Duke University reports on a paper (abstract) that argues that lower levels of testosterone in humans reflected evolution of enhanced social tolerance:
Modern humans appear in the fossil record about 200,000 years ago, but it was only about 50,000 years ago that making art and advanced tools became widespread.
A new study appearing Aug. 1 in the journal Current Anthropology finds that human skulls changed in ways that indicate a lowering of testosterone levels at around the same time that culture was blossoming.
"The modern human behaviors of technological innovation, making art and rapid cultural exchange probably came at the same time that we developed a more cooperative temperament," said lead author Robert Cieri, a biology graduate student at the University of Utah who began this work as a senior at Duke University.
The study, which is based on measurements of more than 1,400 ancient and modern skulls, makes the argument that human society advanced when people started being nicer to each other, which entails having a little less testosterone in action.
Heavy brows were out, rounder heads were in, and those changes can be traced directly to testosterone levels acting on the skeleton, according to Duke anthropologist Steven Churchill.
What they can't tell from the bones is whether these humans had less testosterone in circulation, or fewer receptors for the hormone.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Bill Evans on Tuesday August 05 2014, @02:42AM
Once again, correlation is not causation.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Theophrastus on Tuesday August 05 2014, @03:49AM
yet non-correlation is non-causation; and with this data we've eliminated that. sometimes (and those times are often of the thousands-of-years-ago sort) you have to take the data you're dealt.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Tork on Tuesday August 05 2014, @04:05AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday August 05 2014, @06:45AM
Not to mention 1400 heads out of...how many MILLIONS had lived worldwide during that time period? Such a small sample size, especially when you are talking about a record with HUGE gaps in the record, IMHO simply isn't useful for anything but making guesses.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:14PM
And for all we know, the samples examined might have been genetically defective specimens. (Perhaps done away with by their betters.)
This applies to pretty much all fossils, tho, except for cases where there are lots of samples (eg. trilobites, so common that reasonably good fossil specimens sell for three bucks at swap meets) we really don't know if we're seeing normal, average specimens, or one-off freaks (or perhaps a handful of freaks).
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday August 07 2014, @05:48PM
An equally plausible scenario would be the 'low-Ts' served a function in the tribe that caused their bodies to get better burials, similar to how we have more bodies of scribes and artists in Egypt because they were made into mummies while the lower classes couldn't afford the treatment and burial tombs.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:55PM
That's possible too. Or maybe we have more low-T bodies because they were buried as scum of the earth (thus some were preserved), while the tough guys used burial platforms and were carried off to heaven by vultures, one piece at a time.
See also Digging the Weans by Robert Nathan.
http://www.joshpachter.com/pages/weans.pdf [joshpachter.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday August 08 2014, @05:32AM
Well I was basing my theory on eunuchs, which were valued in several courts for quite the longest time. Remember you got the females gathering and cooking and the males out there hunting and toiling in the fields...somebody has got to take care of the kiddies. If the Low-Ts served this function its really not hard to see how they would become the "Uncle Fester" to most of the (now) grown members of the tribe so when they died they were given extra consideration.
Of course as i pointed out earlier we have like 1400 skulls out of millions so with such a small sample size to go from all we can do is pull theories out our rears anyway.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday August 08 2014, @12:47PM
From what I've seen about today's remaining hunter/gatherer societies (and the same applies to subsistence farmers), kids are either small enough to be carried and do get carried along, or if big enough to walk are in the charge of older kids. There are no Uncle Festers, other than possibly the old men who are no longer able to hunt (but one usually doesn't dump infants on "respected elders"). -- And that's another point; old men (who possibly =were= valued as elders) are going to have less testosterone than young men. But "old" in that society, with a high calcium/protein intake and lots of sunlight (thus plenty of vitamin D), might not make for bones modern researchers recognise as "old".
Eunuchs were valued as any slave or servant; the whole idea was to render them sexless and thus not a threat either to your women and potentially a source of bastards, or the sires of a resentful next-generation. Much as we castrate bull calves to make more-docile steers, which have more value in the marketplace as meat, but not as individuals. Making a eunuch wasn't necessarily just castration, tho; often the entire penis was cut off, and the death rate from bleed-outs and other complications (like inability to pee if it healed wrong) was, per what I've read, about 30%. Also, a eunuch is well below normal in testosterone, and if done as a juvenile, the skeletal remains might even be mistaken for female. (Steers are built like cows. They don't look like bulls at all.)
So, yeah, fact is they're seeing a datum and pulling an explanation out of their ass, which may or may not mean shit. More of value would be to compare the testosterone level to 1) modern chimps, and 2) modern humans. Certainly it might change as evolution takes its course, but it could be entirely coincidental. One could probably make just as good of a case for "humans made a great advance as they lost their body hair". Quite possibly the selection was for "less hair, more ability to sweat, thus better at running down game" which coincidentally selected for lower testosterone.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Tuesday August 05 2014, @09:29AM
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 05 2014, @05:38PM
Once again, correlation is not causation.
The only person who said anything about causation is you.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tizan on Tuesday August 05 2014, @08:29PM
Could be the effect rather than the cause.
That people started making tools...thus having higher testosterone was no longer a necessary quality for survival...
thus more people with less of it are there..
just like now baldness is not a killing feature....those evolving having no hair can survive as well because we have knitting technology or leather technology.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @02:54AM
http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/testosterone-and-memory [harvard.edu]
Memory, cognition, and learning decline along with testosterone as we age.
I think the longer we live and the more we learn,archive, and pass on stuff...the smarter we get. Then we evolve to need less testosterone to club dinner to death as now we can farm raise it.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 05 2014, @03:44AM
Until, finally, our view of this world reduces to a point; now, this point is usually called "the point of view".
.
(*sigh* I'd rather prefer to stay dumb).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @04:48PM
From the linked page:
"The data are far from conclusive"
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @03:29AM
The domestication of humans by humans.
Unless of course you believe that God, gods or others (aliens?) had a hand (or more ;) ) in it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday August 05 2014, @10:29AM
All the evidence for divine inspiration is there. Humans started cooperating and developed skills like farming, milling and animal rearing. Through these advancements came Durum Wheat and Eggs from which, ultimately, effigies of his most Holy and Noodly could be fashioned and ingested in sacramental rites.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @02:19PM
(Score: 2, Funny) by Adamsjas on Tuesday August 05 2014, @03:58AM
Head shape = predictor of testosterone = predictor of aggression.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @04:04AM
Speak for yourself, flathead.
(Score: 3, Funny) by cafebabe on Tuesday August 05 2014, @04:28AM
Did a reduction in testosterone also correlate with a reduction in cancer?
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:16PM
According to what we know from animal studies, probably not. Castration is associated with up to a fourfold increase in cancer in dogs (notably bone cancer, hemangiosarcoma, and lymphoma).
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by elgrantrolo on Tuesday August 05 2014, @07:56AM
Google must be interested in this research. All the PhDs in the world can't explain the aggressiveness in Youtube comments.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @10:11AM
No, thats already explained. [wikipedia.org]