Testosterone and "choice", our very "souls"

[SeattleUte]

I have no new information here. But I heard an interesting perspective in an interview I heard on NPR this weekend. The fellow interviewed had suddenly had his testosterone level fall to nearly 0 for about three months before he and drs. figured out what was going on. He had some interesting observations like that he ceased to "desire" anything, could see things with a new clarity, etc. (the NPR voice over commented that testosterone, which of course women have as well, is the "hormone of desire").

Anyway, the crux of the interview came when the subject said that what was most revealing to him was that features of his being that he considered part and parcel of who he was vanished. Not just libido and tone of voice, but also character traits of which he had not been so fond, such as the impulse to judge others. He became someone else.

The subject was very articulate and he described how this experience rocked his ingrained perceptions concerning the sanctity of the soul, i.e., since Plato Weserners have nearly presumed a neat split between the body and the "soul," the soul being "inviolate." In his epic poem "On the Nature of the Universe" Lucretious, the poet/materialist who lived during Augustus' reign, eloquently makes similar points in attacking the notion of the soul/body cleavage and the permanence of the soul or there being even any such thing as a soul.

[RC Vikings]

I'm not sure about all that but I do know that when George Costanza stopped thinking about sex he got a lot smarter.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I have no new information here. But I heard an interesting perspective in an interview I heard on NPR this weekend. The fellow interviewed had suddenly had his testosterone level fall to nearly 0 for about three months before he and drs. figured out what was going on. He had some interesting observations like that he ceased to "desire" anything, could see things with a new clarity, etc. (the NPR voice over commented that testosterone, which of course women have as well, is the "hormone of desire").

Anyway, the crux of the interview came when the subject said that what was most revealing to him was that features of his being that he considered part and parcel of who he was vanished. Not just libido and tone of voice, but also character traits of which he had not been so fond, such as the impulse to judge others. He became someone else.

The subject was very articulate and he described how this experience rocked his ingrained perceptions concerning the sanctity of the soul, i.e., since Plato Weserners have nearly presumed a neat split between the body and the "soul," the soul being "inviolate." In his epic poem "On the Nature of the Universe" Lucretious, the poet/materialist who lived during Augustus' reign, eloquently makes similar points in attacking the notion of the soul/body cleavage and the permanence of the soul or there being even any such thing as a soul.

Further evidence of why it pisses me off my tax dollars go to support NPR.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by KiteRider

The Testosterone story was featured in the NPR show This American Life, and can be enjoyed by all by visiting www.thisamericanlife.org

The Testosterone episode was first aired in 2002. I thought it was good back then, and it is still great now. Great anecdotal evidence for the water cooler crowd.

Thx.

[Archaea]

Personality is affected by hormones.

Can any married man deny that fact?

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Personality is affected by hormones.

Can any married man deny that fact?

Not I. Demon-woman....

[Indy Coug]

The natural man is an enemy to God...

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by KiteRider

Why should this piss you off about tax dollars? NPR offers a lot of public benefit at a very low cost. Same for PBS.

The Testosterone story was featured in the NPR show This American Life, and can be enjoyed by all by visiting www.thisamericanlife.org

The Testosterone episode was first aired in 2002. I thought it was good back then, and it is still great now. Great anecdotal evidence for the water cooler crowd.

If it is so dang good then people ought to be willing to pay for it. I shouldn't have to subsidize it.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The subject was very articulate and he described how this experience rocked his ingrained perceptions concerning the sanctity of the soul, i.e., since Plato Weserners have nearly presumed a neat split between the body and the "soul," the soul being "inviolate." In his epic poem "On the Nature of the Universe" Lucretious, the poet/materialist who lived during Augustus' reign, eloquently makes similar points in attacking the notion of the soul/body cleavage and the permanence of the soul or there being even any such thing as a soul.

Now you are veritably shaking the formerly robust foundations of my faith. Certainly you must be aware of the revolutionary experiments of Dr. Duncan MacDougall, who in 1907 determined that the human soul weighs 21 grams (comparable to five nickels), and that dogs do not have souls? He observed this apparent weight loss by placing patients on scales just prior to their demise. Unfortunately Dr. MacDougall failed to consider weight loss due to the moisture evaporation caused by post mortem rise in body temperature, and his work was widely discredited. So what I am to do the next time an instructor places five nickels on a table as an object lesson - tell them it is a function of testosterone?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by KiteRider

I really understand your argument, since I feel the same way about the war in Iraq. If there was a way to find out, I would be willing to bet that given a line-item tax form, both PBS and NPR would receive a lot more funding compared to the war in Iraq. I believe that these public services continue to exist because a majority of people are willing to pay for them with their taxes.

I really like the idea of being able to personally decide where to apply my tax dollars. That would be fun.

Hard for even a small government guy like myself to argue against this reasoning, if the factual predicates are true.