Thread: Connection between testosterone-related behavior, Nietzsche's Master Morality and Conservatism?

I guess the people who do the study were liberal then, because they felt comfortable with a great deal of ambiguity in the test. I suppose its the conservative(or scientist?) in me that wants structure. If you really want to understand the issue, conservative vs liberal is a poor choice with far to much ambiguity. Especially if your in the US where the words can mean the same thing if you use historical context instead of more modern ones.

If you really want to understand the issue, conservative vs liberal is a poor choice with far to much ambiguity.

But what I want to understand is why some people are conservative and some are liberal. Or rather how the distinction between the two might match up with other distinctions. The conservatives I've known tend to favor their own opinions and just keep re-asserting them with contempt even when evidence shows them to be wrong, whereas the liberal-minded people I know are much more apt to reconsider when shown new evidence.

Most of the conservative males I've known also seem to be pretty high testosterone. They view liberals as weak and passive and therefore unfit to rule. This seems to go hand in hand with the whole idea of Master Morality.

Question - would you say your testosterone level is high or low?

(Mine is low - I'm definitely a nerdy guy who kept quiet in school)


And before anybody asks - I think the way conservative women fit in is possibly that they favor high-test males.They do tend to be old-fashioned and to like their men manly.

I have no idea how someone is supposed to know their testosterone level, without a blood test. Saying you are kind of a nerdy person, isn't really a sufficient test for testosterone levels. I could say I have a large penis and grow a beard quickly, but really that isn't a valid test either.

I don't think being a meat head is really an accurate test for levels of testosterone either. Though if they are super aggressive that could be a sign of having way to much(and possibly a result of steroid abuse).

Ok, I'll put you down for "undecided" then.

I don't think it's hard to tell if a guy is high-test or low-test by behavior, at least in many cases. The more extreme ones especially. In a school the bullies and jocks are generally high testosterone, the ones they pick on (who get labeled nerds) are low. Tesosterone basically dictates aggressiveness and sexual dominance. So, to put it bluntly, the guys who like to fight and fuck. And, as Sagan pointed out so clearly in Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, the males with high concentrations of testosterone tend to not cooperate well with others, to go so far as to even disrupt those who are trying to cooperate (in animal tests) and they are a lot lower in intelligence generally.

At the other end of the spectrum - extreme case for low-test males. They tend to be very cooperative and helpful, either friendly or shy but not very aggressive generally. They tend to get in a lot less fights and get laid a lot less than the high-test ones.

Looking at these extremes helps us to understand the tendencies of each side, even when it's not crystal clear. By knowing what tendencies to look for it becomes easier to see it even in those who are closer to the middle ground.

I think it's pretty clear which of these two groups would favor rule of the strong over the weak, and which would favor a more democratic system where power and aggression isn't rewarded in undue measure. So I think it's quite clear that Nietzsche (who strongly favored Master Morality and hated democracy and the "love your neighbor" aspect of Christianity) was probably high testosterone and also conservative. He favored a very aggressive rhetorical style that included insults directed against his opponents.

When I watch conservative news programs I see a lot of opinionated aggressive posturing and contempt aimed against the left, and in liberal news programs I see a lot less of that.

I would agree in extreme cases, but most people are not extreme. If you are in the normal range, I don't think it really effects behavior. After all if your testosterone is at a level that it stunts brain development, that is a very high level.

I think its a bit of an oversimplification and stereotypical to assume things like that however. If testosterone was a major factor in politics however, I suspect you would find people switching parties as they get older and testosterone levels drop, however you do not see this. Also you would expect to find young people who are full of testosterone to favor conservatives, when generally its the other way around and they favor liberals.

Nihilism stands at the door. Whence came this uncanniest of all guests?

All good points, thank you. Lol, at one point I did consider re-wording the OP to say "extreme conservatism" rather than just conservatism.

And of course, there are other factors that can make people aggressive or opinionated besides just testosterone, and ones that can make people shy or timid besides low testosterone.


Your main point seems to be that I'm talking in generalities. Well of course, I freely admit that. Anytime you're trying to look at major trends in social anthropology or anything similar you have to deal in generalities. Simply breaking people up into groups labeled liberal and conservative is a generality, but it serves a valid purpose and enables you to look at large scale trends that would be impossible to see if you didn't use generalities.

Thinking about extremely conservative people I've known I do see a certain trend toward aggression and opinionatedness (is that a word?) and contemptuous disregard for facts and evidence or pretty much any ideas that aren't aligned with theirs. And again, I'll freely admit I could be just flat wrong.

The reason I'm even thinking about this is that, ever since discovering the fact that liberalism and conservatism are more than just political stances, and that they're hard-wired into us and affect every aspect of our behavior, I've been fascinated with the idea and have been interested in what other factors might play a role. It's just so frustrating that the issues are so polarizing... why does it seem to be impossible for liberal thinkers and conservative thinkers to get together and agree on so many things??!!

It may or may not have something to do with testosterone, but there sure is a definite correlation between the effects of high testosterone and the way extreme conservatives (at least the ones I'm familiar with) act. One of the most extreme ones I've ever known is a truck driver who's all macho bluster and bravado and tough-guy swagger and he refuses to even listen to any opposing viewpoint to his own. Testosterone might not be the connecting factor - but I'm interested in trying to figure out what it might be, or what other factors might also be involved.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Nihilism stands at the door. Whence came this uncanniest of all guest?

Can you explain? Oh wait - you just said you were drunk tonight...

I'd say it's easier to see it in physical characteristics than behavior. You never know what led someone to act a certain way (it's much easier in mice) but you know how they got that protruding brow and tall, broad shouldered, muscular body.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Can you explain? Oh wait - you just said you were drunk tonight...

It is the first line in the posthumously published book "The Will to Power" where Nietzsche first talked about master/slave morality (which he stole from Hegel!!) and also it has nothing to do with the topic, can you forgive me Darkmatters?

Ok, you're forgiven!! And I'm facepalming @ myself for not getting it! Of course... Nietzsche is in the title of the freakin' thread!!

Originally Posted by tommo

I'd say it's easier to see it in physical characteristics than behavior. You never know what led someone to act a certain way (it's much easier in mice) but you know how they got that protruding brow and tall, broad shouldered, muscular body.

That's also not a sure thing - those traits can be caused by a glandular condition.

But, I feel like if you're able to talk to somebody for a while and observe them - IRL or online or whatever... especially if you've known them for a long time - you can form a pretty sound judgement. Maybe not as to their actual level of testosterone, but aggression/opinionatedness/sense of arrogance etc.

These are traits that are generally in accordance with high-testosterone behavior. I know I'll lose a lot of people right here because in the OP I stated the word testosterone and now I;m saying "the general traits associated with...". But I'm not pushing a prescribed agenda, this is meant to be exploratory. I'm wondering WHY extreme conservatives tend to show these same aggressive opinionated contemptuous tendencies that we also associate with high testosterone.

Earlier Alric, you said that if testosterone were responsible for conservatism then people would turn liberal as they get older. In thinking about it, I realized that people who have been aggressive etc all through their adolescence tend to stay that way as they get old... I don't usually notice that behavior fading - at least not until they become extremely old and feeble (if even then!). Possibly the behavior becomes entrenched? Or maybe testosterone didn't have anything to do with it at all... maybe they were just aggressive and mean because they were always grumpy people?

Originally Posted by tommo

I'd say it's easier to see it in physical characteristics than behavior. You never know what led someone to act a certain way (it's much easier in mice) but you know how they got that protruding brow and tall, broad shouldered, muscular body.

Actually, I've heard that all bald men have excessive testosterone, even if they're gay, short, etc. That's what baldness is caused by.

this is what i've taken away from this thread:

• republican = master
• democrat = slave
• republican = too much tess
• democrat = not enough

lol, am i wrong?

I'd agree liberalism and conservatism are hard wired to an extent, and by that I mean no matter how one is conditioned, they will revert to the hard wired stance. There are liberals who are brought up in conservative households who end up liberal, there are those who are brainwashed by liberalism in schools, in the media and by liberals in society than revert to conservatism. I'd actually say liberals are less open-minded than conservatives, to become a conservative in todays society with all the social stigma you've gotta be pretty open minded.

I'm a conservative yet im very open-minded. Using the logic than liberals are open minded and conservatives are closed minded should ende up with the conclusion that everyone eventually drifts towards conservativism.

It's times like this I wish I knew something about politics, because this sounds interesting.

Wow.

Pretending to ride this hardwired idea, what is the deal with libertarians crossing into conservativism and vice versa?

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

Actually, I've heard that all bald men have excessive testosterone, even if they're gay, short, etc. That's what baldness is caused by.

Well, again, there are other factors. Genetics can make a man go bald early in life. But keep in mind, I'm not saying conservatives actually HAVE high testosterone, just that they value high-test traits.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

this is what i've taken away from this thread:

• republican = master
• democrat = slave
• republican = too much tess
• democrat = not enough

lol, am i wrong?

Well, if you switch Democrat and Republican for Liberal and Conservative, add Morality after Master and Slave (and actually read the article!) take out the smarmy tone and think less reductively about it, that's essentially what I'm suggesting, yes. Not that conservatives necessarily HAVE high testosterone, but that they value high-testosterone traits in their males. Strength, aggression and sexual dominance. Aren't these traits valued by "old-fashioned" people,and isn't "old-fashioned" another way of saying conservative? Liberals on the other hand value compassion for the weak and the elderly and all minorities - very democratic principles which don't favor strong masculine males.

Thatperson, it's funny that you, the most close-minded person on the board, would suggest conservatives are open-minded. They're actually characterized as being xenophobic and resistant to change and clinging stubbornly to their own opinions even when they've been shown to be wrong.

Great - Somii is here to stomp on my ideas... I guess the party's on now! Somii, Greenhavoc, Thatperson - I'd characterize all 3 under conservative for purposes of this discussion (which uses only conservative and liberal as opposing sides, and remember does not refer to political parties but a mindset).


Conservatives seem to believe in rule of the strong and screw the weak and minorities. This attitude is reflected in conservative ideas about welfare for instance - strongly conservative people seem to think "screw the weak and underprivileged - if they can't earn their own way they don't deserve any help... it'll make 'em strong!" - whereas the liberal view on welfare is that we should help the weak and underprivileged. Liberals favor a rule by compassion for all, conservatives seem to favor rule of the strong and to hell with the weak and helpless.

Darkmatters, why on earth am I the most close minded on the board? I consider myself very open minded. What do you actually mean by open minded?

I always assumed open-minded meant willing to consider ideas that are not your own openly without prejudice. I wouldn't say I'm resistant to change per se, in the 1950's I would have been resistant to change, but now we are in 2012 I'm up for quite a lot of change. change is not always good, because if ain't broke don't fix it. However 2012 is quite broke and does need fixing.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Darkmatters, why on earth am I the most close minded on the board? I consider myself very open minded. What do you actually mean by open minded?

Well, you're the only one who does.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I always assumed open-minded meant willing to consider ideas that are not your own openly without prejudice. I wouldn't say I'm resistant to change per se, in the 1950's I would have been resistant to change, but now we are in 2012 I'm up for quite a lot of change. change is not always good, because if ain't broke don't fix it. However 2012 is quite broke and does need fixing.

Resistant to change in yourself - not in society! Geeze.. way to deliberately misunderstand!

Very interesting... this thread seems to have attracted the attention of a bunch of conservatives who don't like the way conservatives are portrayed so they're actively attacking it. How very aggressive!! Meanwhile, I'm assuming the more liberal people are mostly staying away because they don't like the way liberals are being portrayed (or maybe they simply dislike the fact that anyone is being portrayed in what might be considered a negative way.. ).

@Darkmatters I didn't really participate in this thread because I detest politics. I used to hate people who were apathetic about politics but now I just don't care (I know its a wonderful attitude but what can ya do?). I think this thread is extremely clever and being somewhat well versed in Nietzsche (in high school, I cannot stand him now) I almost died laughing while reading this thread last night. I think your observation (with the exception of the testosterone assertion, I have no comment on that) was spot on. Nietzsche categorized two kinds of ethical positions (that were present in 19th century Germany) the master morality and the slave morality.

Master morality was the ethical positions of the "strong willed" people who unapologeticly get what they want from life without being held back by the have-nots (like I said I think your connection between master morality and conservatives was a spot-on observation). The Greeks according to him were the exemplification of this ethical position. They believed the good to be the strong, the beautiful, etc. Look at Greek art for instance.

The slave morality was equated with the weak, the have-nots, the meek and egalitarian. To him Christians exemplified this morality. Which is unusual because conservatives (who are ubiquitously Christian) do not respect these values in the slightest, they indeed tend to fall under the category of master morality. They are not egalitarian and generally are apathetic about the lower class. It is unusual to say the least. Remember South Carolina booing Ron Paul for referencing the golden rule?

I don't know what implications can be drawn from this but it is a really interesting thread.

I think I'm more liberal than conservative. Please don't group me with those members, simply because I somewhat see otherwise. If anything, I wanted more exposition from this subject to see it more clearly.

I liked the party joke.

Thank you! (@ Stormcrow)

About the testosterone connection - the idea was brand new in y head when I made the post, and shortly afterwards I revised it. I no longer think actual testosterone has anything to do with it, but I do believe Conservatives/Master Moralists favor strong aggressive male behavior, which essentially means high-testosterone type behavior. And actually now that I've boiled it down to that wording, I guess it's pretty obvious.

I suspect most Conservatives aren't religious in a real sense, but use it more as a social powerhouse. The Moral Majority is a powerful force and is based on determining and decreeing what's moral and right.

Another connection that occurred to me recently that seems to support this - there are certain societies that are aggressively conservative and that obviously value masculine aggression and sexual dominance - such as ghettos and barrios and 3rd world countries at the extreme end of the scale and a little less strongly Hispanic societies in general. In these societies males are taught - the hard way - to be aggressively masculine or they're gonna get their asses beat every day. It's definitely the rule of the strong over the weak and there's no mercy for the weak. This is hardly a democratic (liberal) principle!

Originally Posted by Malac Reborn

I think I'm more liberal than conservative. Please don't group me with those members, simply because I somewhat see otherwise. If anything, I wanted more exposition from this subject to see it more clearly.

I liked the party joke.

Ok, I don't really know much about you Somii (Malac Reborn). I only said that because I consider you strongly aggressive, but I don't know enough about you to really say.

Greenhavoc on the other hand - very conservative attitude toward women, and I think I got some testosterone on me just looking at his picture!!

I personally think it works better if you use neo's vs the old versions. Meaning neoliberals, and neoconseratives. Which is interesting since the neos of both parties, hijacked their respected parties and hold a lot of sway despite generally holding views different from most people in their parties.

The generalities kind of fall apart when you talk about libertarians who generally call them self conservatives but are obviously liberal. The reason being, they are both conservative and liberal in the historical sense, but neither in the modern sense.

I especially care about that, since I myself am a libertarian. I would say they have a peaceful slave like morality of live and let live. On the other hand there is no doubt they are extremely aggressive and hold strong opinions, but again they don't force that on people.