ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Hey BBC! Sorry it took so long to get back to you, but holiday obligations and some travel intervened. Hope you had a nice holiday. You made several points, but there are some holes in your logic . . . I'll try to address the points individually. This is an example of the pot saying that the kettle absorbs all wavelengths of visible light. This is a Buffalo Bills message board, so the appropriate frame of reference for making any point about the PNAS study is our beloved Bills. So from the standpoint of how it affects Bills' players, the likelihood that single nonfathers will be partnered fathers 4.5 years into the future is totally irrelevant. The 2011 CBA standardizes the length of rookie contracts at four years or less, with a team option for a 5th year for only those players drafted in the first round. http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/2011CBA.pdf [in particular, see Section 3(a) concerning contract length on page 24] The team has publicly stated that it is committed to building through the draft, even though the majority of players drafted by the Bills don't get a second contract here. Who cares if they wind up being fathers in committed relationships when they join some other team in the future? That's actually good for us, because it makes our competition weaker. Even if you make the debatable assumption that the Bills will exercise their fifth year option for somebody like Dareus, we still get 4.5 years of aggressive, high testosterone play from him before his pharaoh moans do him in. What's wrong with that? Rather than merely relying on the definition of the word, you went so far as to capitalize the word "AND" in the above statement. But the PNAS study does NOT say that lower testosterone levels are experienced ONLY by partnered fathers who also help raise their kids. To illustrate my point, consider this hypothetical. Assume there is a study showing that (i) men with only one leg can't move from point A to point B as fast as men with two legs, and (ii) men with no legs take even longer to move from point A to point B than men with one leg. By your logic, such a study has no predictive value for how fast men can move with only one leg as compared to two, because the study "clearly argues" that if you have no legs, you move even slower than if you have one leg. And you accuse ME of needing to learn how to interpret data and use it to prove my point? Your point about the differences in genetic background between filipinos on the one hand, and whites and African Americans on the other, might have some merit if you consider the data from the cited PNAS study in isolation. But the PNAs study is one of many involving testosterone. The drop in testosterone levels by pairbonded fathers involved in raising offspring has been observed not only in humans, but in other species. The very FIRST sentence of the PNAS study makes this pretty clear: http://anpron.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Longitudinal-evidence-that-fatherhood-decreases-testosterone-in-human-males.pdf Is it within the realm of possibility that changes in testosterone levels of filipino males are affected by behavior in ways similar to what has been widely observed in the animal kingdom, while the testosterone levels of white and African American males are not? I suppose, but why would you expect to find such a difference? Male birds and male filipino humans have different base-line testosterone levels, yet they both show decreased testosterone levels when they are pairbonded and involved in raising offspring. Your analytic comb appears to have coarser teeth than you think. And who's talking about a "unified theory?" I never said that testosterone levels were the "only" reason for the lost decade, just that they were the "hidden" reason. There's lots of reasons why the Bills have been losing for a decade. If it makes you happy, we could change the thread title to "A Hidden Reason For the Lost Decade." If you want to discuss unified theories, we can discuss whether string theory reconciles Einstein's theory of general relativity with quantum physics, but that's probably a topic best left for some egghead colloquial on another day. No need to apologize for getting "all nerdy." Leaves more women for the rest of us.

I can respect a demand that proof reach this level of rigor if you consistently demand that it be applied to all fields of scientific inquiry. I might prefer a different level of proof, but if you consistently demand that level of rigor at least you are being intellectually honest. In the real world, however, demanding such a high level of rigor before taking action involves risk. For example, there are many substances that scientists know will cause harm to human health in high concentrations, because they have repeatedly tested how even short term exposure affects lots of people. Let's say that 20 years of data shows that serious harm was repeatedly and immediately suffered after short term exposure to concentrated encomium by each of 30 people. In that scenario, I suspect that you and I would agree that there was sufficient "proof" to justify action to protect public health by preventing concentrated encomium exposure. But what if you had less than 20 years worth of data? After collecting 10 years worth of data showing serious harm to each of 30 people, would you still do nothing to protect public health, because you believed that harm from encomium exposure was a "baseless theory" without a full 20 years worth of data? How about after 19 years of data collection? And even if you had the full 20 years of data showing that short term exposure to concentrated encomium caused serious harm, would you do nothing to prevent long term public exposure to lower levels of encomium? In the real world, people sometimes have to make that type of decision without any data, and therefore no level of "proof," about the health effects caused by long term exposure to low levels of a substance like encomium. Nix, Gailey and others in the Bills' war room are actually in a pretty similar situation. There is well-documented, reputable scientific research showing that men in committed relationships have lowered testosterone levels, and the effect is even more pronounced if they are involved in child raising. You may not like that, or you may find it disturbing on any number of levels, but that is what the research shows. As the New York Times article shows, professors from Syracuse and Penn State Universities believe that higher testosterone levels may provide an athlete with a competitive advantage. Do we have 20 years' worth of data yet? Of course not - - the Bills' lost decade was well under way before the PNAS article was even published. Could additional research be done that might give some future Bills GM, 20 years from now, the level of proof that you personally require in order consider the theory something other than "baseless?" Sure - - but I don't want to suffer through 20 more years of losing - - I want Nix and Gailey to make decisions based on the best available scientific research available today, not 20 years from now. Let's get ahead of the curve for a change, instead of behind it. Everybody laughed at Dick Fosbury, the high jumper who first used the Fosbury Flop technique, but he revolutionized the event and won an Olympic gold medal. If Buddy Nix relies on this recent scientific testosterone research, people may laugh at him now. But future generations of Bills fans might be able to look back with pride and say - - we won our first Super Bowl because the Nix Flop technique for drafting and signing players gave us a real competitive advantage! We've just lost 7 games in a row (and counting). Last year it was 8. If the Bills draft and sign players the way they always have, the Bills will get what they have always got. And that's not a pretty picture. What do we have to lose by trying a more scientific approach to filling the roster?

The best current thinking in the anemic community is that it's a lepidoptera and flame thing. There's an unproven theory that your coefficient of resistance would rise if you only posted while wearing clothing that had been stored overnight in a cedar-lined closet. Try it. If you don't post in this thread again, we'll know it worked!

1. The "A" Team (you know, the one with the "I pity the fool" guy - - he sounds like some of the posts here) 2a. Team Jacob 2b. Team Edward 3. Team Tennis - - it's supposed to be an individual sport 4. Team Toyota 5. The Budweiser Clydesdale "hitch" team featured in this commercial:

I can't speak for the wax-eating Sorceror, but I consider my own fear of spiders to be entirely rational.

Well, you really put me in my place, but a good scientist doesn't ignore any of the available data, so let's review: 1. You first posted in this thread at 11:36 am yesterday morning. That was more than three and a half hours after the next most recent post. You had plenty of time to read all of the then existing discussion in this thread, and to read the relatively small number of associated links, before contributing your thoughts. By then, this thread contained not only (i) my second post with a link to a blog hosted on the Scientific American website, but links to (ii) the abstract of the PNAS article and (iii) an article in the Journal of Endocrinology. 2. In your haste to impress us with your knowledge of science and pick on what you perceived to be an easy target, you actually suggested that there was no "research" demonstrating that men in committed relationships or involved in child rearing show lower testosterone levels. After all, my first posted link was to a mere "blog," and anybody who "knows science" wouldn't stupe to actually reading the content of a blog to see if it contained anything of value. With bravado, you juvenilely suggested that I could get you "on the mat." 3. Well guess what - - my decision to initially link to a mere blog, even though I already had the PNAS article, was a deliberate choice intended to make the discussion in this thread more inclusive. Scientific American is written at a level that makes scientific topics more approachable for intelligent people who may lack formal scientific training. If you had stuped to actually read the blog, you would know that while it avoided excessive use of technical jargon, it was written by Kate Clancy. As the end of the blog states - - "Dr. Kate Clancy is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Illinois." If you had taken 30 seconds to google her, you would have quickly discovered that she is a biological anthropologist, with degrees from both Harvard and Yale, who teaches a course in behavioral endocrinology. But you "know science," so you certainly couldn't learn anything about the topic of this thread from her. http://www.anthro.illinois.edu/people/kclancy 4. Although my link to the abstract of the PNAS article would have allowed you to easily find the full text of the article online, I apologized for inadvertently linking to only the abstract, posted a link to the full article, and even highlighted the exact language showing the impact of committed relationships and child rearing activities on testosterone levels. The very research that you thought was non-existant. 5. So how did you respond? You stubbornly insisted that because the first link I posted was to a mere blog, it was the "relevant link." Yeah, you're a scientist. So are the people who responded to the survey in the link originally posted by CSBill: http://holykaw.alltop.com/bad-science-the-psychology-behind-exaggerated 6. Along the way, you said: Could you be any more Conde Nasting? As for your unsupported assertion that it is "well known" that "physical activity" (your exact choice of words) is one of the strongest factors affecting testosterone: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1950562/ 7. There's all kinds of "scientists" in this world, Professor. Maybe if you spent less time flirting with Mary Ann and hitting up Thurston Howell III for your next research grant, you could have finished that coconut radio sooner. P.S. Don't feel bad about missing the "abrogated" usage. If you've ever watched "The Big Bang Theory," Sheldon is a very good scientist, and he misses social context clues all the time.

Glad you found it useful.

I was puzzled by your "not scientifically referenced" remark, so I went back and looked at the first link in my post #15 above. Turns out I inadvertently posted a link to just the abstract of the published research paper. Sorry about that. Here's a link to the full research paper - - it starts out with the same abstract but doesn't label it "Abstract:" http://anpron.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Longitudinal-evidence-that-fatherhood-decreases-testosterone-in-human-males.pdf Because it was my fault that you didn't have easy access to the full paper, I'll point out a few key portions to make it easier for you. From the description of pre-existing research: From the results observed in the current study that the paper describes: I'd say that amply shows that my assertions about testosterone levels are "scientifically referenced," to use your term. But it's my fault that you couldn't easily see that, so you can have a do-over if you want. My original post clearly stated that "Although further research may be needed to prove it, some scientists also believe that higher testosterone levels can lead to improved athletic performance." Aren't you just talking about ways that such additional research could be done to provide such proof? You seem smart enough to understand that Jimbo's performance could have been affected by any one or more of (a) testosterone level (b) consumption of alcohol, and © lack of sleep. Without a regression analysis, you can't blame his poor performance on his testosterone level. Everything else being equal (it never is), I would prefer that Bills players not only have high testosterone levels, but get plenty of sleep and avoid excessive alcohol consumption the night before games. I'm a fan of Yogi Bera-isms. So shoot me. But as the full research paper shows, I'm talking about real science. Mea culpa for failing to make the full paper easily excisable in post #15 above.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." --- Albert Einstein By thinking they should place a premium on drafting and signing "high character" players, the Bills inadversely wound up with too many players who are in committed relationships or participate in raising children. I'm not blaming them for making those decisions early in the decade of losing, because the coralization between those life situations and lower testosterone levels wasn't clear then. But it is now, as shown by your admission that I cited valid research. You find my application of it absurd only because you are using the same kind of thinking that the Bills used when they created the problem, e.i.e.i.o., that obtaining "high character" players improves your chances of winning football games. But the biological anthropologists' research, and the empirical evidence provided by a decade of losing, prove otherwise. Einstein would be disappointed at your inability to "think outside the box," to use a more modern phrase. My original post says that more research may be needed to prove that increased testosterone levels improve athletic performance, even though the link between high testosterone levels and increased aggression is already known. You may find that "absurd," but the New York Times, in a 2006 article entitled "Does Testosterone Build A Better Athlete," agreed with me: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/fashion/10Fitness.html?pagewanted=all Do you find the thinking of professors at Syracuse and Penn State absurd, too?

Whether you like it or not, the scientific research is what it is. Men in committed relationships, especially if they are involved in child-raising, generally have lower testosterone levels than when they were on the prowl. Maybe the difference in testosterone levels helps explain why Fred went on IR half-way through the season, while Lynch and McGahee keep pounding the rock for their teams. As I stated in my original post, further research may be needed to definitively prove that higher testosterone levels lead to improved athletic performance. But the connection between testosterone levels and aggressiveness is already proven. I like Fred as a runner because he's slippery, but are you seriously contending that he runs more aggressively than Lynch? They call Lynch "Beast Mode" for a reason.

Hey kj! Upon further refraction, I realized that if you truly are in a situation where you are considered to be in a committed relationship with WOMEN (plural), you are a much better negotiator than me, and should probably be WRITING articles about testosterone. If you have anything else to say on this topic, I'm all ears. Is polygamy still legal in Utah?

Thanks for loging in and stoping by.

Who said anything about wrecking the guy's home life? Just because I'm abrogating using the best available scientific research to make personnel decisions going forward, that doesn't mean that I would screw with the existing personal relationships of guys who are already on the team. Would you suggest kidnapping his kids, too, so that he wouldn't be involved in any more child-raising activities? But just for the sake of argument, let's say I WAS willing to wreck his home life. Do you really think that ANY starting NFL QB who just signed a multi-year deal that guaranteed future payment of millions of dollars would be unable to attract at least some hottie attention merely because of his personality? Not on my planet, and I'm told that some women actually enjoy the company of an intelligent man (which Fitz clearly is). Like me, everybody who posts here just has to go on hearsay on that issue. Besides, you're confusing cause and effect. At some point in the past, Fitz was single, childless, uncommitted, and had high enough testosterone levels to hook up with a woman that even you admit "ain't too bad lookin'." And that was before he was a multi-millionaire. I don't know how quickly his old testosterone levels would return if he got divorced, but presumably they would improve. Probably faster if she got sole custody of the kids.

"1500 years ago, everybody knew that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that the Bills traded Lee Evans because he was an aging one trick pony who only ran deep routes. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow. - "Kay" (Tommy Lee Jones) in Men in Black.

I find the link below useful in tracking our draft position: http://www.gbnreport.com/weeklydraftorder.html If I recall correctly, it shows strength of schedule based on our opponents for the entire season, not just for the games we have already played. That's helpful, because it means there will not be huge changes in the listed strength of schedule in the last week or two. For example, if a site lists strength of schedule only for games already played, our strength of schedule would get a big increase after playing the Patriots in the last game of the season (making it harder to predict in advance how ties are likely to be broken between teams that finish with the same W/L record). I think that's why my link shows a higher strength of schedule number for the Bills than what you posted - - it already factors in that our remaining opponents have winning records. The link gets updated after the Monday night game each week.

Roger Goodell is a sharp guy, and the NFL is powerful. Roger's probably seen the unpublished "sister" research. Maybe the NFL says Suh is required to take anger management courses, but he's actually just required to live with his sister as part of a "testosterone adjustment" program. Come to think of it, Trent Edwards looked pretty good for a while. Maybe Belicheat got to the research first, and talked Trent Edwards' sister into moving to Buffalo to live with Trent. I don't know how fast a player's testosterone levels would drop. Maybe the effect kicked in right around the time Trent took that big hit in the AZ game. I hate the Patriots!

Hadn't thought about it. At first push it seemed like it might be a good idea, because we'd have exact measurements, just like we already do for the 40 yard dash, 3 cone drill, etc, etc. But then I tried to put myself in Buddy's gloves, and got to thinkin' about how he says all the teams are tryin' to rob the same train in the draft. If we asked the folks in Indianapolis to test for testosterone, Belicheat's spy cameras would probably see it somehow, and then he'd start asking questions. When he eventually found the scientific research, we would no longer have a competitive advantage. I think we should keep the science under our hat for now, and draft based on relationship and child-rearing status. Sure we might still miss on a few picks - - there could always be some guy who was secretly in a committed relationship or secretly helping raise his kids but lieing about it to his buddies to be "cool." But it would let us keep our strategy a secret. The Japs didn't tell us they were coming before they bombed Pearl Harbor. Odd looking draft picks might be a dead give away that teams like the Ravens or Cowboys were onto something, but in our case everybody would just laugh and say "same old Bills - - can't draft worth a s**t." When we started winning based on the scientific research, other NFL GMs would eventually figure it out, but at least we'd have a head start. It's a lot like the "Moneyball" situation in baseball. When the Texas Rangers started acquiring players who hit with power, nobody realized the method to their madness, until they started winning more games. Now all the baseball teams do it.

Maybe the guys who are married or heavily involved in raising kids subconshuslee realize that they need to take PEDs to be competitive. And they'd be under more pressure to be competitive anyway, because they have mouths to feed. What do you think?

I don't think there's any question that Ralph could do a better job of running the team. But if he chooses to spend less than the salary cap allows and makes other decisions to maximize profits, there's not much that Nix and Gailey can do about that. Faced with those limitations, though, Nix and Gailey should do the best job they can to make the team a winner. If the best available science shows that guys in commissioned relationships have lower testosterone, and are therefor less aggressive, we should be drafting and signing guys that are "playing the field," if you will, and aren't involved in raising kids. Note that I said "raising" kids, not having kids. Travis Henry and Willis McGahee both had plenty of kids, but since they weren't involved in raising them and remained on the prowl, their testosterone levels weren't obversely reflected. Fitz is different.

I'm not hiring right now, but if I was I would pay fair market value. You probably wouldn't get the job, though, because I prefer employees who reach reasonable conclusions based on available scientific research over people who make uninformed guesses. Maybe if you ran a Monte Carlo simulation on your guesses so that you had a higher confidence level in your conclusions you could be an unpaid intern.

The existing research shows that being in a committed relationship with a woman lowers your testosterone levels. If future research shows that living with your sister does NOT affect testosterone levels, then becoming a better tackler when your sister leaves for college isn't funny, it's SICK!

Well, then you and Trent make two data points, but we still need a double-blind study.

Didn't Trent Edwards' sister move to Buffalo and live with Trent while he was with the Bills? I'm not suggesting incest or anything, but maybe the scientific research should be expanded to see if living with your sister also affects your testosterone levels.

It's hard to compare the "share of scumbags, dirtballs and convicts" between teams - - all teams have at least a few. But there is anecdotal evidence to suggest the Bills have less than the NFL average. During the lockout, somebody posted a running commentary, backed up by links to news media reports, listing the various crimes that locked-out NFL players were charged with. I was amazed at how few Bills players were on the list as compared to other teams. I don't currently have the TSW link at my fingertips to prove that my memory is right, but if I find it I'll edit this post to add it. And don't you remember how well-known Marv Levy was for seeking out high-character players during his admittedly brief tenure as GM?

Peer-reviewed article published in the Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America ("PNAS") good enough for you? http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/09/02/1105403108 How about a scientific article published in the Journal of Endocrinology? http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/content/170/1/27.full.pdf As for Brady, well, Kim Kardashian and that NBA player were "married," too. Besides, if you're suggesting that Brady is gay and not really married, then aren't you making MY point if you think he's a good player? If he's not really married, then his testosterone levels wouldn't decline, even if he publicly claims he's in a truly committed relationship with a woman.