All of SithMasterSean's Comments + Replies

Social status & testosterone

Let me tell you about my personal experience with testosterone, which may be of some interest. At the age of 21 I was a junior in college majoring in math and physics, a very thin, effeminate, extremely shy nerd who was sometimes mistaken for a 14 year old prodigy. When I finally saw a doctor and it was found that I produced no natural testosterone, I began giving myself injections of the hormone. Anxious to get results, I often gave myself more than the prescribed dose. The results were profound: Within 6 months I had undergone an accelerated puberty whic... (read more)

5ahbwramc9y
This is way way old I know, but I thought I'd give a contrasting viewpoint. I too produce no natural testosterone. I noticed something was off around age 16 and started getting injections at age 17, I think. My pubertal development was more gradual, probably taking about a year and half or so. I noticed no significant personality changes during that time or since (other than being horny all the time, of course), and definitely no increase in aggression (I started as a very passive person if you want a baseline). I don't think my physique changed that much (I was very skinny before taking testosterone and I still am), but I had a significant growth spurt. I got the occasional pimple, but no acne. Honestly the whole transition was very smooth and didn't cause me any trouble whatsoever - leading me to theorize at the time that late teens might actually be a better time to go through puberty, because one is cognitively more able to handle the abrupt changes. The above seems to argue against that though. Incidentally, my testosterone dose at the moment gives me a peak level that's on the high end of normal. So I don't think it's a case of me not getting "enough" testosterone to make me aggressive, unless the effect only shows up for extremely high levels.
0[anonymous]11y
Trans men tend not to do that.

Upvoted for informative account of experience, but not for inferences drawn therefrom (I agree with Davorak on that).

You gave yourself a powerful mind altering chemical that most peoples bodies/minds have grown up with and have built up mental models, skill, techniques to handle it. Your mind however did not have a half a life time to learn how to handle it. That is why:

it probably isn’t very helpful in a technological civilization which requires people to sit at computers all day manipulating symbols. My guess is that women are going to rule in such a world, as high testosterone men become increasingly useless and tend to wind up in prison. It may get to the point wh

... (read more)
-2rysade11y
Okay. I think that perhaps you could benefit from reading R. J. Hollingdale's biography, Nietzsche: The Man and His Philosophy [http://www.amazon.com/Nietzsche-Philosophy-R-J-Hollingdale/dp/0521640911/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317158568&sr=8-1] Nietzsche's language may be controversial, but his points are quite benign. Take Will to Power for example. As I'm interpreting Will to Power right now with my limited exposure to his writings, Will to Power is just his explanation for why living beings don't just stop at mere survival. Think about it: Evolution does not favor those who do the mere minimum for survival, it favors those who excel. Will to Power is therefore the foundation, basis, and cause of all life in an ultimate sense. You could say Richard Dawkins restated Nietzsche's point when Dawkins coined the term 'The Selfish Gene' and elaborated on how life really works at a basic level. The following is running the risk of stepping into mere speculation because, like I said, I haven't read all his works yet: Since we are 'gene machines,' and we are programmed by them in countless ways, it follows that we are inherently selfish; that we have a Will to Power of our own. Sit down and watch people sometime and you'll find this plays out fairly nicely. It's not perfect of course, but who are we to say that the deviant behavior of selflessness is 'good' if the true cause of life is selfishness? This plays into his arguments concerning 'good' and 'evil' and how transient they both are. All cultures, Nietzsche says, have had different values and the cultures of the future will have values different from us. Perhaps what we should be doing is exercising some of our power to 'revalue all values,' something that he admitted he was not up to the task of. To be honest, I think he was mostly thinking in the same direction the transhumanist community of today largely thinks in. We DO need to revalue all values. We need someone SMARTER than us to do it... Though I probably shou
8lessdazed11y
To counter a spiteful and inimical jumble of appeals to fictional evidence [http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generalization_from/], I must become a spiteful and inimical jumble of appeals to fictional evidence...you have clearly succumbed to irrational mind-killer charged-term-that-I-don't-understand-but-use-because-it-sounds-good fear, just like in Lord of the Rings when...wait, what's this? My arm...it...it's translucent, just like in Back to the Future...I am turning insubstantial by becoming fictional evidence...nooooooooo!!!!!! [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigNo]
3pedanterrific11y
Sheer cached-thought pattern matching produced "To conquer politics, you must become politics." and then I threw up in my mouth a little, so thanks for that.
7rysade11y
That's interesting. I'm reading Thus Spake Zarathustra right now and noticing a couple things that don't exactly jive too well with our rationalist paradigm here. Still, I didn't expect a comment like this to be downvoted this much based on what I've read from Nietzsche so far. Is it mostly because of the antisocial tone of this comment, or is it Nietzsche himself that caused the downvotes?