Comments

Good question, but the 25 men who were tested at the beginning of the study were all alive at the end of the two-year period, even the ones who didn't have antibodies.

Dustin H.--I have no idea whether PopSci hires sexists or not, but the headline here is completely tongue-in-cheek. If a study had found that estrogen fuels financial risk-taking, the editor in charge would've slapped "Blame Women!" onto that hed in the time it takes to say "Mary Daly." Dontbother--Your point is well-taken--and I hope it was clear that I was looking askance at such simplistic formulations, not endorsing them--but that doesn't mean it's not interesting to pin down the effect that one specific hormone might have on one specific (but extremely important) behavior: taking risks with assets and resources. I hope that studying these things will actually lead us to a richer view of human motivations, not a more starkly deterministic one. AndrewB--That's one thing that the authors of this study--particularly Anna Dreber, the economist--are interested in looking at next: how male hormones might have had a part in the impulse to create financial markets, why more men are traders, how testosterone is connected to profitability, etc. And BTW, I like Camille Paglia as much as the next sex blogger, but she's a provocateur first, a scientist second (hey wait--she's not a scientist at all!). To everyone--thanks for reading. In the future, I'll try to respond to as many comments as I can, so if you have any more questions, requests, nagging concerns, or accusations of sexism for me, drop 'em here!