Skip to main content

TESTOSTERONE & CULTURE: A Comment on Another Adaptationist Fable

The headline on September 12 read: “Fatherhood Cuts Testosterone, Study Finds, for Good of the Family.”  The article – on the front page of the NY Times – told of a recent study that found that becoming a father and engaging in childcare decreases a man’s testosterone levels.

For the scientists who produced the study, and for the newspaper’s science reporter alike, there is but a single, inevitable (and thus extra-cultural) consequence of this reported drop in testosterone levels: it makes men, on their view, less likely to seek multiple sex partners and more likely to be monogamous.  The decrease in testosterone is thus “adaptive” to parenting, by virtue of it leading a man to be more anchored to a child’s mother—with the presumption (in the study and news report alike) being that the child in question is indeed the father’s genetic child (as well as the mother’s).

What these scientists and the NY Times's science journalist are entirely blind to is the possibility that there is no singular or automatic behavioral consequence of a drop in a man's testosterone level and, indeed, that a man’s response may depend a great deal on socialization and cultural values.  Consider the possibility that some men in some contexts, if they experience a drop in “libido” (which is the presumed result of a drop in “testosterone,” in the study and NY Times alike), might seek to recapture or rekindle their “libido” by seeking out a new partner.  In that case, if fatherhood indeed produces a drop in testosterone, the drop might lead to more sexual “infidelity,” rather than more “faithfulness”!

And what about the possibility that higher levels of testosterone are what make some men, at least in some social contexts, more monogamous—if sticking with an established partner provides a more reliable sex life than seeking out a new partner?  Surely, it cannot be the universal experience, or essential character, of all men to be able to find a new sex partner, whenever they so desire--"at will," as it were.  This is, though, precisely the presumption (the male fantasty, one might say) in a great many of the adaptationist fables told by evolutionary psychologists.

The larger question is this: how, given the range of human variability across time and space, can a group of scientists and science journalists be so stubbornly simple-minded (and so simple-mindedly stubborn) as to believe in a singular, determined, and universal behavioral outcome as a result of a drop in the level of a given hormone?  And when will these scientists, and science journalists, finally get the more complex truth that there is always a complex interaction between human biology and culture?

Comments

  1. Right on. I waded through the testosterone studies some years back. Although men seem to "rev up" on testosterone in preparation for certain kinds of competitive events, the strongest demonstrated correlations are: 1) Stress or the experience of defeat tends to lower testosterone in men. (Is not starting a family stressful?) Some of the lowest aggregate testosterone counts recorded were for men about to be shipped off to war, by the way. 2) Men with lower testosterone counts tended to be deemed "less friendly" (more cranky?) by their peers; men with higher levels tended to be deemed friendlier, more likable. "The friendly, easy-going hormone?" I've never seen that one in the mass media, but it would reflect the more robust findings (subject to all the usual disclaimers about cause and effect, cultural context, and so on, of course). And that's some of the mess I dun "the trouble with nature...."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Daniel (and Roger)

    I agree with the general sentiment that science, including our study findings, is often simplified in problematic ways when pushed through the media prism. I also agree whole-heartedly that "there is always a complex interaction between biology and culture" – our study clearly shows that biology is not hard-wired but depends upon and responds to context (this is a key point of the study). In the article we review evidence that these responses vary in relation to cultural variation in fatherhood rolls, which is assumed by biological anthropologists who focus on these questions.

    As scientists, we have to walk a tight rope if our study generates media attention – we can provide journalists with nuanced and realistic statements that are invariably ignored, or we can shape the way our findings are presented to the public by picking our battles and simplifying our message. The points about testosterone that we tried to emphasize in each of our interviews is that 1) the behavioral effects of testosterone are notoriously unsettled and contentious, 2) that our best guess is that it has the effect of focusing one’s attention in ways that could be distracting to caregiving. Very little of the coverage treated these points with much nuance.

    In response to the challenges of communicating via sound bites, we spent quite a bit of time pulling together a longer blog post for Scientific American, which attempts to grapple with some of the history of the idea, the findings, possible interpretations, and limitations of current knowledge. Please check it out if you have time and interest:

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/10/05/fatherhood-childcare-and-testosterone-study-authors-discuss-the-details/

    I would also recommend reading the original article itself, which provides quite a bit more detail and nuance than the media coverage. I’ve posted the pdf at my webpage, which can be downloaded here.
    http://groups.anthropology.northwestern.edu/lhbr/kuzawa_web_files/Chris%20Kuzawa.html

    It is gratifying to see our work generate thoughtful commentary like this – thanks for taking the time and for making us aware of your post.
    Cheers,
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  3. interesting story, nice blog and comments.. thanks for your concern about this. we should aware of our social life and take good care of our family.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Response to the Pitzer Administration's "Statement on Ukraine"

On Tuesday, March 15, Pitzer's president and vice-president for academic affairs co-signed a statement of support for, and solidarity with, Ukrainians .  That statement ended with this comment: " We stand with Ukrainians who are demonstrating tremendous bravery, resilience, unity, and courage as they defend their homeland."   What's tragic and disturbing is that this valuable statement against state oppression when Ukrainians are the victims entirely contradicts the administration's opposition to taking a stand against state oppression when Palestinians are the victims.   The recent "Statement on Ukraine" evidences jarring dissonence when read next to  this statement of March 14, 2019 , when the same Pitzer president issued an unprecedented veto of shared governance, in order to block the Pitzer community's taking a stand against Israeli state apartheid and ethnic cleansing.   What follows is my public response to the administration's recent &quo

follow up on "The Debt Ceiling Deal and Progressives"

The composition of the bipartisan Debt Ceiling Panel bodes ill for there being serious cuts in the U.S. military budget as part of any "second phase" deal to reduce the U.S. deficit.  Put simply, the states with large military contractors are fully, if not overly, represented on the Panel.   Of particular note on the Democratic side is Senator Patty Murray of Washington.   Progressive commentators have generally responded favorably to her appointment (and conservative voices have singled it out for criticism), but Boeing is a major employer in Washington (with some 30,000 workers in the state) and its PAC is a major source of campaign funds for Murray.  Almost certainly, for example, the cuts in military spending that would be triggered if the panel reaches no compromise would hit, and perhaps eliminate, the 35 billion dollar contract awarded to Boeing this past February to build roughly 200 new refueling "tanker" aircraft for the military. Murray no doubt will

SECULAR STUDIES IN THE NY TIMES AND HERE AT PITZER

Back on May 7th, the headline in the NY Times read: "Pitzer College in California Adds Major in Secularism." The problem is that this headline was simply false.  No major was proposed; and none was approved. The NY Times article also reported the founding of a "department of secular studies" at Pitzer College (along with the major).  The truth or falsity of this second claim is more complex than the claim about the major--but this claim too is largely misleading.   To start, Pitzer prides itself on not having any "departments."  The closest analog to "departments" at Pitzer are odd beasts known as "Field Groups," and these "Field Groups" come in two kinds at the College.  The kind that is most like a department at other colleges are known as "Type A" field groups; there are also "Type B" field groups (which I will explain in a moment).  And the grain of truth in the NY Times story was that Pitzer Colle