The testosterone argument is a bullshit one in this context: the article you posted isn't trying to connect the dots in the disingenuous way you are, it's talking about prostate cancer. It does not attempt to suss out whether or not testosterone levels are the cause of crime, period. The misstep you are taking is assuming that testosterone causes crime, rather than correlates with it. Even this article [1], which you will probably salivate over, doesn't suggest that testosterone causes crime, merely that it correlates with misbehavior (in a very particular setting, namely prison). Here's [2] research that suggests that socioeconomic status mitigates the correlation between testosterone and misbehavior. At a minimum, this suggests that we have a chicken-egg dilemma between testosterone and misbehavior. The next question I would ask is: Do troubled settings and poor childhoods engender higher testosterone levels in adulthood?
Lastly, above and beyond any correlation between testosterone and crime, how do you propose to use this information to inform policy decisions? My main gripe in this fantasyland of HBD-speak is that people use this information as "scientific" grounds for enforcing their racist policy predispositions. I'd like to hear where you think you would take this testosterone point, but all too often people (and unfortunately, I get the impression that you are one of them) imply that these few studies are grounds for damning and castigating entire populations because of their perceived inferiority and incorrigibility.
EDIT for posterity: I would like to point out that you posted your cousin/uncle link upthread after I posted my GP comment above. I wouldn't have made as strong a comment had I seen links or sources.
Don't assume bad intentions. I used to think that there is a strong racial component, simply because it matched my everyday experiences. Only after I started traveling more did my opinion change - I'm now pretty sure that its mostly cultural.
Your previous reply sounded a lot like those "you are not allowed to say this" stuff that does a lot of harm, because it suffocates discourse.
So thanks for posting a factual follow-up, we need more of those and less of the political correct group-think dismissals.
Thank you for the reminder. I genuinely am not trying to suffocate discourse and I am interested in engaging in conversation, but I have no qualms about pointing out disingenuous or deceptive pseudo-discourse when I see it. Posting a link to a study that mentions testosterone in a different medical context, and using it to justify to racist institutions is, IMO, inflammatory and dishonest to say the least.
Thanks for the effort of listing those, some of them definitely cross the line. However, I disagree that staying silent is always the best way to handle this - there is an audience that can still be influenced by convincing arguments, even though they might remain invisible.
Your theory is just damn racist. You make a huge jump from correlation to causation that isn't warranted from the data you present -- it's that (I stress, obnoxiously unsubstantiated) jump that's damn racist.
Ex: "Melanin is positively correlated with crime. <Insert some unsubstantiated purely conjectural causal explanation about how melanin effects the psyche>" is exactly the same argument, and is (I hope obviously) damn racist.
The study cited also doesn't say what you think it does, and your misreading is obnoxiously wilful, to the point that it's clear you're looking for evidence to back something you believe a priori. But someone else has already taken that on.
Anyway, the bar for these sorts of claims is high for a reason: people have made these "black men just have medical differences that make them more susceptible to violence/rape/murder/crime" arguments since the existence of modern medicine. The evidence behind these claims has always been pure bullshit racism masquerading as science.
First, Even if testosterone plays a role in male incarceration rates, your conjecture that a 15% increase in average testosterone can explain the severe racial disparity in incarceration rates in unsubstantiated. Even if "X causes Y", it does not follow that "15% more X causes xx% more Y".
Second, there are tons of alternative explanations (e.g. socialization). Nature vs. nurture is adolescent-level stuff, and obviously males and females are socialized differently. Stop being thick.
Third, that's not how science (or anything except religion) works. You don't get to make fallaciously substantiated conjectures and then demand everyone believe them until the core claim is disproven.
edit: Oh wow, based on prior coments you're actually just straight up early 20th century style racist, or a troll, or both. Done engaging you, and really hoping you're just a stupid troll and don't believe anything you're saying here.
I almost always provide links to sources that provide a reasonably analytic angle.
They are generally ignored or misunderstood. Because, you know, (structural) racism.