JULIA & TONY: HORMONE OVERLOAD
What if old-fashioned human biology could explain why neither Julia Gillard nor Tony Abbott satisfy us as leaders?
What if, armed with this understanding, no-one under the age of 55 was ever allowed anywhere near Parliament House or the floor of the stockmarket?
And, what if an Australian council of male and female “tribal elders” was the most stable form of government we could ever have?
Too many hormones? Tony Abbott in flight mode. Photograph via WA Today.
These questions have intrigued me over the past few days since I stumbled across a bunch of theories in the emerging field of biobehavioural science.
It’s an area of science which has exploded in the last decade and seeks to blend neurobiology and psychology to explain our social interactions. It also asks if we humans can overcome our basic biology to create a better world.
Let me explain.
It’s our hormones that are getting us into strife.
It gets back to our earliest times as humans. Men were warriors and the defenders of women who were primarily occupied with giving birth and tending children and the elderly.
Women produce, on average, about 10-20 percent of the testosterone of men. That means the way men and women respond to stress and threat, is very, very different.
Not better, or worse… just different.
So, when our ancestors encountered, say a rampant grizzly bear, the males were more likely to react with what’s called “fight or flight”. And the females, responding to the urge of their reproductive hormones, were more likely to do what’s called “tend and befriend” in order to maintain their social networks.
In other words, the science has the Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard phenomenon nailed.
It’s explained in the work of the US biologically oriented social psychologist, Shelley E. Taylor.
Remember when Abbott (left) and Pyne ran through Parliament for the exits when big, bad Craig Thomson (not so much grizzly, as rampant koala) appeared in their midst? Being unable to fight, both Abbott and Pyne chose “flight” as they rattled the doors of Parliament in a frenzy.
Meanwhile, Julia Gillard made soothing noises to keep friends and her minority government intact.
Tony lacks compassion. Julia doesn’t have the killer instinct.
Two sides of the same coin… and when male and female approaches are set up against each other, it creates friction. Neither has the whole answer.
(Interestingly, the research postulates what triggers stress in men and women is also different. Men are more stressed by failure in competitive situations. Women are more stressed by social problems in families and relationships.)
The second theory I encountered was in The Winner Effect by Trinity neuroscientist Professor Ian H. Robertson.
In it he shows how, for some men, power can be as addictive as any drug.
Bill Clinton, Napoleon, Silvio Berlusconi, Dominique Strauss-Kahn: what drives these men to take such risks and how does success and power change the way their brains work?
The ‘winner effect’ is a term used in biology to describe how a male animal that has won a few fights against weaker opponents is much more likely to win subsequent bouts against stronger contenders.
Their testosterone levels become turbo-charged, so they take greater and greater risks until finally, they overplay their hands, meet their match and, as it happens in the animal world, lose everything – their territory, their capacity to breed, their lives.
It applies to humans, too. Prof. Robertson says that success actually changes the chemistry of the male brain, making them more focused, smarter, confident and aggressive. The effect is as strong as any drug, he says. The more males win, the more they will go on to win. (NB: Research, as yet unpublished, suggests women do not have the winner effect.)
But the downside is that winning can become so addictive that even the thought of more power can make men lose empathy and cheat on their partners.
Sound familiar?
| Page 1 of 2 | next >> |
19 Responses to this article
-
Tim July 23, 2012
It all sounds very familiar. Remember Plato’s Republic? Bring on the Philosopher Kings!
-
Jenny July 23, 2012
Dick Smith
-
Ro. Watson July 23, 2012
fight,flight or freeze?
-
Norelle July 23, 2012
Geraldine Doogue, Cheryl Kernot, definitely William Deane, Ita Buttrose, Dick Smith, Geoffrey Cousins,
-
the*sparrow July 23, 2012
Ted Mack, Bob Brown, Geoffrey Robertson, Dick Smith, Cheryl Kernot, and Fran Kelly when she is old enough!
-
Helen July 23, 2012
Oh, please. And women prefer pink because, on the Savanna, they had to look for ripe fruit…
This Evolutionary Psychology “neurononsense” with its plethora of “just so stories” about times which are unrecorded (what empirical evidence do you have of that Grizzly Bear anecdote? Right) has been delightfully skewered by Cordelia Fine. Search her books out. They may not make her as much of a fortune as the neurononsense-ists, whose conclusions mysteriously always point to the rightness of traditional gender roles, but unlike them she has a wicked sense of humour which I know you will enjoy.
-
amd August 3, 2012
Thank you, Helen. I get very tired of the same old chestnuts about male and female behaviour being trotted out.
-
-
Helen July 23, 2012
Must we have this picture of Tones in his sluggos? It’s a horrible sight.
-
WENDY GREEN July 23, 2012
Err, sorry Wendy, but your list doesn’t contain any sports people and any Council of Elders in Australia would have to have a retired sports person to give the ‘Common Man’s’ perspective, wouldn’t it?
I would add Dick Smith to your list too – no other Australian has more enthusiasm for our beloved country than Dick!
Just wondering, why Prof de Krester?
-
Tess July 23, 2012
My thoughts exactly, Helen.
-
Quiet July 24, 2012
You having your period?
Must be your PMS time of the month for you to bring that up in the public domain.
News Flash – female journalist secures Glass Ceiling in place by publishing a story that links hormones and leadership without academic rigour or scientific substance. Yeah you put in some references, but, really, did you have to publish this one????
Humour and rubbish are not the same. This, in my opinion is rubbish. -
Quiet July 24, 2012
It’s our hormones that are getting us into strife.
-
liza July 24, 2012
hmmm. Gina Rinhart ?
-
Linda July 24, 2012
I really think we need post menopausal women to run the country rather than menopausal- probably not a great idea to be trying to run anything when you are feeling like you might prefer to either ” go postal ” or go back to bed and can’t decide which!
-
Helen July 24, 2012
Speak for yourself. I think it’s really harmful and silly that people are fostering the “menopause makes you crrraaaaazzzzeeeee” meme – Honestly, it wasn’t the case with me nor with most of the people I know who have been through it. Those who experience bad symptoms can get some relief through medication. This “bitcnez be crazy” stereotype sets up a further set of straw-women which in turn encourages further discrimination against women who wish to work in responsible jobs. Or was that your intention?
-
Angela July 26, 2012
Geoffrey Cousins, Myriam Margolies
-
John Roach July 26, 2012
Paul Keating, Thomas and Kristina Keneally, Marie Bashire, Cheryl Kernot, Ita Buttrose, Leigh Sales, Dick Smith, Kate Mc Clymont,Adam Spencer, Fred Watson.
