I’m starting to muddle through the implications of the four-pole hypothesis of four prototype pairings, with eight prototype human beings, four in each sex. (Proceed to the essays “Estrogen Ascendant” and “Estrogen Play” for more background on the concepts addressed in this essay.)

F te/M TE Conventional Patrifocal
F tE/M Te Warrior Patrifocal
F Te/M tE Contemporary Matrifocal
F TE/M te Classic Matrifocal

F te/M TE means low-testosterone & estrogen female, high-testosterone & estrogen male. Domineering, caring, discriminating men choosing cooperative women.

F tE/M Te means low-testosterone, high-estrogen female, high-testosterone, low-estrogen male. Domineering men choosing cooperative, caring, discriminating women.

F Te/M tE means high-testosterone, low-estrogen female, low-testosterone, high-estrogen male. Commanding women choosing creative, cooperative, caring, discriminating men.

F TE/M te means high-testosterone & estrogen female, low-testosterone & estrogen male. Commanding, caring, discriminating women choosing creative, cooperative, aloof men.

We have noted that Marian Annett observed a balanced polymorphism of gradations between random-handed and strong right-handed individuals within a society. We might conclude that just as there is a hypothesized random-handed prototype human and a strong right-handed prototype human, with some people fitting those exact prototypes, most folks in our four-pole hypothesis will appear along the mixed characteristics curve in between the extremes. We might also conclude that Annett’s charts are plotting our a four-pole hypothesis with her handedness evaluations parsing out the matrifocal/patrifocal split, but Annett is unable to break out our hypothetical estrogen influence in the process, with estrogen not evidencing itself in maturation-rate influenced features.

Nevertheless, we now have two complementing dynamics acting as the engine behind social change and evolution, pushing and pulling individuals closer and farther away from these four-poles over a period of generations.

Mother’s testosterone levels > progeny maturation rate > social structure proclivity > evolutionary trajectory.

Mother’s estrogen levels > progeny ability to exercise aesthetic discrimination and caring behavior > social structure proclivity > evolutionary trajectory.

I hypothesize two feedback loops. Mother’s testosterone level > progeny maturation rate > social structure proclivity > mother’s testosterone level. Mother’s estrogen level > progeny ability to exercise aesthetic discrimination and caring behavior > social structure proclivity > Mother’s estrogen level. The environment can intervene at all three levels of both loops by either influencing maturation rates and timing (via testosterone) or by influencing the intensity of mate selection criteria (via estrogen), thus modifying the trajectory of social and human evolution.

How would the influence of estrogen be evaluated if indeed Annett’s tests are successfully discovering the degree that testosterone influences maturation rates, evidencing itself in extremes of anomalous dominance vs. strong right-handedness?

Consider the emerging consensus that the mother’s testosterone level has influence on the likelihood of autism in her children. It is the estimation of this site’s thesis that matrifocal social structure’s high-testosterone mothers are the evolutionary force behind the increase in autism. High-testosterone mothers create low-testosterone males, high-testosterone females. We are hypothesizing that this, in combination with other testosterone-influencing variables, often leads to autism. Consider that there are two kinds of high-testosterone mothers: high estrogen and low estrogen. This would be our Classic Matrifocal (high E) and Contemporary Matrifocal (low e) prototypes. Are there four types of autism groups based upon a mother with these two different high-testosterone hormonal constellations?

Male tE
Male te
Female Te
Female TE

How would we evaluate the groups? Stress increases testosterone levels, making the direct measuring of testosterone a difficult way to form a conclusion. Autistic children often live in highly stressed environments, to say nothing of the existential dissonance they no doubt experience because they are often unable to integrate with society. Are there different enough infant hormone thresholds of these four hormone prototypes that very early evaluations would form a clue?

If genetic, not trauma-based, autism has these four etiological foundations, then how do we best evaluate if this is the case?

And, if we evolved primarily via one of the two matrifocal social structures, F TE/M te (Classic Matrifocal), then autistic children should primarily exhibit Female TE and Male te.


This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 20th, 2009 at 7:31 am and is filed under Autism, Causes of Autism, Estrogen, Maturation Rates, Sexual Selection, Sexual Selection/Social Structure, Social Structure, Testosterone & Estrogen. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
3 Comments so far

  1. bob a on April 19, 2009 8:37 pm


    One question – does this mean that evolution would normally keep the Test high in men, but lower in women? (aka, the F te/M TE relationship.) Keeping women “beautiful” and submissive, and men “ugly” and sex driven?

    Does this then mean that the F TE and M te relationship is not want nature really wants, and so produces an autistic child who has a much lower % chance of ever having a child? The autistic child becomes an evolutionary deadend?

    Would be interested in a response!

  2. Andrew on April 19, 2009 8:51 pm

    Hi Bob,

    What I think you’re suggesting I’m saying is not what I’m trying to communicate. There is no normal or not normal, right or wrong hormonal constellation. The words beautiful or ugly don’t make a lot of sense in this context, their being value laden tags.

    The paradigms make sense in a larger context that includes societal, environmental and evolutionary variables. See http://www.neoteny.org/?p=325.

  3. bob a on April 19, 2009 9:08 pm

    That’s fine, and I did use ugly and beautiful knowing the values attached to the words were not what you had really written.

    It just seems to me that evolution would rather keep testosterone high in men, and estrogen high in women; to promote attraction between the sexes, and avoid androgyny?

    Anyway, I couldn’t help myself from wondering if evolution would slide into high levels of autism under conditions where women held the test., and men the estrogen. Perhaps a wacky conclusion, and unfair in obvoius ways.

    Regardless, was just referred to this wonderful blog, and I will continue readind the many posts.


Name (required)

Email (required)


Share your wisdom