flipper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:31:04 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:00:18 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

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


No but your comment proves you're incapable of comprehending
English.

As always, when stuck, floppy lies.


As always, the liar accuses others of his own offense.

More lies, as usual. Unless you can show the study does not apply to the
2008 election, no need to reply.