flipper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:58:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:20:10 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

Why Jim's frothing at the mouth about Obama

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...osterone_drop/

What a pile of BS...

Of course 'the register' article is.

It's a good example, though, of how ignorant fools, either
intentionally or as an artifact of their stupidity, create propaganda
by injecting misleading information, falsehoods, and/or irrelevancies.
Secondarily, it's an example of how 'faux science' gets promulgated.

Read the actual research report (to their credit they link to it).
There is only one mention of 'Republican', to denote that was McCain's
party. Barr was "Libertarian party" and Obama was "Democratic party."

The Register's comment about testosterone being "considered essential
for basic manliness" is misleading, as testosterone has multiple roles
in human behavior, and irrelevant to the experiment. The researcher's
clearly explained it.

"Across mammalian species, testosterone is critically linked to
dominance competition for hierarchical advancement in males [3]-[5].
When males win a dominance contest, their testosterone levels rise or
remain stable to resist a circadian decline, and when they lose, their
testosterone levels fall [3]-[5]. In men, the described pattern of
testosterone change after winning or losing has been demonstrated in
the context of direct, interpersonal competition (e.g., sports matches
and non-physical competitions) [4], [ e.g. 6]-[8]. In addition,
Bernhardt and colleagues [9] measured World Cup soccer fans'
testosterone changes after the outcome of a World Cup match, and they
found that vicariously-experienced competition (i.e. watching one's
favorite sports teams win or lose) drives testosterone increases in
winners and decreases in losers "

Hasn't got a blessed thing to do with 'political party' nor 'virility'

And to further illustrate, they predicted the results regardless of
which 'party' won.

"We predicted that males who voted for the losing presidential
candidates would have post-outcome testosterone decreases, and that
the males who voted for the winning candidate would have either stable
post-outcome testosterone or testosterone increases. On the basis of
inconclusive but principally null findings in past research and the
evolutionary perspective which suggests that testosterone plays a
lesser role in female mammalian competition, we predicted that female
voters would not show differential testosterone changes according to
the election outcome."

Not only that, but they specifically attempted to factor out political
viewpoint as well as 'enthusiasm' for the candidate.

"Moreover, the candidate choice effect on men's testosterone change
remained even when participants' conservatism, as measured by the RWA
scale [18], was partialled out of the analysis (F(1, 49), = 5.39, p =
0.03). Further still, the candidate choice effect was maintained when
adding an additional covariate which accounted for voters' intensity
of support for their candidate (F(1, 48), = 5.37, p = 0.03). "

And now, for any of this to amount to jack ****, you have to show that
Obama didn't win. lol