ggggtez is not disagreeing with that. He is saying that when one society beats others at warfare, it is not because its males had more testosterone and larger muscles, rather because it had better agriculture and so on.
It's an argument of semantics at this point. I'm saying war isn't won by bigger muscles alone. If you can't feed your troops, or equip them with more efficient weapons and armor, and train them with better tactics, then you'll lose at "war" to a society which can.
> And yes, societies which are better at warfare tend to also have better agriculture, tools, etc, to support their military machine.
He states that there tends to be a correlation, but not causation.