Interesting, I'd not seen that study. A couple things to note, though:

We know for a fact that T cause aggression in rodents, as even that study mentions.

Negotiations might not be the best indicator of aggression as it seems too situational. Lowballing someone on a deal doesn't necessarily equate with aggression imo, and one can still be aggressive but seek to maintain order and equality in your social circle. For instance there are plenty of brilliant and aggressive soldiers and military leaders who are very good ay maintaining a fair environment for those under them as it promotes loyalty and morale.

Additiinally, I suspect these doses of T are pretty low or they'd risk upsetting the women's hormonal balance, but I'm just speculating.

Regardless it's an interesting result and I'd like to read up on it more. But whatever the truth about T and aggression, it doesn't change the fact that hormones DO affect our moods and decision-making. Anti-depressants, mood stabilizers, stimulants, etc all directly affect how we behave. So I feel that it's a no-brainer that men and women behave differently given the unique mix of chemicals in their system.

"So I feel that it's a no-brainer..."
The hallmark of the scientific method.

I would be floored if there were no "scientific" studies to back any argument you would like to make about anything, and several ways to criticize or denounce them. The human sciences have been flawed from the beginning. Search David Suzuki/Rushton for the appropriate response.

"We're just finally getting out of the 'everyone is identical and we should treat everyone the exact same way' phase."
Cultural changes to cultural expectations, but driven by what?

"j/k. but seriously, I don't think anyone's saying every man is one way and every woman is another. As with anything it's about tendencies and bell curves and generalizations etc etc."
I had gender generalizations figuritively thrashed out of me before puberty.

"I don't think society is slipping into misogyny at all."
Where are you?

My apologies. I should have used the "I have two family members who are like X" argument.

This is true. Therefore we should ignore all research and all conclusions drawn from that research. Wait, what?

Not all science is flawed at all times. Saying that because one researcher was biased and/or flat-out wrong is a ridiculous argument against the validity of another.

Again, a single example, no matter how personal, is waaaay too small a sample size to be statistically significant.

Where am I? I'm in a country where women are allowed to be CEOs and even Commander in Chief of the armed forces. I'm in a country that doesn't force women to be circumsized or cover their face or be stoned to death. We're moving towards gender equality every day. I'm not suggesting that there is any disparity in status levels between men and women, only that the genders are different. Research shows that male and female hormones, bodies, sex characteristics and yes, brains, are different. I really don't see what's so unbelievable about that statement.

"My apologies. I should have used the "I have two family members who are like X" argument."

That wasn't an argument, it was my reason for being irked.

"Not all science is flawed at all times. Saying that because one researcher was biased and/or flat-out wrong is a ridiculous argument against the validity of another."

Rushton wasn't near the beginnings of human sciences. There was a divide between researchers who were looking at the minutia and those that were looking at general effects. The general effects people have given us nothing but nonsense and paradigm shifts. Every time some minutia is documented the generalists make great leaps in all directions. What Suzuki said of Rushton was, "I do not think we should dignify this man or his ideas in public debate."

"Where am I? I'm in a country where women are allowed to be CEOs and even Commander in Chief of the armed forces. I'm in a country that doesn't force women to be circumsized or cover their face or be stoned to death"

None of this was not true in 1980.

Okay then, how about this?

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2...pumps-at-work/

Excerpt:
"Well, that lady is now guaranteed the right to use a breast pump at work, the result of the health care bill passed by Congress last month. Section 4207 of the bill amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to include the guarantee of “a reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for 1 year after the child’s birth each time such employee has need to express the milk,” for nonexempt hourly workers, and also the stipulation that this be done in “a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from co-workers and the public.”"

This is a great example both of our society moving away from, rather than towards, misogyny, AND of needing to make special accommodations because of a difference in gender. Men don't get milk-pumping breaks (as it should be obv). All I've been saying is that the genders are inherently different, and it's in our best interest to be sensitive to that.

I posted a PNAS study itt. Please read. Testosterone levels can predict risk to risk aversion accurately.

Also the nature study is simply adding T into a subject disregarding the hormonal balance an indiviual person has. It so much more complicated than giving a person T, and checking the blood levels. They would literally to have to take samples every pass, or every 1st pass after receptor resistance is done. Each pass is about 2 minutes, each receptor will take 15 to 30 minutes to be clear to recieve T again. Which is also odd considering blood levels do not clearly mean the T was actually used in the hormone receptors at the time the game was going on. Now any indiviual has a certain amount of receptors, and excess remains in the blood. Excess T in the blood stream may break down into estrogens in the body (many body builders that are juicing will have this happen, so some have to take other hormones to stop those effects) or break down further into amino acids. The study amazingly, considering the journal, does not take into account the metabolization of the hormone, or the receptor profile of the individual. Let alone to extropolate any meaningful data on aggressive behaviour. I'm sure it's a repeatable experiment, but I do not believe it's a good experiment.

It's also weird to have such a small definition of "aggressive" behaviour as human bargaining, to a broad defintion of animal aggression in rats. That is a HUGE jump to make.

woops, that WoT.

Even Saudi Arabia is making progress
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15052030