Love at first sight

[bjf]

Is love at first sight

really love at first smell?

[cuddlebear]

Gosh, I hope some women reply

to this one!

[Duckman]

Love at first site is nothing

more then a "bath" in favorable phermones(aka chemistry)Watch two people "fall" in love, I used to tend bar, You can

"see" the chemical fog. I am sure I will get blasted for this one, but drinking alchohl also helps your naturaul

phermone release. Alchohl will evaporate thru your pores as sweat carrying your natural and enhanced scent to

receptive females.

[cuddlebear]

I would really like to hear

JVK's input on this one ... in my own experience, I have observed evidence which would point to both theories, the

visual cue and the olfactory cue, but I will never know this stuff on the level that he does, so I hope he sees this

and comments ...

[bjf]

Thanks for the insight Duckman.

Cuddle, I agree I want to hear JVK's input to. However, I am not sure you can seperate the visual from olfactory,

at least from his point of view, because of his take on visual conditioning based on smell. In the end, there would

not be a lot of difference between scent & sight.

[Holmes]

Thanks for the insight

Duckman. Cuddle, I agree I want to hear JVK's input to. However, I am not sure you can seperate the visual from

olfactory, at least from his point of view, because of his take on visual conditioning based on smell. In the end,

there would not be a lot of difference between scent & sight.

Lucas J. West, from The Coded

Personality:

Basically, the chemicals inside your body mold and shape who you are, how you act, what

you feel, what you're attracted to. It is these same chemicals that shape what you look like. (That's why Brad

Pitt also *smells* like a guy women want to f*ck. The same chemicals shaped his face and his pheromonal signature.)

However, we've been taught to only notice the physical part. The simple truth of the matter is that there is a

chemical counterpart to all of your physical features.

Well, it stands to reason that some of your

personality would end up showing in your face as well. (Who would've realized that your thoughts shape how you

look? It's absolutely a key understanding.) The chemicals that shape your personality are one and the same with the

ones that shape your face.

[bjf]

whoa dude, Lucas West is

interesting.

[DrSmellThis]

You can't reduce sight to

smell and still be rational. Olfaction plays a role.

[jvkohl]

With co-authors from

Vienna, I reduced the visual sexual response cycle to a biologically based olfactory response. The review article

won an award for the best paper linking neuroendocrinology and ethology (i.e., animal behavior). What's irrational

is DrSmellThis implying that a peer-reveiwed journal article is not rational. The article is available to all at the

following URL.

http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm

Abstract:

The

effect of sensory input on hormones is essential to any explanation of mammalian behavior, including aspects of

physical attraction. The chemical signals we send have direct and developmental effects on hormone levels in other

people. Since we don't know either if, or how, visual cues might have direct and developmental effects on hormone

levels in other people, the biological basis for the development of visually perceived human physical attraction is

currently somewhat questionable. In contrast, the biological basis for the development of physical attraction based

on chemical signals is well detailed.

[DrSmellThis]

Well, now, that was an

unnecessarily inflammatory response to a non-controversial, obviously true statement.

Wow! Do you really have a

real published article? :box: That won an award?? First time you've mentioned the award thing -- today!

:rolleyes: News flash: So-called peer-reviewed articles that are totally full of BS are published

hundreds of times a day. Why do you think there is academic debate? Is there some law that idiots cannot write

articles? (BTW, I never said your lit review was no good, but nothing in it comes close to supporting such a

claim.) I repeat: It is absolutely irrational to believe all of sight can be reduced to smell. You're going to have

to do more than brag that you wrote an article to convince any thinking person otherwise. I can't believe you are

defending that position. :rofl: I'd tell the same thing with confidence to whatever panel of experts you wanted to

assemble, but I don't believe anyone who really understands the neurology of perception and human psychology would

even entertain something so blindly, narrowly reductionistic. It's reductionistic in so many ways, it's

hard to keep track of them. I get hopelessly bogged down with multiple blatant reductionisms and leaps of logic just

trying to make it through that abstract with that bombastic conclusion in mind. Talk about over extending a

theory!

[Indigo]

Well, now, that

was an unnecessary insult. Wow! Do you really have a real published article? :box: That won an award?? First

time you've mentioned the award thing -- today! :rolleyes: News flash: So-called peer-reviewed

articles that are totally full of BS are published hundreds of times a day. Why do you think there is academic

debate? Is there some law that idiots cannot write articles? (BTW, I never said your article was no good, but

nothing in it comes close to supporting such a claim.) I repeat: It is absolutely irrational to think all of sight

can be reduced to smell. I can't believe you are defending that position. :rofl: I'd tell the same thing to

whatever panel of experts you wanted to assemble, but I don't believe anyone who really understands the

neurology of perception would even entertain something so blindly, narrowly

reductionistic.Hello,

I absolutely agree with DrSmellThis! Even if my opinion is not based on science it

is based on simple observation:
Didn't you ever saw a woman ( or person ) on a photo the first time and you

recognize something indistinct fascinating about her ( or him ), a certain charisma arousing any kinds of feelings

in you?!?! I think everybody has! And in those situations thre was defenitely no smell or pheromones of that

particular person in the air .
So IMHO every human beeing has a kind of evaluating system basing only on visual

information. I definitely don't know how it works, or how it correlates with smell and pheromones, but even if it

is affected by the lettest, it also works without them.
So it is certainly existing!

Regards

Ingo

[bjf]

Hello,

I

absolutely agree with DrSmellThis! Even if my opinion is not based on science it is based on simple

observation:
Didn't you ever saw a woman ( or person ) on a photo the first time and you recognize something

indistinct fascinating about her ( or him ), a certain charisma arousing any kinds of feelings in you?!?! I think

everybody has! And in those situations thre was defenitely no smell or pheromones of that particular person in the

air .
So IMHO every human beeing has a kind of evaluating system basing only on visual information. I definitely

don't know how it works, or how it correlates with smell and pheromones, but even if it is affected by the lettest,

it also works without them.
So it is certainly existing!

Regards

Ingo

JVK's

position is erotic pictures are stimulating because of conditioning.

[Indigo]

JVK's position is

erotic pictures are stimulating because of conditioning.
Well, actually I did not mean erotic

stimulation, but that what you would call charisma. Things that are more than just sex or conditioning.
Of course

our sense of beauty and attractiveness is to a high extent conditioned but I don't believe its only that!



Regards

Ingo

[DrSmellThis]

That's his position, bjf, but there are many problems with it. Off the top of my head, a pairing of

stimuli doesn't prove conditioning; and conditioning wouldn't prove causality as regards the rich experience of

visual attraction. You could easily write a whole book on a one minute experience of real life visual attraction and

not exhaust the experience. Could we say all of those aspects are due and reducible to a couple chemical reactions

paired with some abstract visual dimension? Plus, the initial conditioning of something doesn't imply determination

of how something is later on when other processes and influences kick in. Something can be caused by one thing now

and other things later. Plus, there are no studies supporting the olfactory conditioning of visual attraction in

humans, much less some olfactory determination of visual attraction. Plus, humans do not experience anything like

mature sexual attraction as infants anyway, (Chodorow has a theory of sexual identification, but that is a

far cry) so it would be impossible for what ends up being adult sexual attraction to be paired with anything in

infancy, or even early childhood. These are just a few of the huge problems that arise with trying to say something

like that. Then there is the whole problem of playing psychologist, and the groundless prejudice that explanations

of human behavior have to be just like those of insect behavior to be valid, (They shouldn't be, and if they were

they'd likely be invalid) or that they have to be hormonal (another reductionism). Then there are the

misunderstandings of science -- that because the complex neurological, visual model hasn't been traced yet, there

can't be one -- that it should for some reason already have been traced -- that just because the simplistic pathway

of -mone to LH can be modeled -- we ought to have done it with neural networks by now as they influence

neurotransmiters and hormones, etc., etc. I get exhausted trying to keep track of the holes in the argument, much

less the leaky patches that create even more holes. None of this suggests that visual attraction is not partially

influenced by olfaction, of course, but who is to say olfaction isn't conditioned by vision in certain ways -- or

that all the senses don't condition each other? Then there is the hard wiring of attraction to eyes and certain

kinds of visual contours in newborns, the prominence of hard-wired visual attraction throughout the animal kingdom,

phi ratios (and other natural geomety) and their defining of beauty throughout nature, the role of memory and

imagination, (none of which can be accounted for by olfaction) etc. Whereas most scientists cheerfully acknowledge

the holes in their theories so they can ask for more grant money to fill them; none of these problems were

acknowledged or adequately addressed in past "debates" here in the forum. Then there are the logical

misunderstandings of the debate somehow being about "visual vs. olfactory primacy" when most people don't care

about that simplistic comparison (attraction rests in all the senses, including touch, kinesthetic, taste, and

hearing -- so multiply the problems by 6! to account for their interactions among all the senses); and the logical

fallacy that all attraction has to be sex-specific. Of course, when a theory is unfounded, there are limitless

numbers of problems that arise everywhere you look. It's like asking what's physically wrong with a dead guy.

[bjf]

<<Then there is the hard wiring of

attraction to eyes and certain kinds of visual contours in newborns, the prominence of hard-wired visual attraction

throughout the animal kingdom, the phi ratios and their defining of beauty throughout nature, etc., etc.,

etc.>>

Hardwiring of attraction to eyes? You mean how babies look at adults eyes?

Cats do the same

thing with humans. I once read on this forum it is because the pheromones from your body rise to your face when

dispersed in the air.

Whatever it is, it seems to be universal. Not sure about the visual contours thing

and how quickly humans/animals are attracted to symetry (immediate?), but you can't just assume those things are

hard-wired.

<<Plus, humans do not experience anything like mature sexual attraction as infants anyway,

(Chodorow has a theory of sexual identification, but that is a far cry) so it would be impossible for what ends up

being adult sexual attraction to be paired with anything in infancy, or even early childhood.>>

Would it

really be???

Anyway, good points brought up.

[DrSmellThis]

Yep -- newborns seek out other

human eyes (adult or no) as soon as they open their own. You are correct that we can't just assume hardwiring. You

look at the micro structure of the eye and patterned groups of neurons in and behind the eye to see how it's

hardwired. The attaction to eyes, for instance, has partly to do with light/dark contrasts and how (where) contrast

detectors in the eye are connected to the brain.

Something has to exist to be paired with another thing.

[jvkohl]

My apologies

to those offended by the fact that I took issue with the statement by DrSmellThis that: "You can't reduce sight to

smell and still be rational." To me, this was insulting.

In the past two weeks I've made much headway with

helping to explain the olfactory conditioning of the visual response cycle, as it is now being discussed on Ian's

Pitchford;s Yahoo group: evolutionary psychology. The thread is: Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high

reproductive potential in women. Those who want to know more about what I'm saying, instead of just taking to heart

an inaccurate interpretation by DrSmellThis, should read the article I mentioned, or minimally, follow the

evolutionary psychology thread. Maximally, look at the scientific evidence page of my website, if you want the big

picture.

JVK

[cuddlebear]

Well, our forum owes quite a

bit to both of you, DST & JVK ...

I'll try to look at the scientific evidence, but I think it's going to

be above Bear's furry head :p

I think it's very useful to have opposing viewpoints, so long as mutual

respect is maintained ... who knows the two of you might collaborate someday and we might have a new super-product

... Scent of Pheros? :)

A good day to all ...

[DrSmellThis]

Thanks for your positive-spirited post, cuddlebear.

If my interpretation of his "theory" is "inaccurate",

it's because I can't read his mind. I'd absolutely love to see a cogent explanation of how olfaction is

responsible for all of visual attraction! Maybe I could find something to agree with and enlighten myself.

Unfortunately, JVK has not produced one. On what page of the paper he just linked is it?!? It's just not in there!

Look for yourself. Which of the papers linked on his site has it? None of them. I'll gladly admit if I am wrong.

But it is, um, "inappropriate" to say something is there when it isn't. If he is "too busy" to type something here,

why can't he cut and paste one he typed elsewhere? Or why can't he just write a really long post where he

summarizes the argument and evidence? I've written hundreds of them here. So he refers us elsewhere. Where?

To another internet discussion site! :frustrate This might not be a "prestigious conference", (Definition: Any

conference JVK attends) but it is the largest pheromone enthusiast community in the world. What are we, chopped

liver? Or is something just fishy?

I'd love to agree with more things JVK said; if only he wouldn't make so

many "loose cannon", intellectually irresponsible, extreme statements, like that it is somehow insulting to say

ALL of sight cannot be reduced ONLY to smell. Give us a break, and show some respect! That is a hugely

ambitious, contentious and controversial thing to say, if it is to be taken seriously; one that flies in the

face of people's common sense. As far as I am concerned, if you come to the love-scent forum you have to pass

intellectual muster, just like you would in a professional setting; not just shoot from the hip! (For the most part

people do a great job here! :)) I've been to many, many academic conferences, and I don't see why it should be

different here. If you come in here making outrageous claims, be ready to defend them, or don't make your

outrageous claims! Or, don't complain when nobody believes you. :hammer: I've written pages of posts here

defending some controversial thing I said on scores of occasions.

In all fairness, we all make extreme, false

statements from time to time, myself included; but most of us eventually back off from them, instead of

clinging to them, pit-bull like, with hubris; like the former Iraqi Minister of Information. :) It doesn't hurt

that much to let go and allow our thinking to evolve. I've had to eat "humble pie" before here, and I will again

(maybe with my next post -- who knows?). If we reform our theories we still get to claim them as our own! That's

the nice thing about intellectual humility: "I'm wrong, and I'm right about that, dammit!" :D

[jvkohl]

...it would be

impossible for what ends up being adult sexual attraction to be paired with anything in infancy, or even early

childhood.

The above statement best represents why I choose not to debate anything with DrSmellThis.

Defend my claims? He just threw out everything I know about the development of human sexual behavior, with disregard

for everything written in the review article that was published in Neuroendocrinology Letters, my book, or anything

else I've published/presented. If you want to get an idea of where I've been, and where I'm coming from, you

don't necessarily need to read anything I've written (or look in another forum/group). Just do a search on human

pheromones, James V. Kohl, James Kohl, or Scent of Eros, and see what turns up. There are plenty of respected

researchers/institutions (e.g., Axel labs and Ludwig Bolzman Institute) who link their sites to ;

plenty of articles/interviews that mention me; plenty of just about every kind of support for my work that anyone

could want. Earlier this week, was the top site listed in a google search on human pheromones--and I

do no advertising for the site.

In contrast, I have not dealt with anything even remotely resembling the

antagonism of DrSmellThis for many years. Coming from someone who so obviously does not understand that adult

sexuality is genetically predisposed and developed from birth, this antagonism deserves no reply. Still, I might

tend to spend a minute or two from time to time in hopes that others might not be led too far down the wrong

path.

JVK

[DrSmellThis]

If you'll notice, I obviously

didn't say the fact of general sexual preference (i.e., homo vs. hetero -- what he is calling "sexuality",

which is imprecise language -- you'd rarely hear a pro mix up the two) wasn't genetically predisposed (Fetishes

and other finer points aren't determined until later.) Everyone but religious fundamentalists knows it is. What

psychologist would ever say something like you imagine I said? Apparently, you have decided not to honor my

request to "give me a break". But the complexities of mature adult sexual attraction are not there at birth,

and don't even start gelling until puberty, under various hormonal, cognitive, and social influences. They

are two different things. Have you ever heard of "latency age?" You would have to know something about developmental

psychology, but you have never had a course in developmental psychology, or human sexuality for that matter.



Um, what does how great you think you are have to do with anything? Google Schmoogle. Other people have

accomplishments here too. Throughout this thread you have dropped names and bragged instead of presenting a case.

Dude, nobody here said you didn't know anything about pheromones. You wrote a book on it. When I've had certain

questions about -mones in the past, I've asked you. But you seem to have no interest in recognizing when you've

crossed into territory in which you should have some humility, and openness to others opinions. Maybe you

won't debate here because I call you on some things you say, and you have a fragile ego. Could that be it? If I say

something that is incorrect, why can't you just call me on it? Maybe I shouldn't be debating with

you, because you are acting arrogant about things you have no training in whatsoever. Look. I have a PhD in

psychology. You haven't had more than one undergrad course in it, and you come in here lecturing me on

developmental psychology. You've had millions of chances to show respect, but haven't. Why shouldn't you get

corrected? You created that situation and won't own it. Without your escalation there would not be that level of

antagonism.

And don't tell us no one else has a hard time swallowing some of the things you say. You've told

me how psychologists often receive your stuff, for example, and how you don't respect that whole field (even though

you've never studied it).

[SMILING PJ]

:angel: So, it was mentioned by Cuddlebear that he hoped for women's response, huh? Well

I'm new here, this is my first post, but I'll give you my perspective for what it's worth. I am not a chemist,

psychologist, human behavior scientist or any other such trained individual, but I have studied and help many women

in the area of hormonal balance. The chemical messengers in our body are amazingly powerful and affect our moods,

health, organ functions and even other people around us. I've already noticed very favorable repeated results with

"extreme friendliness" and "chatiness" from others the few times I've worn my recent first purchase TE.



It's my experience and belief that #1 OUR BODIES ARE AN UNFATHOMABLE COMPLEXITY OF CREATION, #2 THAT WE ARE

INFLUENCED BY A COMBINATION OF OLFACTORY, HORMONAL, CHEMICAL, VISUAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, EXPERIENCIAL AND SO MANY OTHER

FACTORS simultaneously, that I think it's really difficult to attribute anything to a single stimulus. I see

adding mones as enhancement, perhaps "ramping things up" in advance-before they would have taken the natural course

there if there were true attraction based on other factors. #3 Once a person opens their mouth and shows their

attitude, confidence, intelligence, humility, sense of humor, ability to listen, etc. the effect of the mones can

be overriden to a great degree if the communication is repulsive. Haven't you seen a beauty through the window (no

mone effect) and thought....then she opened her mouth on the way out of the store and she reminded you of a

disgusting truck driving Uncle you didn't like? I've been influenced by sight, smell, mones whatever and then the

guy said the most arrogant, unfeeling things about others that I was quickly "unattracted" to put it mildly! For

women, alot of it is mind and emotion. I'm not discounting the effect of the mones, they are a plus, an initiator,

but there's got to be something else there to keep it going I think. I applaud your interest, your diligence, your

pursuit and your passion, but as far as it relates to "figuring out how to get a woman" (if that's the target)...do

you think there will ever be a simplistic answer...humans are all so complex, especially the multi-faceted Eve

version that was fashioned from Adam. :kiss: If people just want a short romp in the sheets, as risky, temporary and

unfulfilling as that is, then they probably don't care about much past the intial mone influence into relationships

anyway. I guess it all depends on what you're looking for...Good luck in your research, I know I'm having fun

doing my own experiments! P.S. Geez, so what's with all the hostility guys? WOW! (be kind, I'm a "newbie" and a

lady!)

[DrSmellThis]

This might sound strange in

this context, but, ahem, welcome Smiling PJ! :D I do appreciate your perspective.

[SMILING PJ]

Thanks for the welcome,

Dr.!

[Friendly1]

But the

complexities of mature adult sexual attraction are not there at birth, and don't even start gelling

until puberty, under various hormonal, cognitive, and social influences. They are two different things.


Well, in my opinion, the thread went south as soon as you accused JVK of being inflammatory. He was defensive but

not inflammatory. You, on the other hand, have resorted to ridicule and sarcasm to support your criticism, and such

arguments usually signal a lack of substance.

After all, if you had something precise to say, you wouldn't feel

compelled to cloud it with hyperbole, would you?

In fact, your argument is not well presented at all. For

example, there is no scientific concept of adult sexual attraction. That phrase has no real meaning and is used in

various ways outside of the scientific community.

I HAVE found the phrase used in a number of FAQs and white

papers addressing pedophilia, and the phrase "adult sexual attraction" is closely associated with "sexual

orientation" -- the phrase "adult sexual attraction" thus addresses the objects of sexual desire of a given adult

(in other words, some adults are sexually attracted to children).

So, you need to provide a clear and precise

meaning for your use of "adult sexual attraction" that helps us understand what you are trying to say here.

Frankly, I cannot find much of what you say that directly addresses the issue raised in the paper.

I prefer not

to make extreme, false statements. I don't see that they serve any purpose, except to create a reputation for the

statement-maker of being unreliable, untrustworthy.

One technical paper won't convince me that all visual-based

attraction is the result of conditioning, but I see nothing in the paper's presentation which seems false or

seriously flawed. It is far from BS, since olfactory research has shown that we do associate memory with odors. It

is not much of a leap to suggest that we may associate pheromonal stimulation/compatibility with visual cues from

early childhood.

Babies have been determined to be pheromonically active. They identify their mother's

pheromonal signatures. I am sure that babies are well aware of my own (artificially) strong pheromone signature.



So, there is a lot of comparable literature on related subjects to lend credence to JVK's research in this

matter. It's not coming across simply like a revelation plucked out of the blue.

If you want to argue, then

please refrain from making further personal attacks. I see far too many of those in other fora. Love-Scent has

been refreshingly free of them for quite some time. I hope people here will strive to keep it so.

[DrSmellThis]

I'd be happy to try to

provide whatever clarification you think I need, though at this very second I'm pressed for time. "Sexual

attraction" is a recognizable phenomenon, (experience) I think, not a construct or well-defined concept. You

are correct that that would be hard to define and has not been so. But briefly, there doesn't have to be a coherent

construct of "adult sexual attraction" in order to say there are many various aspects loosely attributed to it as a

phenomenon, and that these aren't predetermined by pheromonal conditioning as far as we know. There are multi

causes to attraction, as far as we know, just like most other things in psychology. Think about the number of women

who swoon over Barry White's voice. Think about looking deeply into your lover's eyes and feeling uyou recognize

their soul, and how much the attraction grows at that moment. Love is a complex thing. Human sexuality and sexual

attraction is not just about which abstract category of beings (men, women, children) you are attracted to. I don't

think the literature in the social sciences tends to equate them at all. They might be flip flopped as a manner of

speaking in a paper where the context is well-defined beforehand.

I am open to any questions on substance of the

things I say, like the one you just asked. I like them. I try to have substance underneath what I say, so if

there's a hollow place I'd like to know.

What you are seeing, BTW is anger with a history, (there was a

context to "inflammatory") and I apologize for dragging you and others through it. It is what it is, for the moment.

I'm open to further criticisms. insights, or suggestions here.

One thing to keep in mind is that I'm not

saying that such conditioning doesn't happen at all. In fact I'm almost sure it does to some extent.But

determining everything is another matter. That flies in the face of what psychology knows so far (e.g, multi

causes of things like that have repeatedly and consistently been demonstrated in thousands of research studies)



And I never said his paper was BS. In fact I have praised it publically a few times here, "to JVK's face" as

well. I said it doesn't demonstrate complete olfactory conditioning of adult sexual attraction in all its

complexity, or visual attraction. There is really little in the paper about that.

Thanks for your response.

[Friendly1]

But briefly,

there doesn't have to be a coherent construct of "adult sexual attraction" in order to say there are many various

aspects loosely attributed to it as a phenomenon, and that these aren't predetermined by pheromonal conditioning as

far as we know.If you're going to challenge a peer-reviewed paper, then you MUST provide precise

definitions for your expressions, if they are not already established in the literature.

So, yes, there MUST be

a coherency in your assertions. Otherwise, you're just making unsupportable sweeping generalizations.




There are multi causes to attraction, as far as we know, just like most other things in

psychology.Psychology does categorize triggers or states in which attraction occurs. Psychology is also the

only discipline I know of which allows multiple modes in a statistical analysis (in pure Statistics, you either have

only one mode or no mode). But Psychology is defined as the study of the behavior of animals. That is, the core

discipline is rooted in the analysis of external events, not the physiological mechanisms which produce those

events.

Physiological psychology and evolutionary psychology are as close as you're going to get to unlocking

the secrets of the body's chemical processes from a psychological standpoint. They look at what actually happens

inside the body when emotonal states, including states of attraction (and repulsion) occur. They also regard

attraction as being based in chemical or homornal activities. So, there is support from the psychological field for

JVK's research.

Conditioning has been studied in many different ways since well before Pavlov's time. In fact,

Freud himself studied some aspects of conditioning. So, one cannot simply dismiss JVK's claims on the basis of

psychological arguments. There are many psychological arguments which favor his presentation.


One thing

to keep in mind is that I'm not saying that such conditioning doesn't happen at all. In fact I'm almost

sure it does to some extent.But determining everything is another matter. That flies in the face of what

psychology knows so far (e.g, multi causes of things like that have repeatedly and consistently been demonstrated in

thousands of research studies)Having read a fair amount (for a layman) of evolutionary psychology and

physiological psychology literature regarding attraction and love, I can only disagree with you. Psychologists are

still arguing among themselves about how human emotion and mental states arise and evolve, but there is widespread

recognition of evidence supporting the biological perspectives.

JVK's research will undoubtedly be used by many

psychologists in years to come.

There is no real conflict between categorization of external events and attempts

to identify the biological processes which lead to them. There may be a conflict behind the philosophies of the two

modes of research.

In the end, it's all about making babies and ensuring that they survive to make more

babies.

[DrSmellThis]

Here are some things I need to

clarify or understandings I need to establish between us before going further:

*Sexuality is about babies; it's

about family and survival, emotional happiness, fulfillment, companionship, mental stimulation, etc, as well. These

are needs that occur within a single life span, as opposed to just continuing the species -- also important.



*Psychology is mainly about humans -- about behavior and experience (the main internal event of interest), not

just behavior, and the biology that supports these things, which is secondary (not just chemical/hormonal, but also

neurological in the broader sense). Biology is primary for biologists. It's also a helping profession.

Psychologists aren't just interested in chemical process, or primarily interested; to say the least.

*Support

for a "bioloical perspective" doesn't mean reducing everything to only biological causes of behavior, as there are

also environmental and agentic (e.g., cognitive) causes. And biology is way bigger than the current simplistic

models we have. So we shouldn't think we have it figured out already. How the brain works is fundamentally

unknown (in paticular, how consciousness works) despite what we know about how it works.

*Most important

concepts about humans (e.g., love) aren't adequately defined (this is a huge issue in the philosophy of psych and

in research), but we still have to talk about them, usually because they're recognizable as important experiences.

Talking about them doesn't make someone incoherent. You can use narrow, easily observable, simplistically defined

"operational definitions" or temporary definitions for your experiments, but they have their own problems if we take

them seriously outside the particular experimental context. If you define attraction ahead of time as only a set of

hormonal chemical reactions, whihc is a step broader than operational definitions, that's still all you'll ever

see, and you'll be blind to other crucial aspects of the phenomenon.

I'm interested in attraction and

sexuality as the larger experience -- the experiences of being attracted and of relating to another individual or

individuals romantically, in the broad sense. That is the way I am using the term. The best definitions in

psychology are phenomenological, where all the things that essentially make up an experience are summarized and the

structure of it experientially is articulated. That is what makes a definition of a human construct empirical, or

based in evidence. That is how you get solid footing in psychology. Do most people do this? No. I am a long time

advocate for people to do this.

So biology is important as a contribution to human experience, not as an

end in itself. And if you limited psychology to narrow mammalian, biological explanations, you would really have an

impoverished, marginally useful psychology.

Psychology ultimately has to answer to every day humans having

everyday concerns experiences in their everyday lives. That is therefore where it must center itself, as challenging

as that is.

[bjf]

Doc

On "*Sexuality is about

babies, it's about family and survival, emotional happiness, fulfillment, companionship, mental stimulation, etc,

as well. These are needs that occur within a single life span, as opposed to just continuing the species -- also

important."

I'd argue sexuality is really only about babies, annd then the emotional happiness,

fullfillment, companinship, mental stimulation, etc falls into a different category, somethng we have that other

species might not.

But I think sexuality has to be limited to biology, hormones etc, and then the happiness,

fullfillment, companinship, mental stimulation is why we don't just go around having sex with people with biologies

that sexually stimulate us. I think that's where psychology picks up.

When explaining sexuality, how our

hormones operate and such, I don't think ours should be explained differently than any other mammal.

I do

think our visual preferences - what we find beautiful - has to be learned, I don't see how it can be inate, unless

someone can pin down what instinct really is. Instinct in my mind is only about chemicals. Where, then, is our

knowledge of visual preferences stored if we come into this world with our minds as clean slates? I don't see

anywhere to store it, save the soul.

I also think people keep losing sight of what Kohl is saying. All of

these other things (such as happiness, fullfilment, deep voices etc), he acknowledges is very much a part of how we

behave, but when you boil down what sexuality is, you've got to be able to biologically explain it. Sexuality

existed before species were even self aware.

[DrSmellThis]

Why limit sexuality to baby

making and hormones, when the fact of our sexuality is inseparable from just about every aspect of life? Why can't

humans be accepted as humans and not be forcibly crammed into say, the "rat model". You can't ask a rat what's

happening, but you can a human. Rats don't study themselves. Humans do. Rats don't have a say in what their

research is ultimately to be for. Humans do. These are crucial differences. Are people's experiences and human

uniqueness irrelevant? I agree that biological aspects are important, but who says psychology has to be reduced to

biology? We already have biology for that.

Physical reproduction, sexual and asexual, maybe existed

before self awareness, depending on how you define consciousness. But any gay person will tell you sexuality is not

just about reproduction. Further, there are hormonal aspects to sexuality, and there are other aspects. The concept

of sexuality itself comes from self-awareness -- from humans. It did not exist before. Those are the roots.

Maintaining the perspective of the big picture is not trivial.

Obviously, this is more the background stuff.



Attraction is what it is for people in their everday lives in all its richness. That is what we have to answer to.

Otherwise we aren't really concerned about helping anyone. Then we try to support that with biological, social,

physical environmental underpinnings. But even within biological, it's not just about simple endocrine functions.

Neurology is way more complicated.
So while I am enthusiastic about the endocrine processes related to olfactory

influences on everyday attraction, I fight against reducing the latter to the former.

[bjf]

Just because our sexuality is

inseperable from every other aspect of our lives does not mean we have to bring those aspects into sexuality. Those

things are part of our other needs which make us human.

We're not that different from rats in terms of our

sexuality, we are different from rats in terms of our minds and our psychology.

When attempting to explain

sexuality, I think you must explain it by itself first - at its most fundamental level (what kohl is attempting to

do ) - and then you can look at it at a deeper level ( in terms of how we make our choices in the field, what

you are looking to do,), where things such as psychology come into play.

I don't agree that sexuality at its

most basical level is about anything more than reproduction. It was initially developed so things without even

brains could keep the species alive. Although other things became tied to it as different species became smarter

(such as intimacy and bonding), sexuality at its core, IMO, remains basically the same, and everything outside of

that is part of our psychology.

I also don't think homosexuality says that there's anything more to

sexuality than reproduction, that is just a consequence of when the biological system of sexuality deviates from the

norm.

Anyway, good discussion going on here.

[Friendly1]

Psychology is about the study

of the behavior of animals, all animals and not just humans. And sexuality is solely concerned with reproduction of

the species.

Everything else is simply a veneer we have attached to sexuality. Without sex, there is no

sexuality. And sex is first and foremost about reproduction.

Human behavior, like all animal behavior, is

driven by the need to survive and to reproduce. We extend these needs into territorialism and personal ambition.

Territorialism is found among animals. Ambition is, perhaps, restricted solely to human experience. It has yet to

be demonstrated outside of humanity.

[DrSmellThis]

Sexuality is what it is for

us. We ignore that at our own peril. I don't believe in being prejudiced against that because one happens to be

interested in physics, biology, anthropology, or any other specific discipline representing an aspect of it. For

those biologists who define their concepts in terms of their own disclipline, sexuality is only about reproduction.

Cool. Not everyone has to be a biologist, or an "intellectual isolationist." It great to "explain" reproduction at a

hormonal level, i.e., to account for hormonal aspects, or at some other biological level! Just keep it in its

context, and everything stays great.

How do you know homosexuality is a deviation from the "norm", BTW, except

for statistically? Who sets that standard? It is what it is, and it's always been there.

Im not going to say

there's no such thing as non human animal psychology, but psychology as the term is normally used professionally,

culturally, and in the schools refers to studying people. We were taught to think of "animal behavior" as the other

field, but it's no biggie. I doubt I know all the correct terms for all the fields that study animals. I once

thought I was going to study whale behavior in Hawaii. There are people who also claim to study "plant psychology".

:) If you want to expand the term, fine. I'll go along with that. For me psychology as a word implies mental life,

experience, cognition, volition, consciousness, or some such thing. So non-human animal psychology would be

different in that mental life would be largely unavailable for study and we'd just keep it to behavior and biology.

So for the rest of this discussion, I'll use the term "human psychology" to talk about the field I'm familiar

with.

[Friendly1]

I had to provide the formal

definition of the meaning of "psychology" (the study of the behavior of animals) on enough tests that it is

indelibly etched into my memory.

Sexuality arises solely from the need to procreate. Homosexuality (or sexual

preference for one's own gender) does not arise directly from the need to procreate, but recent research indicates

that it may have one or more biological causes. All of which would be related to the need to procreate. Maybe

there is a little homosexuality in all of us, and something just pushes some people across the line which divides

heterosexuals from homosexuals.

But there is certainly a tremendous amount of research which points towards

basic biological roots for most human behavior. Even ambition may be rooted in the need to survive or the need to

procreate.

Life is about life. Intelligence just makes it possible to draw life experience into a more abstract

mode.

[DrSmellThis]

I agree that "life is about

life", but don't know if I'll fess up yet to my "inner gayness"! ;)

* bjf, I can basically

almost totally agree with you, in terms of the way you just put it (except for the "first" and "gay" comment). That

fits, builds bridges, and puts things in a bit of perspective!

That definition of psychology was not on any of

the tests in my intro to psych classes -- the ones I taught or took. I used quite a few textbooks over the years

(most recently Myers). But there are a good variety of definitions out there. That would be a biopsych perspective

for sure, with a little tunnel vision thrown in. You don't see that one much in mainstream psychology. I personally

can't use that entire definition, because that would mean limiting studies of humans to external observation along

measurable dimensions (fittingly, this is called "behaviorism" within psychology), and elimenate all the rest, which

would make human psychology less helpful. But the animal part I can use, since you don't lose anything there, and

even gain something.

How do you know that all of what we experience as sexuality arises solely from the need to

procreate? Are you defining it that way, and saying it's by definition? It it because evolutionary biologists tend

to look at it that way? What do you make of bonobo monkey sexuality, which is thought to be as much for social

bonding? What is the relation between sexuality, friendship and romance? What is a human relationship in general,

and what does that arise from? Are we social animals more than some other animals? If so why? I think if we had the

answers to all this our lives might improve as a result of that understanding. For example, we can use all that

knowledge to help each other have better relationships. That is one main things human psychology can do for us.



One of the important -- and oft-neglected -- laws of science is that correlation does not equal causation. I agree

there are biological correlates for every human behavior, just as there are social and agentic correlates. Further,

those biological correlates have been shown to have some causal influence. But what research shows human actions are

strictly biologically determined or caused? As far as I know, the consensus in psychology points to multiple causes:

agentic, social and biological; and no way to really say "this is the one cause". In other words, what we do comes

from the interaction of all those factors, and the relationship among them is the most precise causal entity, as

reflected in, and mediated by, the running experiences or life story of an individual. This explanation enjoys the

non-trivial advantages of fitting in with common sense, and accounting for everyday life as lived. Extensive meta

analyses of psychological research study effect sizes over the years (e.g, Cohen) indicate that, at best, all the

"deterministic causes " combined (i.e., bio plus environmental) only account for an average of one third of total

behavior. Mathematically speaking, that puts identified bio causes at some fraction of one third thus far (maybe

that's increasing). Curiously, studies on human agency (e.g., by Howard et al) have shown an average effect

size of two thirds.

[Friendly1]

How do you

know that all of what we experience as sexuality arises solely from the need to procreate?
Because we have

become more selective as we have evolved. Hence, we need a more sophisticated mechanism for selecting mates.

Therefore, we have refined our sexual cues and receptors.

[jvkohl]

I'm glad to see that this thread

has evolved into a discussion, and that we have some Forum members who are able to get into the deeper issues. My

compliments to bjf and to Friendly1 on their ability to reasonable and clearly address their concerns, some of which

I share. There were several others whose comments showed remarkable understanding. Admitedly, I am biased against

the psychological approach, and mainly because I think it is traditionally vague. In contrast, I coauthered a paper

for Hormones and Behavior in 1996 with Milton Diamond (who exposed John Money's misrepresentation of the John/Joan

nature versus nurture issue, after it was assumed--because of Dr. Money--that social influences prevailed in the

development of human sexuality) and with Teresa Binstock, a self taught psychoneuroimmunologist/geneticist who is

many years ahead of her time (first mention in 1996 of genetic imprinting). The title of the journal Hormones and

Behavior, and the title of the peer reviewed article/review: From fertilization to adult sexual behavior clues you

into the fact that we're not discussing a psychological approach, although Dr. Milton Diamond is well known and

respected in the psychological sciences. For that matter, so is the co-author of my book: Dr. Robert Francoeur.

Also, I think it says something about psychology as a science when so many of the top psychologists are present at

two conferences: International Behavioral Development Symposium 1995 and 2000, where I also was invited to present.

Though my presentation drew much skepticism in 1995, by 2000 there were no other attendees that doubted the

importance of the link between olfaction and human sexuality. Devendra Singh later went on to publish on the

preference of men for the scent of ovulatory phase women, which can only be a preference that is conditioned

physiologically by pheromones, while also being typical of the preference in every other species of mammal whose

sexual behavior is clearly linked to fertility and pheromones. Just wanted some of the newer Forum members to have

a bit more background on my biological underpinnings.

And now, for what may be my best representation of how

I view researchers who lack any biological underpinnings, yet profess what they "know" about the complexities of

human sexual behavior. The link is here:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_38/ai_84866962
to a book review I wrote for the

Journal of Sex Research, and which I turned in about one week before some of the book author's followers killed a

9-year old girl by smothering her during "rebirthing" therapy. Granted there may be just as many errant biologists

professing deadly, unproven treatment methods, but at least with biologists--one can either find scientific support

for their position, or not. The fact that I've found unlimited support for my position that olfactory input

conditions what we consciously perceive as visual physical attraction, is unparallelled in that it comes from nearly

every other area of scientific achievement. So, if anyone makes a comment like: "You can't reduce sight to smell

and still be rational" don't be surprised to hear from me. In this regard, I've paid my dues and gained worldwide

acceptance for the mammalian model I continue to detail, which is no easy task for someone with no academic

credentials (and which helps to explain what may be my overly inflated ego).

Finally, for now at least, I

have a journal article that uses the same mammalian model of olfactory conditioning of visual physical appeal

(genetic underpinnings included) to explain human homosexual orientation. I expect it will take more than a few more

years for this explanation to become published via peer review and accepted, but mark my words, it will be. It is

obvious to me, and I'm sure to some of you, that if you're going to explain human sexuality using any model, you

must also explain sexual orientation with the same model--since it is very much a part of human sexuality. So,

sometime soon, when astute readers learn of work that shows, simply put, that human homosexuals produce different

natural body odor (pheromones?) than heterosexuals, and that homosexuals prefer the natural body odor (pheromones?)

of other homosexuals, we can look forward to more Forum discussion on olfactory/pheromonal conditioning of visual

physical appeal--as occurs in every other species of mammal, and most species in general. Their will undoubtedly be

dissention in this discussion, as some people will continue to try to address issues of human psychological

complexity while minimizing biological similarity, while others add enlightenment.

No, one more thing, lest I

come off too harshly in my stand on psychology. There has been at least one recent article showing that the

combination of "talk" therapy and drug therapy is more effective than either therapy used separately to effect

changes in behavior. Seems likely that a biologist would not be the person to talk with about problems in this

regard. As DrSmellThis indicates, many biologists are quite limited in their scope when it comes to human behavior.

I'd most likely tell you to take two sniffs of something, and call me in the morning.

JVK
author/creator:

Scent of Eros

[DrSmellThis]

Friendly, it looks like

you're staying faithful to the "reproductive fitness explains everything" idea. You're certainly not alone as an

evolutionist, if I may be so presumptuous as to use that term for you. I agree the instinct to breed seems to

explain a lot about human relationships. But how does that explain bonobo sexuality; or, changing trends and

cultural differences in attraction (e.g., skinny flat chested women with no hips versus voluptious women, Japanese

preferences for extreme cleanliness, the emergence of the hairless, boy-like sex symbol)? How about areas with zero

population growth? Vasectomies? How does explain the solidifying and growth of love after the age of breeding and

child rearing? How about homosexuality, or the success stats of arranged marriages? How about the increasing

tendency for people to wait until long after optimum breeding age to get married? Is love and compassion nothing

more than a desire to breed (and if so, then is it one thing among friends and something completely different with

lovers?)? What of the top factors such as communication, shared values, and common interests that reliably predict

successful, lasting relationships?

[DrSmellThis]

I was, and am horrified by the killing of that child via a totally unaccepted, baseless, iresponsible

and dangerous "practice" for "treating" children by those sick individuals. They just smothered and suffocated that

girl, over her screams that she couldn't breathe! It was really about those people, as that doesn't qualify as any

kind of professional practice. That was criminal, extreme child abuse, and was never a part of mainstream

psychology, or any accepted psychology. It's not helpful to the public, to put it as mildly as I can, to keep

suggesting that this is psychology or psychotherapy. JVK, this is, I think, the fourth time (once in personal

communication) I've witnessed you representing what you might think of as "psychology" by this abusive

"rebirthing"; (BTW, the most common so-called "rebirthing", which is still not from psychology, is a simple rapid

breathing technique, used in meditation, as I've said) and for everyone's sake, I hope the last; please. That

would be like me representing biology as germ warfare by some terrorist in an effort to discredit it (if I had an

interest in discrediting biology). I've made this plea to Mr. Kohl twice in the past to act responsibly and not

misrepresent psychology in this particular way, as people could well be misled, given the amount of disinformation

about psychology in pop culture. This has brought up strong emotions for me, as I work with abused children and

their families.

Second, it's innaccurate to suggest that this blatant child abuse has anything to do with a

presence/absence of biological interpretations in clinical psychology, a research based field that does draw

frequently on biology and medicine in many ways.

A third inaccuracy also requires comment. In direct contrast

to the "un-scientifically supportable" treatment methods attributed to psychology by jvk, there are perhaps

thousands of research studies in psychology by now that provide consistent, solid evidence on the effectiveness of

various kinds of psychotherapy in various clinical populations (The "recent" thing JVK mentioned about talk plus

meds being more effective is actually like 20 years old, and has been replicated many times since then.), and a

mastery of the highlights and methods of this research literature is an essential part of every clinical or

counseling psychologist's training and licensure exams.

I hope folks will understand I feel professionally

compelled to respond in this way, and am not interested in creating further unnecessary conflict. (And for this

post, Friendly1, I went back to saying "psychology" instead of "human psychology," for the sake of consistency with

past discourse.)

[Friendly1]

Friendly, it

looks like you're staying faithful to the "reproductive fitness explains everything" idea.No, I'm just

confining my remarks to a certain perspective within psychological studies that I am familiar with and which is

easily described.

I could have gone on about how psychologists study rats and other animals, but this forum is

dedicated to attraction discussion, so I am trying to stay on topic.

Technically, I am NOT an evolutionist. But

I understand how evolutionary theory works. I am more of a Random Chancist (which is my own term). A

Survival-of-the-fittest/mate-with-the-fittest perspective fails to allow for random chance.

What if a healthy

female rat is trapped with an unhealthy male rat, with no hope of mating with a healthy rat? Chances are, she'll

eventually give in and mate with the unhealthy male becase otherwise she'll die childless.


I agree the

instinct to breed seems to explain a lot about human relationships. But how does that explain bonobo sexuality; or,

changing trends and cultural differences in attraction (e.g., skinny flat chested women with no hips versus

voluptious women, Japanese preferences for extreme cleanliness, the emergence of the hairless, boy-like sex

symbol)?All sexual mechanisms evolved with a reward/punishment aspect. Any reward system can be put to a

non-evolutionary use. That doesn't change the fact that the mechanism evolved for a single purpose originally.



Of course, some people could easily argue that self-conditioning by activation of the reward system prepares an

individual for later sexual success.

You could probably argue just about anything, and I am sure just about

anything HAS been argued, with respect to sexual behaviors in animals.

You cannot have sexual gratification

without a sexual system, though. That is the bottom line, and the body is driven toward rewards and away from

punishments.

Now, SOMETIMES, things are turned around. Hence, you have masochists and hedonists who immerse

themselves in punishment syndromes. But a former employer of mine used to take a long-term point-of-view toward drug

addicts and homosexuals (and other statistically ab norm types). I am not saying I share his point of view, but time

will tell if he is right.

He basically says these are all self-correcting problems. i.e., any self-destructive

behavior will, in the long run, remove that trait from the gene pool. And any non-reproductive behavior will, in the

long run, remove that trait from the gene pool.

Human sexuality has only been documented for a very brief moment

in human experience. We don't know yet if these traits will persist or prove to be evolutionary dead ends.

But

they are all permutations (even drug addiction) of fundamental biological processes.

Nature hasn't yet shut

down the laboratory. That is why I roll my eyes every time some environmental group attacks modern civilization.

Modern civilization is as much a natural process and part of the evolving environment as the beaver's need to build

a dam or the ant's need to strip a tree of its leaves.

[jvkohl]

I was, and am

horrified by the killing of that child via a totally unaccepted, baseless, iresponsible and dangerous "practice" for

"treating" children by those sick individuals.... That was criminal, extreme child abuse, and was never a part of

mainstream psychology, or any accepted psychology.

From the Aug 10, 2004 New York

Times

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50714F93A580C738DDDA10894DC4044 82

"Fo

r more than a century, the practice of psychotherapy rode on the shoulders of charismatic figures... Primal scream

and rebirthing therapies vied with more traditional approaches."




It's not

helpful to the public, to put it as mildly as I can, to keep suggesting that this is psychology or

psychotherapy.

The public should know that rebirthing therapies (according to the New York Times)

have "...vied with more traditional approaches." However, I can understand why some psychologists would rather not

want this to become generally known, since many such therapies are now being discredited.




JVK, this is, I think, the fourth time (once in personal communication) I've witnessed

you representing what you might think of as "psychology" by this abusive "rebirthing";

It may also

interest others to know that (according to the NYT article)
"The issue of which therapies are based on science

and which are not has recently become so divisive that the incoming president of the American Psychological

Association, Dr.
Ronald Levant of Nova Southeastern University in Fort
Lauderdale, Fla., said in a telephone

interview that he had
already assembled a task force to address the controversy,
and to find some common

ground on which to anchor future
practice."

Accordingly it appears that even some of the top psychologists

are not sure what constitutes psychology or psychotherapy, perhaps because much of whatever science is involved has

no common ground. This is part of what I was trying to say by refering to my book review of Janov's "Biology of

Love". Some psychologists just make up the basis for their opinions/therapies. What does it say about psychologists

when one of their own organizations is forced to try and police practitioners?

Admittedly, though I profess

no in-depth knowledge of psychology, I am a member of the World Psychological Association (WPA), and have published

several articles in their bulletin/newsletter: Across-Species Comparisons in Psychopathology (a.k.a. WPA Section

44/ASCAP Bulletin). Of course, it is the "across-species comparisons" that allows for input from biologists, and WPA

members seem to me to have a bit more knowledge of biology than APA members. I doubt that rebirthing authorities

like Janov would ever even attempt WPA publication.



(BTW, the most common so-called

"rebirthing", which is still not from psychology, is a simple rapid breathing technique, used in meditation, as

I've said)...

I can only vaguely recall what you've said about this, but am fairly certain that

some of the new Forum members have not seen what you've written before; they might want to start from here,

although you seem to be saying something very different from what the APA people are saying. It may be difficult to

reconcile these differences. For example, either rebirthing is (APA stand) or isn't (your stand) psychology. The

APA needs to take a closer look, maybe others do, too.


I've made this plea to Mr. Kohl

twice in the past to act responsibly and not misrepresent psychology in this particular way, as people could well be

misled, given the amount of disinformation about psychology in pop culture.

I don't think that I

have acted irresponsibly or misrepresented psychology in any way. If you still think so, maybe you will join the new

APA task force, and focus on misrepresentations by biologists (after first eliminating the misrepresenations by

psychologists).


Second, it's innaccurate to suggest that this blatant child abuse has

anything to do with a presence/absence of biological interpretations in clinical psychology, a research based field

that does draw frequently on biology and medicine in many ways.

A third inaccuracy also requires comment.

In direct contrast to the "un-scientifically supportable" treatment methods attributed to psychology by

jvk...
[note: and also by the incoming president of the APA],
... there are perhaps thousands of research

studies in psychology by now that provide consistent, solid evidence on the effectiveness of various kinds of

psychotherapy in various clinical populations (The "recent" thing JVK mentioned about talk plus meds being more

effective is actually like 20 years old, and has been replicated many times since then.), and a mastery of the

highlights and methods of this research literature is an essential part of every clinical or counseling

psychologist's training and licensure exams.

I hope folks will understand I feel professionally compelled

to respond in this way, and am not interested in creating further unnecessary conflict. (And for this post,

Friendly1, I went back to saying "psychology" instead of "human psychology," for the sake of consistency with past

discourse.)

I'm interested in exploring the basis of this conflict, before deciding whether or not

it is necessary. Since pheromones are biologically active, a biologically based approach to discussion of human

pheromones may be helpful.

JVK

[a.k.a.]

Getting back to the original

question... (Assuming it was ever addressed in the first place.)


Is love at first sight really

love at first smell?

I think it’s important to focus on what is actually “seen” during love at

first sight.

When a sow gets a big snoutfull of Androstenone, she offers up her rump to the male and he

mounts her.
When a female peacock (peahen?) goes into heat, the male gets a big whiff and fans his tail

feathers. They dance about a bit, and then he mounts her.
Nature is full of visual displays.
JVK and DST

can argue about whether the sow’s rump is attractive because that’s where the juices flow or because it’s big, round

and symmetrical. But that, to me, misses the point. Because pigs and peacocks aren’t the only creatures that like a

little sign before they can consummate the act of mating.
The big difference, with humans, is that there’s

nothing in our genetic code that says a man’s got to get down on his knees and offer his beloved a diamond ring

before he gets to mount her.

So let’s talk about love at first sight...

For the most part,

what’s understood as “sexual attraction” is something like... You catch sight of a young lady in a mini skirt and

think,”Oh yeah. I sure would like to see her naked, get her between the sheets, invite her to our Church social, tie

her up, cover her in syrup, dress her up in leather... or whichever way your appetites flow.”

Love at

first sight, I would hope, is something different.
For anybody that’s actually experienced it, I think the

following features stand out:
a) you are unexpectedly drawn towards the person
b) your attraction

is based on feelings rather than perceptions or analysis
c) you sense some ineffable quality in the person —

something hard to pin down
d) you are compelled to do things that you wouldn’t normally do
and, e) you

feel meant for each other.

The strength of JVK’s argument, from a pragmatic point of view, lies in the

fact that MOST of these effects can often be observed in women that get a whiff of our pheromone mixes. But they

won’t offer up their rumps to you until you can convince them that you embody what they desire in a man. (Because

what’s missing, in all my pheromone experience, is that critical factor “e”. The feeling of being meant for each

other.) So we offer them all kinds of signs. Signs of our manliness. Signs of our merit. Our wealth. Our cool. Our

style. Our streangth. Our love. Our devotion...Whatever we think will turn the deal. And we either get some love,

or we don’t.

So I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that love at first sight is one of those rare

“short circuits” in the mating process where we receive a “sign” of what’s really at the heart of all our sexual

desires: namely the desire of the other. Which is why, more often than not, it occurs as we catch the other’s gaze.

And I placed “sign” in quotes because what comes to us from that gaze (or that phrase, or that way she brushes the

hair from her face...) is nothing more than what we read into it. Which is to say that “love at first sight” is

really “fantasy at first interpretation”.
Use responsibly.

[jvkohl]

.... love at

first sight is one of those rare “short circuits” in the mating process where we receive a “sign” of what’s really

at the heart of all our sexual desires: namely the desire of the other.

I'm more inclined to go with

the olfactory conditioning approach. By the time you encounter what you "think" is love at first site, your

olfactory system has imprinted on your brain, your preferences for hair color, eye color, hair length, facial

features, waist-to-hip ratios--and every other sexual preference you think is visual. We can sniff out such

differences/preferences right down to the genetic differences in our tissue types. In contrast, no other sensory

input has a sexually dimorphic hormone effect, so it's difficult to explain the development of sexual preferences

based upon other sensory input. The desire of another becomes more and more specific as we encounter the people we

find pleasant or unpleasant; so do our odor preferences--at a subconscious level.


Which is

why, more often than not, it occurs as we catch the other’s gaze. And I placed “sign” in quotes because what comes

to us from that gaze (or that phrase, or that way she brushes the hair from her face...) is nothing more than what

we read into it. Which is to say that “love at first sight” is really “fantasy at first interpretation”.




I think the "sign" is much more than we read into it. Even when simply catching each other's

gaze, we take in a lot of information on body type, hair color, facial features--in a split second. Then the other

smiles (a prerequisite I think for love at first sight). And why does the other smile? Because you fit their idea of

a mate who looks like he or she would smell good (albeit, you're not likely to make such a conscious association).



Several times in my life I have encountered what appears to be the "perfect woman." When she smiles--even

from across the room, I know that it is the beginning of a very good relationship. Of course, sexual fantasy plays a

major role. I'm sure she is as interested in me sexually as I am in her. But there's no such thing as a perfect

woman. One petite, hair down to her butt, blond beauty had 4 kids (3 different fathers). Still, we had a great

relationship for several years. It just could never go too far since I'm not the type to help raise someone else's

kids--and had none of my own. It ended when I stood her up on New Year's Eve--a horrid thing to do. But a younger

knockout with no children made her plans to bed me perfectly clear, and it was time to move on. Unfortunately, I

ruined a good long term love at first sight relationship for what turned out to be a fairly casual encounter (i.e.,

“fantasy at first interpretation” ). But life goes on--and even love at first sight can lead to an adaptation to the

other's pheromones/scent. After adaptation, we don't respond as we first did--so unless a strong bond has formed

based on something other than just sex, eventually many of us move on.

[David]

In addition

to all the above, I want to offer the opinion that love at first sight is most probably the result of energetic

interaction between people.

I am a Reiki master and teacher. The ki part of Rei-ki is the Japanese word that

corresponds to the Chinese word Chi (also spelled qi) -- life force energy. Related to auras too.

Lots of

people don't believe in "this stuff", but I can tell you it is real. People interact energetically all the time,

but most people are not consciously tuned into this level.

The nose/mone connection can be real too, but so

can energy.

Later
Namaste
David

[bjf]

How do you know everything you

thought was energry isn't pheromones?

[David]

The energy is obvious, once you

learn to tune in. And is is present between everyone: men, women, children, family memebers, friends, strangers,

even plants and animals.

It is actually possible to have energy sex. To imagine being with your special

someone "having a good time" and feeling -- through the energy -- what they are feeling in reaction to what you are

imagining. I have felt her orgasms, from may miles away.

Mones can't do that.

Well, most people will

think I am off the deep end.
So be it.

Namaste
David

[Holmes]

The energy is

obvious, once you learn to tune in. And is is present between everyone: men, women, children, family memebers,

friends, strangers, even plants and animals.

It is actually possible to have energy sex. To imagine being

with your special someone "having a good time" and feeling -- through the energy -- what they are feeling in

reaction to what you are imagining. I have felt her orgasms, from may miles away.

Mones can't do

that.

Well, most people will think I am off the deep end.
So be it.

Interesting stuff. I

agree.

[Pancho1188]

I felt my heart sink once when

someone faced a tragedy recently...

[DrSmellThis]

After a much needed break from

this discussion, I wanted to clear up a few myths about psychotherapy, science in psychotherapy, primal therapy, a

certain debate within psychology, and "rebirthing"; which have been promulgated. These myths seem implicit in JVK's

last post on these matters just above. Despite the sort of overconfident, "Aha! I gotcha!" tone of the post (my main

quarrel with it), that post actually represented a very understandable misinterpretation (for a layperson) of a

single newspaper article about therapy written by a journalist also outside the mental health field,

who is also interpreting things from a pop culture perspective. So, there are a couple of inaccuracies in the

article, and in his interpretation of it, above. Regarding JVK's interpretation of the article, some of the quotes

from the article were also taken out of context (the one about "charismatic figures," in particular, was missing

important info where the three dots were inserted in the place of text), or just misattributed (e.g., The APA

said nothing about rebirthing being mainstream. Look at the article again carefully (or for the first time, via

below link) -- that was the journalist saying that. That is not the only thing JVK mistakenly attributed to the APA

that was actually just the journalist speaking his beliefs.) so I will provide the newspaper article in full (the

above provided link doesn't work for that, unless you have a newspaper membership).

Here are the necessary

references (including the article) for supporting the clarifications I'm about to make; in no particular order.

Those who would like to check things out further can refer to the reading list, which should be adequate to address

my points:



http://www.i-breathe.com/thb41/rebirthing_-_an_or

phan.htm (http://www.i-breathe.com/thb41/rebirthing_-_an_orphan.htm)

http://primal-page.com/beau.htm



http://www.cyberinstitut.de/janov-love-e.htm



http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i09/09a01401.htm



http://www.primaltherapy.com/atomsGp03/aboutArt

hurJanov.htm (http://www.primaltherapy.com/atomsGp03/aboutArthurJanov.htm)





http://www.kniff.de/cgi-bin/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.cgi/010110A/http/www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=533544.html (http://www.kniff.de/cgi-bin/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.cgi/010110A/http/www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=533544.html)



http://www.chsourcebook.com/updates/ch06.html



http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:S0Ep-hMZNMUJ:www.kidscomefirst.info/ScottLilienfeld.pdf+APA+psych

ology+rebirthing&hl=en (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:S0Ep-hMZNMUJ:www.kidscomefirst.info/ScottLilienfeld.pdf+APA+psychology+re

birthing&hl=en)



http://www.religioustolerance.org/psy_hoax2.htm

*

I'll discuss the most complicated issue first. I've been in on the ground level and front lines of the

aforementioned debate within psychology for over a decade now. The article is talking about something different than

was suggested above by JVK, as was the psychology official quoted by the article. The debate is emphatically NOT

about science versus "no science" in psychology practice. Professional psychology, psychiatry and social work

love science, as a rule. It is rather about managed care and the rigid adaptation of the medical model used by HMO

financiers. It's about whether it is best to reduce mental health to a brief list of "symptoms," and force

therapists to employ a short list of highly specific approved techniques designed to quickly and cheaply treat a few

highly specific symptoms.

Here is a two sentence summary of the primary conclusions we can draw from thousands

of research studies over the decades in the field of psychotherapy: First, the research indicates unequivocally that

psychotherapy, in its various commonly practiced forms, is consistently effective. Second, psychotherapy outcome

research consistently indicates that the theraputic relationship, not any one specific techique versus

another, is likely the biggest cause of healing. Relationships of any sort take a bit of time to develop, and don't

operate according to a mere short list of rules. So forcing psychotherapists to limit themselves to highly

specific research based techniques for isolated symptoms; in the hopes of treating deep/complex problems in no more

than a few sessions; would fly in the face of the existing body of research, taken as a whole. The best therapists

learn lots of techiques, then forget them to a large extent during the sesson, just as a great musician doesn't

typically think about scales and music theory while playing. You definitely want to be a real person in a

therapy session. A good therapist's goals are based on the clients' real, central concerns. These real life

concerns rarely match a short list of medical symptoms. However, good therapists are professional in applying

specific techniques appropriately wherever typical mental health symptoms do present themselves as central (e.g.,

systematic desensitization for a phobia; or cognitive therapy for depressive thoughts; which are extremely well

supported by research). But what practicing therapists are often against is, for example, saying that since

depressed folks have trouble eating and sleeping, all you have to do is use one of a couple extensively researched

techniques to quickly increase appetite and make someone sleep more, in treating a troubled person with depression.

Then you call the person "successfully treated". That would be ignoring the person and their concerns -- the reasons

they sought help.

Those who disagree are influenced more by financial issues in the managed care industry, than

by the scientific research taken as a whole, a desire to be "more scientific," or by clinical effectiveness

considerations. They will ultimately say there's only enough money to pick a symptom or two at the most and use a

research based "cookie cutter" technique on it. Under this finance-driven HMO model, technicians or computer

software might have a shot at replacing therapists. There may be some pragmatic value in thinking this way, given

the state of health care. But what happens when a symptom reemerges, or when another takes its place due; to a

complete neglect of the root problem? Isn't that more expensive for society in the long run? I believe strongly

that it is, and that we are seeing the consequences of this type of "medical" thinking in increased mental illness,

overcrowding of emergency rooms, crime, drug abuse, street gangs and homelessness.

If you all now go back and

read (reread) the above articles on the debate with this in mind it should make more sense. In sum, both sides of

the mainstream debate like science, but differ about the proper uses of science; in particular, about how best to

translate the physical medical model used by HMOs into psychology practice.

* I and every other practitioner I

know is all for continuing the massive research efforts at every single university into the effectiveness of

psychotherapy and its techniques for various clinical populations. That doesn't mean that every specific move a

therapist makes has to come from a specific research study (even though in general what therapists do is already

scientifically based). That would kill it. Therapy doesn't work like that. We're talking about real people in a

relationship here; in particular, a helping relationship.

* Contrary to suggestions, Primal therapy (PT)

is not about screaming (though infants often scream in a primal fashion). There was however a book years ago called

The Primal Scream, written by Janov, the guy who invented it. Catchy title. PT is about recognizing that we

already have a certain amount of trauma to deal with by early infancy. PT supports including such "primal" trauma as

a target of treatment in various ways that have been developed over the years. Given how cold and unfeeling

hospitals are; as well as the sudden shift in environment and discomfort of the birth experience; is not

unreasonable to suggest that being born is somewhat traumatic to a lot of folks. Janov, the primal therapy guy, was

not at all involved in killing the child, who was not killed by "primal therapy". Primal therapists are not in the

mainstream, but the idea behind it is OK.

* Rebirthing is about a rapid deep breathing breathing

technique that recreates the way an infant breathes to access and process infantile emotions experienced by

non-infants more effectively. I know more about rebirthing than any therapist I've ever personally met, just

because I had a little training in it; training which was, BTW, not provided by anyone with psychology training, or

anyone within the field of psychology. I've never used it in a session -- not that I conceivably couldn't if

someone showed up with infantile trauma being their primary issue. The effectiveness of deep breathing techniques in

general is strongly supported by lots of research for reducing various kinds of distress. So rebirthing is not

clinically controversial, and I'd therefore have no reason to "hide" or "deny" anything about rebirthing.

Nonetheless, I repeat that it is not a mainstream practice, despite what the journalist says (not "the APA";

but please follow my link and read the original article here, not the out of context quote from it.). If it was

a mainstream practice, though, I'd have absolutely no problem with it being used on appropriate occasions, due

to its basis in quite solid research on the effectiveness of deep breathing.

* Contrary to suggestions, Janov

did not invent rebirthing, and is not even a practitioner of it (unless he just started in the last

couple of years). He once egotistically claimed to have influenced rebirthing, a claim which was rebuffed. As I

said, rebirthing has its roots in meditation practices that go way back into history.

* There are others who

have taken something like rebirthing to an extreme; and who have tried to recreate other aspects of birth, like

doing the breathing exercise in a hot tub to create the warm fluid environment. This is a fringe practice, and I

know of no one personally who has tried this. As far as I know most "rebirthers" regard this as unnecessary fluff.



* Forced physical compression, such as what killed that girl (actually the psychopathic impostor therapists

killed her), is not a respected or legitimately employed technique at all, and is just abusive. Presumably the

"idea" there was also to recreate something of the birth experience, but it was a VERY bad idea. Being born is

not about struggling to "breathe" in the womb (a life affirming place) or birth canal. The unlicensed,

antisocial frauds who perpetrated the fatal abuse may have called it "rebirthing", since anybody can call anything

anything; but it wasn't.

For a short while, some fringe treatment approaches advocated forcibly holding a young

child in a "hug" while in one's lap, for treating attachment disorder, for a certain number of minutes; to

get them gradually used to more physical contact and learn to tolerate closeness with others. Such "holding time" is

the closest technique to "compression" to approach mainstream use to my knowledge. But after a brief appearance this

approach was long ago discredited as ineffective and possibly traumatic. I've worked with many of the most

"attachment disordered" kids in Oregon, and none of them that I knew of were exposed to either kind of thing, though

I knew of a place in Eastern Oregon that used to do "holding time" (but not in the last 10 years) that was shut

down. These days, any kind of physical contact between kids and mental health pros is scrutinized heavily; such as

restraining violent kids, which is appropriate only as a last resort for safety's sake. (I once had clinical

responsibility for a residential unit that treated extremely disturbed kids. I was all about minimizing physical

restraint of any kind. Ironically, such physical contact after outbursts can actually be experienced as a reward for

violent behavior, thereby increasing violence.)

* As in the medical field, there are sometimes practitioners

within psychology who use unsound or unethical practices. Every profession "polices its own practitioners".

Counselors get in trouble just like physicians do. And as in medicine, there have been certain approaches to

treatment that are used and then get discredited and abandoned. Techniques in both fields have sometimes proved

harmful. But in psychology, moreso than physical medicine, there is little reason to do something that puts anyone

at undue risk for physical harm (though there are big risks such as suicide, drugs, and crime). Even the idea of

conducting research on things that expose someone to possible harm would typically be rejected by omnipresent "human

subjects committees" at hospitals, universities, and other mental health research institutions. "Compression" would

never make it past this stage.

* During the 60's counterculture movement there was a surge in "new agey" or

"hippie" type of fad therapies, and again during the new age movement several years ago. Some professional

counselors still incorporate such approaches, especially folks who study "transpersonal psychology". Once someone is

licensed they can try things that make sense within the confines of professional therapy or clinical practice. There

are those who do it inappropriately, as a substitute for strong clinical rationale. This is a problem of

professional ethics. If they do something harmful, they hopefully get caught and get in trouble. I'm an advocate

for people using solid clinical reasons and/or specific research for supporting their therapies, and am strongly

against somebody learning some faddish technique and seeing it as a cure all. This type of approach is mostly seen

practiced by those without much formal training in mental health. After all, there's no law against somebody

hanging up a shingle and saying they're a "crystal healer", or practice "astrological therapy" for example. The

same goes for medicine and alternate modalities. Unfortunately, "let the buyer beware" is still an important concept

for all the various healing fields. Fortunately, the typical approaches counselors use are well-supported by

research, even if they just involve giving someone "unconditional positive regard" and empathic reflection, and

relying on the theraputic relationship to heal (Rogerian therapy is like that, though there aren't that many pure

Rogerians).

I really hope all this helps. I'm all for criticising psychology. (I've been one of it's harshest

critics throughout my career, and have suffered lots of consequences for it.). But there's no sense getting

sidetracked from necessary criticisms by the various irrelevancies, myths and misconceptions about mental health and

human science; which might be floating around pop culture. Lastly, I guess there is some benefit to learning about

the field of psychology in general as background for studying attraction. But my sincere hope is that this detailed

clarification and reading list, though necessary for purposes of public interest; will not result in further

unnecessary burden on readers to sort through half-informed, vacuously overconfident posts with limited

relevancy to the science and art of attraction (despite being in the phero forum rather than in open discussion).

[DrSmellThis]

...public service bump for

those who didn't see my response. It got buried by a flurry of new threads when originally posted.