And here I thought it was the testosterone

[Abbey Normal]

Another study to tell us all what we already know- men are generally more aggressive than women. I wonder how this can be applied to libs. Did they develop diferently? It might explain the tednency toward pacifism and appeasement.

Researchers identify "male warrior effect" Fri Sep 8, 12:14 PM ET

Reuters

NORWICH (Reuters) - Men may have developed a psychology that makes them particularly able to engage in wars, a scientist said on Friday.

New research has shown that men bond together and cooperate well in the face of adversity to protect their interests more than women, which could explain why war is almost exclusively a male business, according to Professor Mark van Vugt of the University of Kent in southern England.

"Men respond more strongly to outward threats, we've labeled that the 'man warrior effect'," he told the British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting.

"Men are more likely to support a country going to war. Men are more likely sign up for the military and men are more likely to lead groups in more autocratic, militaristic ways than women," he added.

Van Vugt said the finding is consistent with results from different behavioral science disciplines.

In experiments with 300 university men and women students, Van Vugt and his team gave the volunteers small sums of money which they could either keep or invest in a common fund that would be doubled and equally divided. None of the students knew what the others were doing.

Both sexes cooperated in investing in the fund. But when the groups were told they were competing against other universities, the males were more eager to invest rather than keep their money while the number of women contributing remained the same.

"We all know males are more aggressive than females," Van Vugt said, adding that co-operation is needed to establish institutions and governments and to wage wars.

"Male co-operation is a double-edged sword," he added.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060908/ts_nm/science_war_dc

 

[dilloduck]

Another study to tell us all what we already know- men are generally more aggressive than women. I wonder how this can be applied to libs. Did they develop diferently? It might explain the tednency toward pacifism and appeasement.

Researchers identify "male warrior effect" Fri Sep 8, 12:14 PM ET

Reuters

NORWICH (Reuters) - Men may have developed a psychology that makes them particularly able to engage in wars, a scientist said on Friday.

New research has shown that men bond together and cooperate well in the face of adversity to protect their interests more than women, which could explain why war is almost exclusively a male business, according to Professor Mark van Vugt of the University of Kent in southern England.

"Men respond more strongly to outward threats, we've labeled that the 'man warrior effect'," he told the British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting.

"Men are more likely to support a country going to war. Men are more likely sign up for the military and men are more likely to lead groups in more autocratic, militaristic ways than women," he added.

Van Vugt said the finding is consistent with results from different behavioral science disciplines.

In experiments with 300 university men and women students, Van Vugt and his team gave the volunteers small sums of money which they could either keep or invest in a common fund that would be doubled and equally divided. None of the students knew what the others were doing.

Both sexes cooperated in investing in the fund. But when the groups were told they were competing against other universities, the males were more eager to invest rather than keep their money while the number of women contributing remained the same.

"We all know males are more aggressive than females," Van Vugt said, adding that co-operation is needed to establish institutions and governments and to wage wars.

"Male co-operation is a double-edged sword," he added.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060908/ts_nm/science_war_dc

Another intellectual needs publishing to rise in the world of academia. Man ,these things are getting trite. ( he says "agressively")

 

[Bullypulpit]

Testosterone poisoning would explain much of Chimpy and Co's behavior. Their use of supplements must be phenomenal. As we all know, overuse of steroidal hormones, such as testosterone, results in psychotic behavior. :teeth:

 

[Avatar4321]

Maybe it is the testosterone:

 

[Avatar4321]

Testosterone poisoning would explain much of Chimpy and Co's behavior. Their use of supplements must be phenomenal. As we all know, overuse of steroidal hormones, such as testosterone, results in psychotic behavior. :teeth:

So if i understand you correctly it would take testosterone poisoning to think that we need to defend ourselves against people who are trying to kill us?

Does that mean that liberal men who dont want to go to war have no testosterone and are basically just, to be blunt, pussies?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Another study to tell us all what we already know- men are generally more aggressive than women. I wonder how this can be applied to libs. Did they develop diferently? It might explain the tednency toward pacifism and appeasement.

Researchers identify "male warrior effect" Fri Sep 8, 12:14 PM ET

Reuters

NORWICH (Reuters) - Men may have developed a psychology that makes them particularly able to engage in wars, a scientist said on Friday.

New research has shown that men bond together and cooperate well in the face of adversity to protect their interests more than women, which could explain why war is almost exclusively a male business, according to Professor Mark van Vugt of the University of Kent in southern England.

"Men respond more strongly to outward threats, we've labeled that the 'man warrior effect'," he told the British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting.

"Men are more likely to support a country going to war. Men are more likely sign up for the military and men are more likely to lead groups in more autocratic, militaristic ways than women," he added.

Van Vugt said the finding is consistent with results from different behavioral science disciplines.

In experiments with 300 university men and women students, Van Vugt and his team gave the volunteers small sums of money which they could either keep or invest in a common fund that would be doubled and equally divided. None of the students knew what the others were doing.

Both sexes cooperated in investing in the fund. But when the groups were told they were competing against other universities, the males were more eager to invest rather than keep their money while the number of women contributing remained the same.

"We all know males are more aggressive than females," Van Vugt said, adding that co-operation is needed to establish institutions and governments and to wage wars.

"Male co-operation is a double-edged sword," he added.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060908/ts_nm/science_war_dc

*clubs you over the head and drags you into my cave by your hair*

 

[Bullypulpit]

So if i understand you correctly it would take testosterone poisoning to think that we need to defend ourselves against people who are trying to kill us?

Does that mean that liberal men who dont want to go to war have no testosterone and are basically just, to be blunt, pussies?

Ahhh...There you go again. Nothing wrong with defending yourself...But when you go around picking fights and lying about why you did it, that's a different thing altogether.

War in a just cause is a sometimes necessary evil, not to be entered into lightly. But when war is made against a sovereign power as a matter of choice on the, and I'm being generous here, flimsiest of pretenses, it is simply wrong. It is a violation of US and international law. It is a violation of more than two hundred years of American military policy. It is a violation of the trust of the men and women who place themselves in harm's way to protect this nation. Trust that their lives will not be put at risk so cavalierly as Chimpy and Co have done in Iraq.

As for being a "pussy", as you so crudely put it, anyone attacking me or mine is in for a nasty surprise.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ahhh...There you go again. Nothing wrong with defending yourself...But when you go around picking fights and lying about why you did it, that's a different thing altogether.

War in a just cause is a sometimes necessary evil, not to be entered into lightly. But when war is made against a sovereign power as a matter of choice on the, and I'm being generous here, flimsiest of pretenses, it is simply wrong. It is a violation of US and international law. It is a violation of more than two hundred years of American military policy. It is a violation of the trust of the men and women who place themselves in harm's way to protect this nation. Trust that their lives will not be put at risk so cavalierly as Chimpy and Co have done in Iraq.

As for being a "pussy", as you so crudely put it, anyone attacking me or mine is in for a nasty surprise.

How can a war removing a dictator that is torturing, raping, and killing his people not a just war?

 

[glockmail]

....

As for being a "pussy", as you so crudely put it, anyone attacking me or mine is in for a nasty surprise.

Unless it's Saddam Hussein, apparently.

 

[Abbey Normal]

*clubs you over the head and drags you into my cave by your hair*

How did I miss this?


**Taps fingers waiting for cave man**

 

[Bullypulpit]

How can a war removing a dictator that is torturing, raping, and killing his people not a just war?

Given the number of other dictators in the world doing the same things, do you see Chimpy sending in troops to topple their regimes?

Just war involves many variables, not the least of which involves aggression in the form of an attack on one's country. Even by this single standard, Iraq does not qualify as having committed sufficient acts to warrant a US invasion...a war of aggression...which was alien to US military action until Chimpy came into office.