= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
passive_fist comments on Open Thread, Apr. 13 - Apr. 19, 2015 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (319)
I haven't. Multiple quoted passages in that link talk about dominance.
Testosterone has been shown not to be linked with aggression. The link with dominance is less clear but still not established.
What?
We may be misunderstanding each other. Reworded: testosterone's link with status-related concern is very clear. example Do you think it is not clearly demonstrated enough, or you think status-related concerns are a different thing than dominance? To me they mean the same thing.
I am preparing an article actually that relates to this, so if you have any concerns here please detail.
Sure, this is not a perfect measure. People often accept they have disorders (usually when they actually perceive suffering from them). Still, if you want to remove judgements (like it being seen as a disorder) from a psychological profile, checking whether people could identify with the label sounds kinda like an important milestone in that? If you want to check which words used to describe gay people are not offensive, it is sort of a good idea if they themselves use them?
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, the link with status-related concern is definitely more established than with aggression. I'd be interested in reading your article.
I'm still not convinced that the purpose of SDO is to make behaviors correlated with testosterone look like disorders or that this is the mainstream position of psychology.
It's not obvious to me why it should be important?
Why it should be important to remove these judgements? Plain simply because it is highly uncharitable and hostile to people to basically invalidate their positions saying they don't come from a reasoning process like every other position, but from psychological malfunction.
Of course, we know actually most positions don't come from reasoning processes, but more like affective etc. heuristics and only rationalized with reasoning :) But since the social etiquette is (currently) to give people the benefit of doubt and assume and pretend they arrive to their stances rationally, singling out a few positions and basically saying they are exceptions because they come from specific psychological dispositions is I think hostile or disrespectful.