks have much higher levels of commiting violent crimes.

 

Define blacks. Define higher hormone levels. Give references for these populaton studies.

 

July 12, 2000, I posted "Evolution of Skin Color" to some news groups. This consisted of "Long ago, I decided skin coloration is due to levels of testosterone. Blacks produce more testosterone than other races, hence, blacks have darker skin. (I derived this from my explanation of human evolution.) Jablonski and Chaplin just found that ‘In all populations for which skin reflectance data were available for males and females, females were found to be lighter skinned than males.’ This would support my hypothesis." The obvious question quickly returned in response at the news group. Why are black women darker than white men? The following is my answer to the question and is an extension of my original hypothesis that testosterone is directly involved in skin color and human evolution. I suggest the difference results from effects of testosterone on melanocytes in utero.

It is known that testosterone and ultraviolet light work together in stimulating melanocyte structure and function. "Cultured skin receiving both UVL [ultraviolet light] and testosterone illustrates a synergistic effect." (J Exp Zoo 1978; 204: 229, "Organ culture of mammalian skin and the effects of ultraviolet light and testosterone on melanocyte morphology and function," Gilmcher, ME, et al.). This could account for the findings of Jablonski and Chaplin, mentioned in my July 12 post that "In all populations for which skin reflectance data were available for males and females, females were found to be lighter skinned than males." This may be a tanning effect, however, testosterone is definitely involved in melanocyte function.

Healthy black males produce significantly more testosterone than healthy white males (J Nat Cancer Instit 1986; 76: 421). Melanocyes from black males grow differently from melanocytes from white males, in culture. In this study, melanocytes are derived from foreskins, an area of skin directly affected by testosterone. "At the ultrastructural level, cultured melanocytes derived from black (negroid) neonatal skin (B-M) had numerous mature rod-shaped stage IV melanosomes, while white (caucasoid) skin-derived melanocytes (W-M) in culture contained no mature melanosomes. Growth rate, cell yield, and in vitro lifespan for B-M were more than twice that for W-M in pure melanocyte cultures in the presence of MGF [melanocyte growth factor]. Our results suggest that MGF-dependent growth of B-M differs from that of W-M." (J Cell Physiol 1988; 135: 262-8, "Growth characteristics of human epidermal melanocytes in pure culture with special reference to genetic differences," Hirobe, T, et al.). Melanocytes grown in culture, without testosterone added to the culture media, inherently express a difference in growth potential between black and white males.

Read more:
http://www.anthropogeny.com/Evolution of Skin Color.htm

 

You forgot something:

Eur J Endocrinol. 2006 Jan;154(1):125-129.
Postnatal penile length and growth rate correlate to serum testosterone levels: a longitudinal study of 1962 normal boys.

Higher testosterone correlates to higher postnatal penile lenght. No blacks in this study though, since not suprisingly there are hardly any modern studies on testosterone in the black population (well, black men). I can't be arsed to go to the library (your refs are of course not online).

So basically you cannot explain why black women aren't white.

 

The notion that blacks have higher testosterone than those of other races is hard to prove, like a lot of things, but even harder to dismiss. Sure, it would explain their [black males] athletic ability. It would also explain their excessive aggressiveness and predisposition to violent behavior and high crime rates, as depicted by statistics from all over the world.

 

Unfortunately, I cannot remember the source of the following information, but I think is was a reliable one.

For the last 30-40 years, almost all of the top 100 long distance runners (10,000 meters to marathons) either lived in a fairly small region in East Africa or are descended from somebody who lived in that region. Similarly, almost all of the top 100 sprinters either lived in a small region of East Africa or are descended from somebody who lived in that region.

Prior to 30-40 years ago, it is assumed that prejudice and economic problems made it difficult for the blacks associated with these regions to develop their potential.

The above suggests that for running ability, there is a high genetic component. It also suggests that for running ability, a testosterone boost due to cultural pressure is not significant.

I do not remember any mention of other athletic abilities associated with those two regions, although sprinting ability seems to be common among basketball and football players (other than the very heavy linemen).

 

Sure. Lots of things are race related.

Ever notice how many black football players there are, but how comparably few black quarterbacks there are?

 

Does that also mean that people who have longer penile lengths have more levels of testosterone.

Will it also mean they'll be more masculine (stronger, more aggressive, competitive, etc.)?

 

Oh boy. If you want scientific insight from this group, you are in for trouble.

Prepare yourself to be called delusional, crazy and every other name you can think of.

No one will address the science aspects of the conversation. They are incapable. They are psychiatrists and psychologists, not real hard science scientists.

 

You are blinded by the western need to ascribe everything to a chemical or a substance that can be duplicated and sold for money. Money drives western science. The quest for knowledge has nothing to do with western science.

Black people doing well at sports has nothing to do with testosterone or any other chemical levels. Of course there will be findings regarding these chemicals. They are not the reason.

Black people are good at sports because they have an innate understanding of the health of the human body. In the same way the Asians have an innate understanding of the human body. The difference between Blacks and Asians is that Asians have codified their knowledge in a science like way. It is in books that can be read. Black people knowledge is all cultural. No science aspect to it. They pass it down thru their culture.

Black people excell at sports while white people do not because white people are the victims of a plot to make them weak, stupid and easy to control. Israelis who are intent on world domination use their control of the western media and the governments to put forth false statements about the health of the human body and how it works. The people in the USA or Britain or whereever read these lies and follow them. Then they become sick and weak.

Black people are not that stupid. They have been slaves. They know that people tell lies and try to make you a slave. They do not listen to the lies put out by the Israeli controlled media. They learned their lesson about listening to liar back in the slave days.

The answer to your question is related to my Happeh Theory. I doubt if you will be interested. It is very hard to understand for a rigid, linear thinking science type who only believes what authority tells him.

 

Can't get much more wrong than that.

 

Funny how everything you do not understand is a myth. Happeh Theory explains why white men can't jump and black men can. So do lots of other body theories from people that don't measure up to your standards.

Do you ever think you will begin to wonder if you are wrong, and the myths are correct?

Naw. You would have to lose your ego for that.