Thread by @Indian_Bronson

Testosterone doesn't mean hard-charging, "alpha male" behavior all the time.

nature.com/articles/s4159…

Status vs. Dominance — high rung on a long ladder, vs top rung on any ladder (even a short one)

"[T] promotes behaviours intended to enhance social dominance. However, recent research suggests that testosterone enhances strategic social behaviour rather than dominance seeking."

The authors looked at Japanese university's rugby players.

Now, you might be like "Ha! the Japanese - pffft" but I assure you, Gs are Gs worldwide. None of these guys are pussies, okay?

But they also have strict (again, Japan) social and team (rugby) hiearchies.

They played rounds of Ultimatum—You and a guy get money. He proposes a split. You accept, or reject (and you both get nothing).

Something is better than nothing, so the proposer might be like "$99 me, $1 you" and get acceptance.

But would 🎌 Rugbyzawa Chaderu 🎌accept that?

Maybe - but it depends on group status, and not individual dominance.

Players were anonymized, but participants knew the team seniority of the proposer they were dealing with.

"..among the most senior participants, higher testosterone was associated with lower acquiescence. Conversely, higher testosterone among the lower-status participants was associated with higher acquiescence."

as they say in the animes "Nani?!!?"

is this endocrine disruption?

No. The T levels were intact/could be controlled for (Chad Rugby players, but seniority interactions explained outcomes much better.

Senior players acquiesced *less* if their testosterone was high rather than low, while junior players acquiesced *more* if their testosterone was high rather than low.

The CEO who is like a weathervane and the Private who won't shut up and execute are probably both LOW-T.

The authors speculate a bit on the varsity days drama of Japanese rugby players to explain some outlier results, but those are less interesting to me and you can read the paper for that.