View Full Version : SOE/w for JVKohl
InACharmedLife
04-02-2005, 06:25 AM
JvKohl, have
you considered selling a version of SOE/w that was ONLY Jutte's exact copulin formula? No fragrance, no additives,
it's just a vial of the Jutte formula? Perhaps you could sell the Jutte formula in a stronger concentration (albeit
still the same Jutte formula). It seems that some women may need a stronger version of SOE/w, and others don't. It
would widen your market.
Also, women could use the concentrated Jutte formula SOE/w at the strength that best suits
them (like EW), diluting if necessary or using full strength, and then cover it with a scent of their own
choosing.
Just an idea. I know I'd be willing to puchase such a version of SOE/w.
You might call it "SOE/w
Copulin Concentrate", or some such!
:thumbsup:
jvkohl
04-05-2005, 08:39 PM
Without the fragrance, Astrid's
formula allows a conscious odor association to be readily made. Once the conscious odor association is made there is
no way to predict the response, since any response will be based upon thought processes. Unconscious affect is a
more powerful influence on behavior than are thought processes.
Astrid mentioned to me several years ago that
she had heard someone in France had used the formula in a product (didn't say whether fragrance was added). I never
heard any more about it.
JVK
JvKohl,
have you considered selling a version of SOE/w that was ONLY Jutte's exact copulin formula? No fragrance, no
additives, it's just a vial of the Jutte formula? Perhaps you could sell the Jutte formula in a stronger
concentration (albeit still the same Jutte formula). It seems that some women may need a stronger version of SOE/w,
and others don't. It would widen your market.
Also, women could use the concentrated Jutte formula SOE/w at the
strength that best suits them (like EW), diluting if necessary or using full strength, and then cover it with a
scent of their own choosing.
Just an idea. I know I'd be willing to puchase such a version of SOE/w.
You
might call it "SOE/w Copulin Concentrate", or some such!
:thumbsup:
InACharmedLife
04-06-2005, 06:59 AM
But Jutte didn't use
fragrance in her formula, correct?
I think some of us would like to be able to purchase Jutte's formula,
unadulterated.
That way we can cover it with our own preferred scents.
Also, you didn't answer my question
about selling a concentrated version of SOE/w. It seems logical that different women would want different strengths
of copulins.
jvkohl
04-06-2005, 09:27 PM
But Jutte
didn't use fragrance in her formula, correct?
Correct, she used a controlled setting and measured
salivary testosterone. A woman wearing the copulin formula during everyday activities would be likely to wear too
much--that would cause the conscious odor association. All strong odors are consciously perceived as
aversive.
I think some of us would like to be able to purchase Jutte's formula,
unadulterated.
That way we can cover it with our own preferred scents.
I don't think there would
be enough market potential; 1000 bottles would be the minimum run.
Also, you didn't
answer my question about selling a concentrated version of SOE/w. It seems logical that different women would want
different strengths of copulins.
Again, there is the marketing problem of having 1000 bottles of each
product, so a concentrated version of SoE/w isn't very economical. The best bet has always been to create a product
that the majority of people like.
JVK
DrSmellThis
04-06-2005, 11:16 PM
Without the
fragrance, Astrid's formula allows a conscious odor association to be readily made. Once the conscious odor
association is made there is no way to predict the response, since any response will be based upon thought
processes. Unconscious affect is a more powerful influence on behavior than are thought processes. Aside
from the first sentence, I can't understand this apparently self contradictory paragraph.
Conscious thought
processes, about smells or anything else, don't suddenly and completely override unconscious tendencies, to where
responses would be suddenly based only on them (as is implied in the second sentence). Both aspects would
still be there as influences. Besides, conscious sexual or sexy smells are in fact arousing to humans, at
appropriate concentrations.
And neither does the apparently self-contradictory, overly broad statement that
"unconscious affect is a more powerful influence on behavior than are thought processes" have any evidence
supporting it. The body of research in psychology indicates quite the opposite is true (e.g., Cohen's meta
analysis), as I've noted a number of times.
Again, you should be much more careful before attempting sweeping
generalizations about human psychology (unless identified as just opinions); and at least consult relevant research
in the field.
Though I have no opinion on the original question in this thread, many have found EW to be a quite
useful product, despite it being raw copulins. Though hardly aimed at a mainstream, mass-market, it sells
suprisingly well for Bruce, from what I've heard. Most people figure out not to put too much on, and to wear an
appropriate cover scent. I'd like to see some improvements made on that product, personally.
jvkohl
04-07-2005, 08:37 AM
Conscious
thought processes, about smells or anything else, don't suddenly and completely override unconscious tendencies, to
where responses would be suddenly based only on them (as is implied in the second sentence).
As I
have written many times, even the scent of rose becomes aversive and is consciously avoided when sufficiently
concentrated. Conscious avoidance will then suddenly and completely override unconscious tendencies.
And neither does the apparently self-contradictory, overly broad statement that
"unconscious affect is a more powerful influence on behavior than are thought processes" have any evidence
supporting it. The body of research in psychology indicates quite the opposite is true (e.g., Cohen's meta
analysis), as I've noted a number of times.
Do a google search on Primacy of affect. No evidence
supporting it? This is basic biology, which is well accepted by psychiatrists if not by psychologists. For example
see: Zajonc, R.B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. In Approaches to Emotion, K.R. Scherer and P. Ekman, eds.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Again, you should be much more careful
before attempting sweeping generalizations about human psychology (unless identified as just opinions); and at least
consult relevant research in the field.
The most relevant review of research, cites Zajonc (above) and
others. I don't need to consult it; I wrote it (with co-authors from Vienna). "Human Pheromones: Integrating
Neuroendocrinology and Ethology" The full text is available for free:
http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm
Though I have no
opinion on the original question in this thread, many have found EW to be a quite useful product, despite it being
raw copulins.
In another thread, I discussed the inclusion of indole in EW, which is inconsistent with
EW being called raw copulins, since indole is not part of the copulin formula.
JVK
NaughtieGirl
04-07-2005, 03:58 PM
I'm almost
afraid to but in here, you guys are so smart. But I have to agree with Charmed.
I really think there is a niche
in the market for products that are identical to those used in the trials/research. If they were effective for
research, why wouldn't they work in real life? They would of course be accompanied by a disclaimer that people need
to know what they're doing! Like the one that goes with EW (wasn't that the truth!)
The profit margin could be
whatever it needs to be to make it interesting for the manufacturer and people can either take it or leave it.
Suggested dilution and/or cover-up directions to be shipped with product. I can think of a number of them that have
been used in research and do not seem readily available for purchase.
InACharmedLife
04-08-2005, 10:22 AM
The obvious discrepancy
is that if Jutte's test subjects were exposed to a copulin formula not covered by an added fragrance, then the
testosterone rise may indeed have been caused by a conscious response in the test subjects. Or, by a combination of
conscious/subconscious response.
The Jutte study didn't rule out conscious response at all! So, why should we
do so, when employing copulins?
If the test subjects were exposed to such a high concentration of copulin formula
that the scent was aversive to them, the test subjects likely would have displayed different and negative reaction
(and not a testosterone rise).
To me, these are significant gaps between the Jutte study and the end commercial
product. As a consumer, I want the EXACT same copulin formula used in the Jutte study, without additives, without
tweaks, without improvements...just the same tested copulin formula.
I wish it were available for purchase. I
think it would sell better than any other product currently available.
Sir Louis
04-09-2005, 01:31 PM
Aside from
the first sentence, I can't understand this apparently self contradictory paragraph.
[Rhetoric flushed]
Time out. I read the last exchange between you and James Kohl, and it was painfully
clear who was making sense, as I scanned the volume of replies you wrote incessantly challenging the man's good
manner and patience. Reading this, the situation hasn't changed much either, so I ask politely, please stop
instigating?
I understand you have a strong need to invalidate the man's work, but please at least stay
on the same playing field?
What Kohl is trying to convey can be understood by any layman who had a
high-school education and an open ear in Life Sciences. What his papers and his conclusions suggest makes perfect
biological sense, and are most likely to be exploited in the near future by others in the same field.
Sir Louis
04-09-2005, 01:48 PM
Conscious thought
processes, about smells or anything else, don't suddenly and completely override unconscious tendencies, to where
responses would be suddenly based only on them (as is implied in the second sentence). Both aspects would
still be there as influences. Besides, conscious sexual or sexy smells are in fact arousing to humans, at
appropriate concentrations.
Yes, they in fact, do.
For anyone reading this, just to explain this in a
loose nonscientific way, can you picture someone you are attracted to, man or women - someone whom you'd sell your
new car to have a one night stand with, emitting a smell, not necessarily a body odor, but something offensive, that
could have the potential to turn you off like a light-switch, no matter how much their looks, personality or
their social status affirm they are worth the sacrifice?
Visual stimuli can't duplicate the electrifying
sensation of getting a whiff of some perfectly average looking females that have passed by me, this suggests that
smell is primary, since it can and has overriden visual appeal, so what he's describing isn't any stretch of
logic, which, in a nutshell, is fitness denotes signature and signature denotes fitness. Both are in
effect, co-morbid.
The question is, can signature alone define fitness, and can this be cued repeatedly, and to
what magnitude? This is why pheromones interested me in the first place, I was keenly aware how powerful human,
specifically some female, scents were. Most of us are here with one thing in mind, an edge in social/business
situations or more overt sexual encounters. If visual stimuli without any of those icky human factors appeals to you
somehow, I suggest: http://www.realdoll.com (http://www.realdoll.com/)
Any takers?
As a side
note, I owe the man dearly for the word "vaginal barrel", which makes women laugh 100% of the time, unlike SOE/M.
:rofl:
jvkohl
04-09-2005, 06:17 PM
[DrSmellThis
Rhetoric flushed]
I understand you have a strong need to invalidate the man's work, but please at
least stay on the same playing field?
What Kohl is trying to convey can be understood by any layman who
had a high-school education and an open ear in Life Sciences. What his papers and his conclusions suggest makes
perfect biological sense, and are most likely to be exploited in the near future by others in the same
field.
Thanks, Sir Louis. I've rarely participated in the Women's Forum, and am sure that other
participants are relatively unaware of the anonymous antagonism that is typical in posts by
DrSmellThis.
JVK
DrSmellThis
04-10-2005, 05:57 AM
As
I have written many times, even the scent of rose becomes aversive and is consciously avoided when sufficiently
concentrated. Conscious avoidance will then suddenly and completely override unconscious tendencies. I
understand your original position to imply that any conscious awareness of the copulins’ smell is enough to override
the unconscious attraction tendency. I disagreed with that, and even think the conscious effect could enhance the
unconscious one.
Now you are referring to a situation wherein a conscious smell is further
concentrated enough to be aversive. Aversive is aversive. But since there is no need for copulins to smell aversive
in the appropriate concentration and context, they are two separate situations.
Do a google search on Primacy of affect. No evidence supporting it? This is basic biology, which is well accepted by
psychiatrists if not by psychologists. For example see: Zajonc, R.B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. In Approaches
to Emotion, K.R. Scherer and P. Ekman, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
The most relevant review of research, cites Zajonc
(above) and others. I don't need to consult it; I wrote it (with co-authors from
Vienna).Pheromones and
the psychological study of the role of emotions and cognition in directing human
behavior are intersecting, yet very different fields of study. JVK's pheromone paper is relevant to
one aspect of the latter, but does not even remotely represent a kind of survey or review of that field. The nuanced
and interwoven relationship between thoughts and feelings -- and between both and behavior – is clearly the province
of psychology. Biologists now study some narrow,
primitive aspects of it, and neurologists a bit more; but most of the research getting at the main
question comes from psychology.
Mr. Kohl misrepresents the “primacy of affect” in the
above posts. It’s important to understand that “primacy of affect” isn't about "unconscious emotions being a
greater influence on behavior than thought" at all. Primacy of affect theory merely suggests that emotions
sometimes have an independent effect on behavior, and says nothing about their relative influence on
our actions.
These are two very different claims. The “primacy of affect” claim is very
specific, and relatively modest. Still, even this position has turned out to be highly debatable, though not without
merit for understanding how thoughts and feelings relate.
JVK suggests "primacy of affect"
is generally accepted. But in the very same 1984 issue of American Psychologist, vol.
39, where we find the primacy of affect reintroduced to the public debate by Zajonc, we find the classic
article by Richard Lazarus, "The Primacy of Cognition", which asserts that cognitive
processing is instead primary to emotion:
To experience an emotion, people must
comprehend – whether in the form of a primitive evaluative perception or a highly differentiated symbolic process --
that their well-being is implicated in the transaction.Lazarus contends that “emotion”
is not mere physiological arousal, behavioral reflex, bodily sensation, or even preference; but depends on a
situational appraisal – on cognition. He recasts the same evidence cited by Zajonc as supporting his own position.
Since then other studies have cast doubt on affective primacy. “No support for the primacy of affect
was found” in this recent study, for example:
http://www.lib.ccu.edu.tw/indoor/jou
rnal/jnccu/v6s2_6.htm (http://www.lib.ccu.edu.tw/indoor/journal/jnccu/v6s2_6.htm)
There is a good amount of research apparently
“supporting” this second position -- which is still not to be confused with JVK’s contention that unconscious
feeling is a bigger influence on human behavior than thought. The research in psychology does not support JVK's
claim; but suggests instead that about 2/3 of the variation in our behavior can be causally attributed to thought
(for example, see the research of G. S. Howard, beginning with his article in the American Psychologist, 1986; or
his book, Dare we Develop a Human Science?). Clinically, the fact that strict cognitive therapy has the best
track record of any non pharmacological therapy with major depression (including emotion-oriented interventions)
shows that even the most intense, intransigent emotional states can be made to conform to thought.
On the other hand, the debate about primacy itself has been raging since the 1800's. (See
Cannon-Bard and James-Lange in any intro to psych textbook. Wundt talked about it too in 1905.) Neither theoretical
position is commonly accepted as fitting the facts well. The consensus since the mid 90's is rather that
the whole primacy debate is wrongheaded, and reflects a fundamental
misunderstanding of the degree to which feelings and thoughts are inseparable and contribute fundamentally to each
other. (For example, see LeDoux, J.E. (1989); Cognitive-emotional interactions in the
brain. Cognition and Emotion, 3, 267-289. On the web, see
http://emotion.bme.duke.ed
u/Emotion/EmoRes/Psych/CogExp/Integr.html (http://emotion.bme.duke.edu/Emotion/EmoRes/Psych/CogExp/Integr.html) ) This holistic view is best supported
by the current research.
Lazarus, for his part, ultimately acknowledges “the indeterminacy
of the issue of cognitive versus emotional primacy.” (American Psychologist, 1984, vol. 39, p. 124)
Neither psychiatrists nor neurologists adhere to only one side of the multisided, raging debate.
For a variety of perspectives, see these:
http://psych.colorado.edu/~tito/sp04/
4606/citations.html (http://psych.colorado.edu/~tito/sp04/4606/citations.html)
Even Zajonc acknowledges that,
there is a unanimous
voice that … under most circumstances cognitive factors contribute heavily to every aspect of the emotion process.
They participate as sufficient conditions in the generation of emotion, they participate as necessary processes in
the symbolization and labeling of the emotion, and they influence emotion expression. (In Izard, Kagan and Zajonc,
1984; p. 6) The authors further acknowledge that it is not clear whether emotion and cognition represent two
different systems at all; and that the one systems view generally subsumes emotion as a factor in information
processing and cognition.
If emotion and cognition are as closely interwoven as currently
available research suggests; if the most entrenched emotions respond well in practice to cognitive interventions;
and given the huge effect sizes (2/3 of behavioral variance for conscious volition versus a fraction of 1/3 for
unconscious affect) observed in volition research, it would be dubious to claim that emotions affect what we do
"more than" what we think, much less claim that about unconscious emotions alone. This also flies in the face
of common sense; which tells us that if we consciously, deliberately decide to do something, on a mundane, every day
basis, we'll typically do it.
In another thread, I discussed the inclusion of
indole in EW, which is inconsistent with EW being called raw copulins, since indole is not part of the copulin
formula. Having one ingredient in a comprehensive raw copulin formula that isn't a copulin, but is still
part of the feminine crotch smell, need not prevent us from talking about EW as a raw copulin formula, which is how
Bruce and Phil Stone market it. If you smell copulins in nature, you’re going to be smelling indole too, and indole
has long proven its value in perfuming and aromatherapy. Further, there is no reason to pit any one successful,
effective L-S product against another.
InACharmedLife
04-10-2005, 07:13 AM
Yikes, just call me the
can o' worms opener! Sorry, all!
Anyway, back to my interest in starting this thread;
JVK, would it be
possible for you to accept pre-orders (pre-payments) on special order bottles of JUST Astrid Jutte's exact copulin
formula? No additives, no fragrances, no formula changes.
I would preorder a few bottles and I think other women
here might do so, too.
If we presented a large enough group pre-order, would it then be feasible for you to supply
us with Jutte's unadulterated copulin formula?
Thanks for considering this!
culturalblonde
04-10-2005, 08:27 AM
I would be interested in
ordering as well, since I am very sensitive to certain additives and fragrances. Thanks.
Sir Louis
04-10-2005, 11:28 AM
The authors further acknowledge that it is not clear whether emotion and
cognition represent two different systems at all; and that the one systems view generally subsumes emotion as a
factor in information processing and cognition. This isn't a complicated issue. Smell
defines visual appeal, and vice versa. Because smell can override visual appeal, it is therefore primary in sexual
attraction in humans. How do you argue against this when it can be observed so easily? I love his smile, voice,
little things he does, the fact that he's a rock singer - these are sociological. If he was exuding a chemical
which signaled poor reproductive fitness, she simply wouldn't be able to bring herself to have sex with him and
wouldn't know why.
DrSmellThis
04-10-2005, 12:26 PM
This isn't a complicated issue. Smell defines visual appeal, and vice versa. Because smell can override visual
appeal, it is therefore primary in sexual attraction in humans. How do you argue against this when it can be
observed so easily? I love his smile, voice, little things he does, the fact that he's a rock singer - these are
sociological. If he was exuding a chemical which signaled poor reproductive fitness, she simply wouldn't be able to
bring herself to have sex with him and wouldn't know why.
The relation between emotion and
cognition as these affect behavior is most certainly a complicated issue, as 175 years of debate in psychology can
attest.
You are talking about a totally different issue, the relation between olfaction and vision in
attraction. No one is debating this issue right now, or suggesting olfactory information can't override visual
information sometimes. I can't recall anyone ever suggesting anything like this in the history of the forum.
It
is not clear that either sense (or another like hearing) couldn't furnish relatively more prominient information to
our appraisals of someone's attractiveness, in any given moment and situation. This fact alone does not make either
sense "primary", generally speaking; but it is important not to confuse this figure of speech with the scientific
concept of "primacy", as applied to emotions or cognition.
I agree that a bad olfactory experience can in some
cases ruin the attraction someone feels for another, especially if two people don't know each other. No one in the
forum has ever suggested otherwise, to my knowledge.
At other times, a little "gaminess" or pungence in one's
smell wouldn't torpedo one's chances whatsoever, depending on the pheromonal compatibility two people enjoy. I
find a tiny bit of "stank" on a woman I'm otherwise very attracted to to be intoxicatingly sexy.
DrSmellThis
04-10-2005, 01:12 PM
[Rhetoric
flushed]
Time out. I read the last exchange between you and James Kohl, and it was painfully clear who was
making sense, as I scanned the volume of replies you wrote incessantly challenging the man's good manner and
patience. Reading this, the situation hasn't changed much either, so I ask politely, please stop instigating?
I understand you have a strong need to invalidate the man's work, but please at least stay on the same playing
field?
What Kohl is trying to convey can be understood by any layman who had a high-school education and an open
ear in Life Sciences. What his papers and his conclusions suggest makes perfect biological sense, and are most
likely to be exploited in the near future by others in the same field.Of course, I'm going to disagree
about who is making sense.
JVK typically enjoys respect here and elsewhere when talking about the biological
aspects of pheromones. Thankfully, I can agree with most of that information, and even defer to JVK in most cases,
since I don't have time to keep up with all that information. In the history of the forum, however, JVK has tended
to say things that require correction when he "pontificates" about general psychology, which is not his field.
Some of these statements in the past have had dangerous implications for our understanding of people and the field
of psychology, such as statements implying that psychologists often hurt children as a matter of course in their
counseling. You'd hate to see people not get their troubled kids help because of a statement like that, especially
when such a statement is spoken with an "air of authority." So as long as I'm here, I'm going to say something
about these kinds of things; just like if I were a physician, I'd respond if someone said smoking was not hazardous
to your health.
Computers is not my field, for instance. I'm sure Belgareth, who is a friend, wouldn't
hesitate to correct me if I lectured about computers in a way that was misleading for everyone. Most adults learn to
enjoy deferring to others who are the relative experts in their own field; and don't find expressing humility in
this way to be unpleasant whatsoever.
Since I'm the only psychologist around here, it unfortunately has fallen
on me to protect readers from confusion about psychology. I'd prefer not to have to do this, especially since JVK
typically becomes more arrogant in the face of any kind of negative feedback, constructive or otherwise. But you
feel some responsibility to protect the integrity of your field as a professional, especially when there are already
so many dangerous misconceptions about one's field in pop culture (like that schizophrenics are violent or have
"split personalities")
Sir Louis
04-10-2005, 01:41 PM
The
relation between emotion and cognition as these affect behavior is most certainly a complicated issue, as 175 years
of debate in psychology can attest.
You are talking about a totally different issue, the relation between
olfaction and vision in attraction. No one is debating this issue right now, or suggesting olfactory information
can't override visual information sometimes. I can't recall anyone ever suggesting anything like this in the
history of the forum.
It is not clear that either sense (or another like hearing) couldn't furnish
relatively more prominient information to our appraisals of someone's attractiveness, in any given moment and
situation. This fact alone does not make either sense "primary", generally speaking; but it is important not to
confuse this figure of speech with the scientific concept of "primacy", as applied to emotions or cognition.
I agree that a bad olfactory experience can in some cases ruin the attraction someone feels for another,
especially if two people don't know each other. No one in the forum has ever suggested otherwise, to my knowledge.
At other times, a little "gaminess" or pungence in one's smell wouldn't torpedo one's chances
whatsoever, depending on the pheromonal compatibility two people enjoy. I find a tiny bit of "stank" on a woman I'm
otherwise very attracted to to be intoxicatingly sexy. To suggest that visual signaling or psychological
(historical) factors predominate chemical or hormonal signaling makes no (socio)biological sense whatsoever, as this
is observed in the animal world, and underpins animal behavior. Humans are animals, albeit intelligent with complex
social behaviors. It's ephemeral, like saying something comes from nothing. To say that this isn't the the primary
cause for effect in human interaction, and instead assign a vague explanation isn't sensible.
There has
to be a link between the two. I understand what you mean, I just don't (can't, sanely) agree with the premise.
Quite honestly, I'm very curious why we do select a mate based on superficial reasons, rather than essential, as
Kohl concludes. I should point out I am speaking from personal experience here, the territory not the map - I fully
understand sexual and romantic interest for ephemeral reasons. I also understand that this can be instantly
overridden by primitive signals, which are both concious and unconsciously detected - the priority of mating with
this person comes to the forefront of your attention, regardless of other priorities.
DrSmellThis
04-10-2005, 01:46 PM
Um, who are you arguing with,
and why did you plant your "psychology is ephemeral" statement in your quote of me? I didn't say that, obviously,
and didn't say too many of the things you attribute to me. The reasons for why humans do what they do are many,
varied and complex. Human psychology cannot be reduced to non-human, mammalian biology. We know better. Are you
trolling?
I'm sorry this thread has drifted so far off topic.
***
I agree that a Jutte copulin mix could
be a good product for the ladies, though there are probably any number of minor variations on the on the first
formula that would cause a testosterone spike. I'm sure there were some arbitrary aspects to the way Jutte did it,
just like there would be for anyone.
Since JVK is not interested, maybe Bruce or Phil Stone would be open to
that kind of thing in the future, like a "new, improved" EW.
belgareth
04-10-2005, 01:53 PM
Sir Louis,
I'm curious,
you site personal experience which is subjective and use that as an argument. Statistically it has no validity and
in general people are very poor at observing and interpreting their own reactions. Is that the only source of your
argument? Or do you have some other objective basis for your remarks?
I admit to having very little
understanding of either field so don't pass judgment but read the material and look up many of the references
cited. After 3 years of research I still don't have nearly enough knowledge to have a well reasoned opinion so I
avoid remarking on it. I think I know how I react but understand that my observations have no real validity.
Sir Louis
04-10-2005, 01:54 PM
Um, who are
you arguing with, and why did you plant your "psychology is ephemeral" statement in your quote of me? I didn't say
that, obviously, and didn't say too many of the things you attribute to me. The reasons for why humans do what they
do are many, varied and complex. Human psychology cannot be reduced to non-human, mammalian biology. We know better.
Are you trolling? That was a typo, my apologies for implying you wrote that.
Human sexual behavior
and human psychology I see as two distinct things, that interact. Human sexual behavior can certainly be reduced to
mamalian biology, we are mammals. Our base purpose is to spread genetic material.
Sir Louis
04-10-2005, 02:11 PM
Sir Louis,
I'm curious, you site personal experience which is subjective and use that as an argument. Statistically it has
no validity and in general people are very poor at observing and interpreting their own reactions. Is that the only
source of your argument? Or do you have some other objective basis for your remarks?
I admit to having very
little understanding of either field so don't pass judgment but read the material and look up many of the
references cited. After 3 years of research I still don't have nearly enough knowledge to have a well reasoned
opinion so I avoid remarking on it. I think I know how I react but understand that my observations have no real
validity.
It's funny, I do understand DST's reasoning, I asked someone I knew earlier today, "Does
smell alone determine whether you'd sleep with someone or not?", her answer was a flat out "No!". It seemed like I
had asked her a very retarded question. Olfaction may play a secondary role in meaningful human relationships, but
it does play a prime factor with who we choose to have sex with, I think that is fairly certain to whoever really
looks into the subject.
Sir Louis
04-10-2005, 02:17 PM
I'm sorry this
thread has drifted so far off topic. We forgive you.
DrSmellThis
04-10-2005, 02:26 PM
Human sexual
behavior can certainly be reduced to mamalian biology, we are mammals. This kind of "it's true by
definition" argument is illogical. How do you know that all mammals are the same? Or that humans don't behave any
differently than rats in their relationships? Or that nothing relevant or interesting goes on in the human cerebral
cortex regarding sexuality? What makes you think that human sexuality is completly different from human psychology?
I've never heard that. Last I checked human sexuality is taught in the psych department. It is also good to study
the biology of sexuality, the endocrinology of it, the anthropology of it, the history of it, the neurology of it,
the theology of it, and the politics of it. Can any of these fields really be completely reduced to the other?
What is it they say about parachutes and minds?
belgareth
04-10-2005, 02:30 PM
Years ago, it could have even
been while I was in college and we used stone tablets then, I read about this study. Randonly selected couples were
asked to gaze into each other's eyes for a period of time, it may have been several times over a number of days.
Then they were interviewed regarding their emotions towards that person. They developed emotional attachments in
most cases. Many of the participants even developed relationships with their counterparts in the study.
You can
argue that they were close enough together to be effected by the other's pheromoones but what are the odds that a
majority of rnadomly selected couples would be compatible pheromonally? Does that indicate that visual cues have a
lot to do with attraction? It isn't conclusive and I've never seen anything else on it so wouldn't regard it as
the final word. It does indicate that there is a strong visual component to attraction though.
Sir Louis
04-10-2005, 03:24 PM
Years ago, it
could have even been while I was in college and we used stone tablets then, I read about this study. Randonly
selected couples were asked to gaze into each other's eyes for a period of time, it may have been several times
over a number of days. Then they were interviewed regarding their emotions towards that person. They developed
emotional attachments in most cases. Many of the participants even developed relationships with their counterparts
in the study.
You can argue that they were close enough together to be effected by the other's pheromoones
but what are the odds that a majority of rnadomly selected couples would be compatible pheromonally? Does that
indicate that visual cues have a lot to do with attraction? It isn't conclusive and I've never seen anything else
on it so wouldn't regard it as the final word. It does indicate that there is a strong visual component to
attraction though. You meet someone you find fairly attractive, except you become very attached to them over
time and this magnifies everything, including you wanting to be intimate with them. This is a central theme to most
hit music you hear on the radio. I've read about monogamy in mammals. In human affairs, since two parents that stay
together without tension is important to the survival of their children, this certainly makes sense and of course in
social/sexual relations. On the other hand, how many people instantly break these intimate bonds temporarily (and
regret it) because some male or female causes them to reevaluate their priorities. So what causes someone who loves
his wife (or girlfriend of several years) and children dearly, and is an otherwise honest individual, to suddenly
become a dog?
Because of the way they look? No. Their personality? No. That person's social status? No.
Their family history? No. What else could cause such a sudden lack of self-control, replaced by a horomonal,
imperitive need?
belgareth
04-10-2005, 03:28 PM
How did you determine it
wasn't any one of those reasons you listed?
MOBLEYC57
04-10-2005, 03:55 PM
So what causes
someone who loves his wife (or girlfriend of several years) and children dearly, and is an otherwise honest
individual, suddenly become a dog?
Because of the way they look? No. Their personality? No. That person's
social status? No. Their family history? No. What else could cause such a suddenly lack of self-control, replaced by
a horomonal, imperitive need?
In Mobley's world ... there are millions of reasons why a man/woman cheats,
but the only reason, I THINK/SAY, that anyone cheats is ........ because he/she WANTED to.
:thumbsup:
belgareth
04-10-2005, 04:06 PM
In Mobley's
world ... there are millions of reasons why a man/woman cheats, but the only reason, I THINK/SAY, that anyone cheats
is ........ because he/she WANTED to. :thumbsup:
Exactly! :goodpost:
wood elf
04-10-2005, 05:28 PM
It's funny, I
do understand DST's reasoning, I asked someone I knew earlier today, "Does smell alone determine whether you'd
sleep with someone or not?", her answer was a flat out "No!". It seemed like I had asked her a very retarded
question. Olfaction may play a secondary role in meaningful human relationships, but it does play a prime factor
with who we choose to have sex with, I think that is fairly certain to whoever really looks into the
subject.Smell alone can make me decide to not sleep with a man if it is not acceptable. The belief that I
may be willing to sleep with a man is made before he is close enough to smell. Many other factors must come into
play. Is he a real man or some phony putting on an act? Is he attractive. Does he seem like a gentleman? Does he
have a nice smile and a real laugh? Is he mean spirited? Many more things but smell is one small piece. people in
this country likes to wash away and conceal so much that is natural in a person's scent that it does not play the
same role it may play in other places.
MOBLEYC57
04-10-2005, 05:36 PM
Smell alone can
make me decide to not sleep with a man if it is not acceptable. The belief that I may be willing to sleep with a man
is made before he is close enough to smell. Many other factors must come into play. Is he a real man or some phony
putting on an act? Is he attractive. Does he seem like a gentleman? Does he have a nice smile and a real laugh? Is
he mean spirited? Many more things but smell is one small piece. people in this country likes to wash away and
conceal so much that is natural in a person's scent that it does not play the same role it may play in other
places.However, Sir and Elf, it is totally possible, maybe not for you, or her, but for the next woman.
Per example, I've stayed out of the discussion of men talking to women in a certain way, 'cause the women here
say, no way, no how, will that work on a real woman, but, in fact, it does. Maybe not on all women, but that's like
the kissing of a neck doesn't bring out the same reaction in ALL women. :wub: But, if you ask these same women that
it worked on, if that would work, they'd laugh and say, "hell no!" If you understand what I'm trying to say here.
:blink: So, as someone always says, I think it was Friendly1, the mileage may vary, annnd, it does.:run:
culturalblonde
04-10-2005, 06:23 PM
I met my fiance over the
internet, so I never got to smell him, of course. He doesn't wear cologne and doesn't need to. I think a lot has
to do with his diet (no pork nor beef and mostly fruits and vegetables). It was a year before I ever got to see
what he looked like. So if smell and looks did not play a role in our relationship wonder what did? That's okay,
you don't need to answer cause I already know the answer. ;)
Sir Louis
04-10-2005, 07:21 PM
I met my
fiance over the internet, so I never got to smell him, of course. He doesn't wear cologne and doesn't need to. I
think a lot has to do with his diet (no pork nor beef and mostly fruits and vegetables). It was a year before I ever
got to see what he looked like. So if smell and looks did not play a role in our relationship wonder what did?
That's okay, you don't need to answer cause I already know the answer. ;)
Well, I meant those
situations where you encounter someone that isn't otherwise interesting but you feel a compelling sexual magnetism
toward them, that if they wanted to sleep with you, it would be hard or even painful to resist, even if you were
deeply emotionally involved with another partner.
Sir Louis
04-10-2005, 07:26 PM
However, Sir
and Elf, it is totally possible, maybe not for you, or her, but for the next woman.
Per example, I've stayed
out of the discussion of men talking to women in a certain way, 'cause the women here say, no way, no how, will
that work on a real woman, but, in fact, it does. Maybe not on all women, but that's like the kissing of a neck
doesn't bring out the same reaction in ALL women. :wub: But, if you ask these same women that it worked on, if that
would work, they'd laugh and say, "hell no!" If you understand what I'm trying to say here. :blink: So, as someone
always says, I think it was Friendly1, the mileage may vary, annnd, it does.:run:
I definitely agree that
certain women are much more sexually responsive to stimuli than others, which is a genetic factor. A lot of us
who've used pheromones have ran into them.
Sir Louis
04-10-2005, 07:34 PM
Smell alone
can make me decide to not sleep with a man if it is not acceptable.
Good points all around. Not all of
us experience it often, or even realize it, though, that smell can override all those factors. I however, experience
it all the time, and I can't identify one single thing that a female can do to compare with that overpowering
sensation.
belgareth
04-10-2005, 07:36 PM
How did you
determine it wasn't any one of those reasons you listed?
Still curious...
jvkohl
04-11-2005, 07:43 AM
Still
curious...
One of the most recent studies to sensibly support the observations/conclusions of Sir
Louis (and others) comes from Rachel Herz, who also concluded from other works that a partner's natural body odor
is the most important factor with regards to a woman's selection of a mate. This more recent study goes much
further with regards to the biology that supports her
findings.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1
4670575
Re: Psychology/biology? Again, there is no direct biological link from visual input (or any
other non-olfactory sensory input) to hormonal changes in the brain. If you ignore this direct link to hormonal
changes, you can argue for a variety of other approaches to the study of how the social environment influences
mammalian sexual behavior, including human sexual behavior. This ignorance explains why many people and most
psychologists have (for centuries) ignored the influence of pheromones on human sexual behavior, and why, even
today, many psychologists fail to understand the relative impact of odor on sexual behavior as compared with other
sensory input.
JVK
jvkohl
04-11-2005, 08:11 AM
...the
psychological study of the role of emotions and cognition in directing human behavior are intersecting, yet very
different fields of study. JVK's pheromone paper is relevant to one aspect of the latter, but does not even
remotely represent a kind of survey or review of that field.
For those who don't know: my 2001
Neuroendocrinology Letters "pheromone" paper is an invited review (of that field) and won an award for integrating
neuroendocrinology and ethology.
“No support for the primacy of affect was found” in
this recent study, for example:
http://www.lib.ccu.edu.tw/indoor/jou
rnal/jnccu/v6s2_6.htm (http://www.lib.ccu.edu.tw/indoor/journal/jnccu/v6s2_6.htm)[/color]
The URL above links to a 1995 paper published
in:
Journal of National Chung Cheng University Sec. II: Social Sciences
It is often difficult to compare
disparate stands, but rarely as comical.
JVK
DrSmellThis
04-11-2005, 11:07 AM
For those who
don't know: my 2001 Neuroendocrinology Letters "pheromone" paper is an invited review (of that field) and won an
award for integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology. Again, JVK's paper is a literature review about
pheromones and their effect on hormones, not about the psychology of emotion and cognition.
It may have won
an award, but it was in a different field. This is indeed "comical."
Ethology is the "zoological study of
animal behavior" (from an ethology site), in case readers didn't know. I am assuming people know what
neuroendocrinology is.
But the point was the topic of JVK's paper. If people want to learn about the relation
of emotions and cognition in general; and their effect on human behavior, they have to look elsewhere. JVK portrayed
his paper as "the most relevant review of research" in this field, after making a contentious and unsupported
claim about emotions versus thoughts in influencing human behavior in general. That was a claim about basic
psychology.
The URL above links to a 1995 paper published in:
Journal of National Chung Cheng
University Sec. II: Social Sciences
It is often difficult to compare disparate stands, but rarely as
comical.This paper was from an APA conference (American Psychological Association), happened to be handy on
the web, presented an original empirical study, and is to the point.
belgareth
04-11-2005, 01:16 PM
JVK,
Thanks for your
comment but that still did not answer the question of how Sir Louis came to his conclusions. I strongly suspect that
he is using the wag system and really has no clue what he is talking about, right or wrong.
NaughtieGirl
04-11-2005, 03:10 PM
Yikes,
just call me the can o' worms opener! Sorry, all!
Anyway, back to my interest in starting this thread;
JVK, would it be possible for you to accept pre-orders (pre-payments) on special order bottles of JUST Astrid
Jutte's exact copulin formula? No additives, no fragrances, no formula changes.
I would preorder a few bottles and
I think other women here might do so, too.
If we presented a large enough group pre-order, would it then be
feasible for you to supply us with Jutte's unadulterated copulin formula?
Thanks for considering this!
Charmed,
I think the answer lies in the 1,000 bottle minimum. Maybe we'll have to do a mass-mailing to every
female in our e-mail address book? Or buy 1,000 bottles and become distributors?
Sir Louis
04-11-2005, 04:30 PM
JVK,
Thanks for your comment but that still did not answer the question of how Sir Louis came to his conclusions. I
strongly suspect that he is using the wag system and really has no clue what he is talking about, right or
wrong.
I didn't bother responding to your question because it is obvious you didn't actually read what
I wrote, or tried to understand both sides of the dialogue, for that matter. Instead of throwing an insult, you
could actually research the topic and see why that conclusion is valid. It is more obvious to some people than to
others on a personal level, I guess.
(Wag system?)
belgareth
04-11-2005, 04:55 PM
Actually I read it quite
thoroughly, that's why I asked you where you got your conclusions. I am interested in learning more, if you have
some source other than your opinion as a layman, please share it.
Do you find offense in my comment after you
started throwing insults at others in the first place then couldn't show the courtesy of answering an honest
question? That's not my problem, deal with it.
Sir Louis
04-11-2005, 06:32 PM
Actually I
read it quite thoroughly, that's why I asked you where you got your conclusions, I am interested in learning more,
if you have some source other than your opinion as a layman, please share it.
In the animal world, sexual
behavior is determined by reducible factors, humans have much more complex social/sexual behavior, and these
heavily influence who we have meaningful relationships with, however, these 'lower-level' behaviors and
triggers are still primary motivators in our lives, though some of us may be aware of this much more than others.
Even in the absence of research and evidence, it would be very surprising that these don't play a primary role in
our modern interactions. In any case, it is continuing to be backed up by evidence, as Kohl routinely points out.
Do you find offense in my comment after you started throwing insults at others in the first place then
couldn't show the courtesy of answering an honest question? That's not my problem, deal with it.
I
answered it, I hope it clears up what I meant. You now can answer a burning question of mine, who did I insult?
belgareth
04-11-2005, 07:18 PM
You really didn't answer the
question. You said:
"Because of the way they look? No. Their personality? No. That person's social status? No.
Their family history? No. What else could cause such a sudden lack of self-control, replaced by a horomonal,
imperitive need?"
I asked:
"How did you determine it wasn't any one of those reasons you listed?"
The argument
you cite is one half of a debate that has been running for two or three years that I know of. I have followed up
innumerable links and references from each of them. The biology crowd makes one set of arguments, the psych crowd
makes another set of arguments. After hours of reading both I have yet to read, see or hear anything that is
conclusive enough to accept such a sweeping statement as yours. The only expert source you have mentioned so far has
been your personal experience and that is exceedingly weak from anybody. So, I ask you again, other than your
opinion, do you have references or other sources you can cite or is that your opinion only? Are you a layman or are
you a professional in one of the fields these two gentlemen are discussing?
No, you probably don't consider
your blah blah blah following your quote of DrSmellThis insulting. Maybe it wasn't, only rude. Why did you delete
it? I don't honestly remember your other comment, the one I deleted but it was insulting or I wouldn't have
deleted it.
Just so you understand why I asked in the first place. Both JVKohl and DST are pros in their field.
I don't honestly know Mr. Kohl's education but his writing is well recieved within his discipline and sometimes
outside it. DST has a Ph.D in psychology and many years experience as a therapist and researcher. Both of them have
earned respect and neither should be derided by childish pot shots like "Blah, blah, blah" especially by an
amature.
jvkohl
04-11-2005, 08:17 PM
In his reply to
DrSmellTHIS
I understand you have a strong need to invalidate the man's work, but please at least stay on the
same playing field?
Some of these [JVK's] statements in the past have
had dangerous implications for our understanding of people and the field of psychology, such as statements implying
that psychologists often hurt children as a matter of course in their counseling.
I don't recall
saying psychologists often hurt children when I commented on the 9 y/o girl that was killed by psychologists who
believed that "rebirthing therapy" would be beneficial--based upon psychobabble spouted by psychologist: Arthur
Janov--whose book "The Biology of Love" I reviewed for the Journal of Sex Research. Here's the URL for the
review.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_38/ai_84866962
You'd hate to see people not get their troubled kids help because of a statement like that, especially when such a
statement is spoken with an "air of authority." So as long as I'm here, I'm going to say something about these
kinds of things; just like if I were a physician, I'd respond if someone said smoking was not hazardous to your
health.
What I hate to see is anyone else subjecting their child to a potentially deadly treatment
proposed by some moronic psychologist who thinks he knows what ridiculous methods will help the child. That's why I
wrote such a scathing book review. I am able to speak with authority because it was my standing in sexuality
research that led to being asked to author a review of the book. Get it? Author/authority, not "air of
authority."
If you were a physician, you make obvious the fact that you would not respond as have other
physicians (psychiatrists) who have banded together to expose "experts" like Arthur (I want my mommy!) Janov, author
of "The Primal Scream" and 11 other books. At least two of his followers are now in prison. I can only hope that no
other murderous treatments are required to sound the "wake-up" call for others.
Since
I'm the only psychologist around here, it unfortunately has fallen on me to protect readers from confusion about
psychology.
I agree that this is unfortunate. First, because you remain anonymous by using a moniker,
so there is no way for most folks to determine whether you are qualified to offer your opinions. Second, you are
confused.
... JVK typically becomes more arrogant in the face of any kind of negative
feedback, constructive or otherwise.
Actually, I simply try to respond appropriately to your ongoing
escalation of issues that have no place on this Forum. The unconscious affect of pheromones on hormones influences
sexual behavior. You constantly confuse the basis for the discussion of human pheromones with aspects of psychology
that have minimal bearing on human sexuality.
But you feel some responsibility to
protect the integrity of your field as a professional,...
You could better represent yourself as an
anonymous person who may or may not be a professional in some area of
expertise.
JVK
Sir Louis
04-11-2005, 09:16 PM
The argument you cite
is one half of a debate that has been running for two or three years that I know of. I have followed up innumerable
links and references from each of them. The biology crowd makes one set of arguments, the psych crowd makes another
set of arguments. Debate between whom? Nobody has been debating the issue except researchers, there is no
"sides" either except in your imagination. The debates on these forums are loose, qualitative affairs, trying to
establish consistency with certain products that contain compounds that have a potential positive social benefit.
After hours of reading both I have yet to read, see or hear anything that is conclusive enough
to accept such a sweeping statement as yours. If you truly did, then it would seem obvious which has been
based on sound assumption, logic and increasingly evidence and which is not.
The only expert
source you have mentioned so far has been your personal experience and that is exceedingly weak from anybody. So, I
ask you again, other than your opinion, do you have references or other sources you can cite or is that your opinion
only? Are you a layman or are you a professional in one of the fields these two gentlemen are discussing?
No, you
probably don't consider your blah blah blah following your quote of DrSmellThis insulting. Maybe it wasn't, only
rude.
Just so you understand why I asked in the first place. Both JVKohl and DST are pros in their field.
I don't honestly know Mr. Kohl's education but his writing is well recieved within his discipline and sometimes
outside it. DST has a Ph.D in psychology and many years experience as a therapist and researcher. Both of them have
earned respect and neither should be derided by childish pot shots like "Blah, blah, blah" especially by an
amature. How do you know DST has a Ph.D? What accredited university did he publish his dissertation at?
If I had a dollar for every crank Ph.D out there using their credentials to justify nonsense, I could probably
buy a new workstation. I am not even an "amatuer" (odd choice of words), just someone with a high school level
education who paid a bit more attention in class about the scientific method and can recognize the better of two
arguments. But my comments here stem from personal observations and questions:
- Instant attraction to
strangers I did not find appealing, one of whom was a heavyset woman in an elevator, who was in a light sweat.
Why?
- I work around many attractive women yet some of them (who are athletic) seemingly repel me, wheres others
don't. Again, I could clearly tell the source is olfaction. Why?
- In all of these situations smell overrides
other factors and triggers a sexual reponse distinct and more powerful than other stimuli.
I should point
out another female poster in this thread affirmed the same thing. The truth is we are still more like animals than
we are aware. As for being rude to DST, it is quite rude making straw-man arguments and then goading someone else
with endless rhetoric. To his credit, he has one of the most well thought-out and interesting products on this site,
but his responses to Kohl are laughable, and at times appear as simple antagonization. My sincerest apologies if
"Blah blah blah blah" caused any suffering, despite how apt it undoubtedly was. I'll end this post with a question
though, if it hasn't been touched on. Could appearence simply function as a way to draw someone closer until they
can get a whiff of you?
jvkohl
04-11-2005, 10:23 PM
If I had a
dollar for every crank Ph.D out there using their credentials to justify nonsense... [I'm] just someone with a high
school level education who paid a bit more attention in class about the scientific method and can recognize the
better of two arguments. ... The truth is we are still more like animals than we are aware. As for being rude to
DST, it is quite rude making straw-man arguments and then goading someone else with endless rhetoric. ... his
responses to Kohl are laughable, and at times appear as simple antagonization.
Well said, Sir Louis.
I'm posting a few exerpts from this thread to demonstrate the
antagonism.
---------------------------------------------------------
jvkohl
Once the conscious odor
association is made there is no way to predict the response, since any response will be based upon thought
processes. Unconscious affect is a more powerful influence on behavior than are thought processes.
DrSmellThis:
The body of research in psychology indicates quite the opposite is true… you should be much
more careful before attempting sweeping generalizations about human psychology (unless identified as just opinions);
and at least consult relevant research in the field.
jvkohl: I don't need to consult it; I wrote it
DrSmellThis
JVK's pheromone paper... does not even remotely represent a kind of survey or review of that
field.
jvkohl … my 2001 Neuroendocrinology Letters "pheromone" paper is an invited review (of that field
[pheromones]) and won an award for integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology.
DrSmellThis
Again, JVK's
paper is a literature review about pheromones and their effect on hormones, not about the psychology of emotion and
cognition. It may have won an award, but it was in a different field.
------------------------------------------------------------
This discourse and the summary of my review by
DrSmellThis clearly illustrates our differences. I post authoritative biologically based opinions, which he counters
with comparatively anonymous and condescending rhetoric. In this manner, he has attempted to change the focus from
pheromones and their unconscious affect on human sexual behavior to emotion and cognition using lengthy and vague
ramblings about psychology.
As Sir Louis noted early in this thread DrSmellThis appears to have a strong
need to invalidate my work. Many other psychologists have entered earnest debates with me, without trying to
belittle me or my work. The difference between DrSmellThis and others seems to be that he wants to establish himself
as an authority on the topic of human pheromones. I have a limited amount of time for such foolishness, and have
reached my limit, for now.
JVK
belgareth
04-12-2005, 04:24 AM
Debate between
whom? Nobody has been debating the issue except researchers, there is no "sides" either except in your imagination.
The debates on these forums are loose, qualitative affairs, trying to establish consistency with certain products
that contain compounds that have a potential positive social benefit. I refer to the ongoing argument
between you and DST, I thought that was obvious.
If you truly did, then it would seem obvious which has been
based on sound assumption, logic and increasingly evidence and which is not.
How do you know
DST has a Ph.D? What accredited university did he publish his dissertation at? I happen to know who he is in
the real world. Take my word or not, it doesn't matter.
If I had a dollar for every crank Ph.D
out there using their credentials to justify nonsense, I could probably buy a new DV workstation. I am not even an
"amatuer" (odd choice of words), just someone with a high school level education who paid a bit more attention in
class about the scientific method and can recognize the better of two arguments. But my comments here stem from
personal observations and questions:
- Instant attraction to strangers I did not find appealing, one of whom
was a heavyset woman in an elevator, who was in a light sweat. Why?
- I work around many attractive women yet some
of them (who are athletic) seemingly repel me, wheres others don't. Again, I could clearly tell
the source is
olfaction. Why?
- In all of these situations smell overrides other factors and triggers a sexual reponse distinct
and more powerful than other stimuli.
I should point out another female poster in this thread affirmed the same
thing. The truth is we are still more like animals than we are aware. As for being rude to DST, it is quite rude
making straw-man arguments and then goading someone else with endless rhetoric. To his credit, he has one of the
most well thought-out and interesting products on this site, but his responses to Kohl are laughable, and at times
appear as simple antagonization. My sincerest apologies if "Blah blah blah blah" caused any suffering, despite how
apt it undoubtedly was. I'll end this post with a question though, if it hasn't been touched on. Could appearence
simply function as a way to draw someone closer until they can get a whiff of you?You can judge the merits
of their debate based on your high school education as oppossed to having researched both subjects? My biggest issue
with both their arguments is they are seemingly unwilling to bend an inch either way. I do not doubt the instant
attraction and have made comments on the forum several times about it but I do doubt it controls our actions to the
degree sugggested.
Of course appearance could do that. You mention the one woman, why do you also ignore the
other who met her husband over the internet? Haven't seen a scratch and sniff web site yet, have you? I'll have to
ask her to be more specific but I believe my girlfriend had already decided about me before getting close to me.
There is a huge body of information out there and many crackpots, both with and without Ph.D's. Personally Mr.
Kohls' product has done very little for me despite having used two bottles of it in careful tests. It works for
many others, though. Go out and do some studying, then come back with some real arguments rather than hyperbole and
uneducated judgments.
As for the rest, both get pretty silly with their arguments and personal attacks. I've
had to edit or move several threads because they went so far afield. It does not give you any reason to start with
the same thing.
jvkohl
04-12-2005, 07:25 AM
... I do not
doubt the instant attraction and have made comments on the forum several times about it but I do doubt it controls
our actions to the degree sugggested...
Of course appearance could do that. You mention the one woman, why
do you also ignore the other who met her husband over the internet?
I hope you don't mind me
stepping in here:
I've commented before on love at first sight versus growing affection in the absence of
visual input. What some people still fail to realize is that pheromones elicit unconsious affect and cause hormonal
changes from the day we are born. These changes rewire the brain throughout life. Before puberty our sexual response
cycle has been conditioned by olfactory input; we have unknowingly developed preferences for characteristics that we
find appealing based on experiences with the natural body odor of other people (again, from the day we are born).
The example I continue to use is a comparison with the development of food preferences, based upon the chemical
appeal of the food (not the visual appeal).
I don't know why people find it so hard to make the connection
to olfactory conditioning of hormones involved in mate choice, when there is so much evidence that says olfactory
input conditions what we find visual appealing both in food and in mate choice. In human studies, this has been
shown to occur for genetically determined characteristics associated with tissue type. People choose for olfactory
indicators of tissue type; those that bloodhounds sniff out when trained for tracking scent signatures. We cannot
discriminate among these differences using visual input; only olfactory input, which means our choices for these
genetically determined characteristics are not based on visual input.
Of course, we can consciously over-ride
unconscious affect. But we do so at risk of making choices that make happiness in a relationship very difficult to
achieve.
Finally, the difference between food preferences and mate preferences is that mate preferences are
usually different in males and females. You cannot, biologically, get to a sex difference in choice without first
having a sex difference in the processing of input, and a sex difference in the result of the processing (e.g.,
hormonal change.) That's why mammalian mate choice, including human mate choice, cannot biologically be based on
visual input. If there is a sex difference in the way males and females process visual input from the social
environment, no one has found it. If this difference is ever found, it must also be directly linked to sex
differences in hormonal changes before linking the difference, biologically, to behavior. On the other hand,
psychologically, you can link just about anything to anything.
JVK
belgareth
04-12-2005, 08:01 AM
Thanks, I appreciate the
feedback. The only point I will dispute, mostly because of my lack of training in either field, is the implied value
of psycology in understanding why humans make the choices they make. Completely eliminating observations made under
stringent testing protocols because they conflict with another discipline or belief is bad science.
In the
several years I've been reading your work I have learned many things either from you or the resources you quote and
will probably learn quite a bit more. At the same time, I have learned as much from the sources and arguments from
DST. You've both been a great benefit to me. My point here is in keeping an open mind, our knowledge is not so
great as to be able to eliminate other possible sources of information. Nor does it give me the right to ridicule
either of you or your professional fields, you have both worked hard for your professional standing. The thing I
most hate about the discussions between you two is how they always digress into stupid personal insults towards each
other.
I hope to see many more interesting, informative and constructive discussions from both you and DST but
do hope they can be kept more professional.
Sir Louis
04-12-2005, 12:39 PM
I refer to
the ongoing argument between you and DST, I thought that was obvious. DST "argues" with Kohl. Actually it
looks more like a Chiuwawa nipping at someone else's ankles, but you are an admin, and I really need to watch what
I write, don't I?
I happen to know who he is in the real world. Take my word or not, it
doesn't matter.Somehow I guessed you were friends early on. Must be a non-reducible clairvoyant impression
I had. Free will and all that.
Oh, I'm really a neurologist and a biochemist by the way. I was
kidding about the high school education bit. I'm also a member of the Knights Templar, look at my username. But
seriously, I'll let someone else question DST about the validity of the credentials he claims, (preferably
everytime he starts humping a real sex researcher's leg, who does have credentials, published research, and bothers
to sign his own bloody name to boot).
My biggest issue with both their arguments is
they are seemingly unwilling to bend an inch either way.
Your biggest issue is you think DST represents
the opinion of actual psychologists.
You are unwilling to accept DST is talking nonsense because you are
friends with him. The odd fact alone he chooses to remain anonymous should bring into question if he is a
legitimate psychologist.
So I ask again, what university did he graduate from? What was his
dissertation? Still curious. :lol:
Of course appearance could do that. You mention the one
woman, why do you also ignore the other who met her husband over the internet? Because that has nothing to
do with the cause of purely sexual attraction among strangers in our daily lives. The way someone looks or acts
assumes reproductive fitness. I would guess this functions as a way to draw them closer.
Personally Mr. Kohls' product has done very little for me despite having used two bottles of it in
careful tests. I haven't noticed anything spectacular using it either. I do notice that it does make
people friendlier in a way that cologne doesn't, which is crucial in business dealings, and justifies the cost.
It works for many others, though. Go out and do some studying, then come back with some
real arguments rather than hyperbole and uneducated judgments. Kohl is the only one here making supportable
or rational arguments, period. I was just trying to make it clear as opposed to DST's rubbish, smell being primary
is observable in some situations in our daily lives, if we bother to look. As for education, you continue to not
realize this research falls with sociobiology, not psychology. Who do you think is more likely to understand the
question, a biologist, or Dr.Phil?
You idiotically assign a "side" to this as if it was a religious
debate, and pretend DST is a psychologist (he could be), and represents the study of psychology. The truth is he is
arguing for the sake of arguing, and writing a mountain of rhetorical declarations, signifying nothing. A proper
debate between professionals doesn't look like what DST writes. In reality, therapy techniques could stand to
benefit in countless ways by understanding the sociobiological mechanisms behind human sexual behavior more clearly.
I'm sure Freud would have agreed.
belgareth
04-12-2005, 03:13 PM
DST "argues" with Kohl. Actually it appears more like a Chiuwawa nipping at someone else's ankles, but you
are an admin, and I really need to watch what I write, don't I?
I couldn't care
less if you are rude to me. To put it bluntly, you aren't significant enough for me to care what you think of me.
If you hope that your sarcasm is going to irritate me, you are going to have to try harder. Oh, the word is
mod-er-at-or, like it says under my name on the left. For those with problems with big words mod will
do.
Somehow I guessed you were friends early on.
Must be a non-reducible clairvoyant impression I had. Free will and all that.
For one so (allegedly) well educated you seem singularly weak in reading comprehension. I
have not said either was wrong or right and have no intention of doing so. As I have said, I don't have the
education in either area to make those judgments. It is also not my place to make those
judgments.
Oh, I'm really a neurologist and a
biochemist by the way. I was kidding about the high school education bit. I'm also a member of the Knights Templar,
look at my username. But seriously, I'll let someone else question DST about the validity of the credentials he
claims, (preferably every time he starts humping a real sex researcher's leg, who does have credentials, published
research, and bothers to sign his own bloody name to boot).
Congratulations on your education, if it's true, in any case. (Not an accusation just
applying your own standards.) I’m proud of you. Now give yourself a nice pat on the head. Yes, as a matter of fact,
I am being sarcastic. How perceptive of you to notice. It’s called responding in kind, do you need that
defined?
How does your education qualify you to judge the merits
of psychology? I do not recall that he ever claimed to be a sex researcher but I may have missed that. Could you let
me know where you saw it?
Why should he give his real name in a
forum where the convention is to use a handle? Does he not have the same right and expectation of privacy as any of
the rest of us? I don’t see you attacking any other poster, some of whom have made some pretty outrageous claims,
for concealing their identity. Do you have some type of problem with his field that you must try to denigrate
professionals in that field in order to bolster your own ego? Have you bothered to read his body of work on the
forum or follow up the references he provides supporting his opinion? Or are you making your decisions based on a
single debate and your own personal bias?
It is awfully generous
of you to allow somebody else the privilege of making their own decisions. Not especially surprising that you came
to those conclusions in view of the discipline you claim. I've known few biologists who accept psychology; really a
rather common case of tunnel vision. Your attitude is pretty classic.
You are unwilling to accept DST is talking nonsense because you are friends with him.
The odd fact alone he chooses to remain anonymous should bring into question if he is a legitimate
psychologist.
So I ask again, what
university did he graduate from? What was his dissertation? Still curious.
Bluntly put pure crap and hyperbole in a vain effort to reinforce your point of view
through misdirection. Sad that one of your (claimed) education resorts to such things. A long time before we became
friends and even before I joined this forum I learned to pay careful attention to both sides of any debate and
suspend judgment. You are free and welcome to question his credentials but your suspicious and narrow minded
attitude makes me wonder about your own educational claims. Just for fun, try doing a search and see how many times
I have argued with DST.
Because that has nothing
to do with the cause of purely sexual attraction among strangers in our daily lives. The way someone looks or acts
assumes reproductive fitness. I would guess this functions as a way to draw them closer.
I haven't noticed anything spectacular using it either. I do notice that it does make
people friendlier in a way that cologne doesn't, which is crucial in business dealings, and justifies the cost.
True enough if it really works for you. Since your observations are purely
subjective and as a (alleged) scientist you surely understand the flaws there, I rather think it best to consider
your comments in that light.
Kohl is the only
one here making supportable or rational arguments, period. I was just trying to make it clear as opposed to DST's
rubbish, smell being primary is observable in some situations in our daily lives, if we bother to look. As for
education, you continue to not realize this research falls with sociobiology, not psychology. Who do you think is
more likely to understand the question, a biologist, or Dr.Phil?
I refer you back to my questions and comments above.
You idiotically assign a "side" to this as if it was a religious debate, and pretend
DST is a psychologist (he could be), and represents the study of psychology. The truth is he is arguing for the sake
of arguing, and writing a mountain of rhetorical declarations, signifying nothing. A proper debate between
professionals doesn't look like what DST writes. In reality, therapy techniques could stand to benefit in countless
ways by understanding the sociobiological mechanisms behind human sexual behavior more clearly. I'm sure Freud
would have agreed.
Name calling now? I’m so disappointed in you. Do I need to define
debate for you or do you have a dictionary? Do you mind if I ask you a question in the sincere hope that you answer
it? How do you feel about a person who uses factual misrepresentation to support their side of a discussion? If I
could demonstrate several cases of it, how would that affect your point of view?
I do not claim expertise in any of the matters those two debate and I don’t in any
way misrepresent my knowledge or the facts, something I have seen a lot of in this thread. Then you have the
temerity to act as if I do not believe DST credentials. I’ve noticed that dishonest people also do that a lot, try
to drag others down to their level. All I am saying is that your sarcasm from the very start has been unwarranted
and inappropriate. The scientific professionals I know and have known throughout my life would not resort to such
tactics. If science has declined so from the days of my involvement in it, I am deeply saddened.
MOBLEYC57
04-12-2005, 03:25 PM
Doc Mobley, Phd. here, :sick:
just wanted to say, "Doc, JVK, Sir L, Bel ... I appreciate all you guys and your disagreements. :drunk:
Would
love to give all you guys a hug! :lovestruc
Stay the course! :box:
Sir Louis
04-12-2005, 04:21 PM
All I am saying is that
your sarcasm from the very start has been unwarranted and inappropriate. The scientific professionals I know and
have known throughout my life would not resort to such tactics. If science has declined so from the days of my
involvement in it, I am deeply saddened. But I'm not a scientist, I'm a knight.
Why should he give his real name in a forum where the convention is to use a handle? Does he not have the
same right and expectation of privacy as any of the rest of us? I don’t see you attacking any other
poster... He claims to be a psychologist. I have a suspicion that he isn't because he demonstrates a
cosmic lack of professionalism:
A) He uses an anonymous handle yet claims to be a legitimate Ph.D.
B) He antagonizes and makes baseless assertions.
C) He attempts to invalidate a legitimate
researcher's work in a seperate discipline using concepts that don't apply and no explanation whatsoever.
No, I don't believe he is a legitimate psychologist. Where is his dissertation
published? It's a simple question.
Still curious. :kiss:
Admin...
belgareth
04-12-2005, 04:33 PM
He claims to be a psychologist. I have a suspician that he isn't because he demonstrates a cosmic lack of
professionalism:
A) He uses an anonymous handle yet claims to be a legitimate Ph.D.
B) He antagonizes and
makes baseless assertions.
C) He attempts to invalidate a legitimate researcher's work in a seperate
discipline using concepts that don't apply and no explanation whatsoever.
No, I don't
believe he is a legitimate psychologist. Where is his dissertation published? It's a simple question.
Still curious. :kiss:
Admin...
Your educational claims imply that you
are also a scientist or do I misunderstand?
I honestly do not have the right to answer where his desertation
was published. He, like you, me and every other person on this forum, has a reasonable right and expectation of
privacy. Ethically, I do not even believe I have the right to ask any personal information like that. You'll notice
I asked for credentials, not when or where you achieved them or even what part of the world you live in. Please
understand that is the way it has to be on a forum such as this. You can believe what you wish, I cannot change that
and don't care to try but please show me some respect by not inferring I am a liar.
I do not wish to start
another debate with you or anybody else. However, I am going to point out that neither of them has been above
reproach in how they handled this debate or a large number of others in the past. I've been watching them for a
while now and have seen many things I wouldn't do myself.
Mod...I don't have admin rights. :)
Sir Louis
04-12-2005, 05:18 PM
I honestly do
not have the right to answer where his desertation was published. He, like you, me and every other person on this
forum, has a reasonable right and expectation of privacy. And you, me and every other person on this forum
has a right to question a claim.
At least I hope.
Ethically, I do not even believe I
have the right to ask any personal information like that. Where a dissertation is published isn't personal
information, it can be publically searched and obtained, and is absolutely appropriate to ask, especially in
internet forums, which are by nature, anonymous. My "qualifications" aren't in question because I am not claiming
to be a psychologist, or a research scientist for that matter, or trying to invalidate or criticise work
published by a psychologist or research scientist. DST routinely does, with apparently no understanding that
sociobiology and psychology are closely linked disciplines that complement each other. If you notice, I did
not respond to either DST or Kohl's posts adding to or refuting anything specific.
I don't believe you
are a liar at all. I do believe you are good friends with him though, which is why you're falling over
yourself trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and rationalizing his behavior to an embarassing degree. I
apologise if I was rude, but there is a principle involved here.
belgareth
04-12-2005, 07:01 PM
I give everybody the benefit of
the doubt, including you and JVKohl. There would have been no problem between us if you had been civil in the first
place.
DST's desertation is private as far as this forum is concerned because handles were created to assure
the ability to remain anonymous if one so chooses. Telling you where to find his desertation would also reveal his
full name, wouldn't it? I will not violate that expectation of privacy to satisfy your whim. If DST chooses to do
so that his decision exclusively. There are principles involved in what I do as well and I am not going to
compromise them for you or anybody else.
Possibly you did not understand my reference to your credentials. It
was a convienant example, no more. Your credentials are only of minor importance in determining how to take your
remarks. Now that I know a little about them, I would have expected a more professional approach from you.
You
can believe what you like about my reasons for my actions, what you believe is not important to me. I understand the
reasons for my actions and that's all that really matters, not yours or anybody else's opinion. Since you don't
know me I can only think that you are doing the same as any other human and making assumptions based on the way you
think. That's normal but can lead to gross underestimations also.
Friends? Yes. Good friends? If you say so, it
depends on your definition. Those who know me know they can count on me to be fair and try to help anybody who asks.
I have several friends on this forum and I have banned a few of them. I make every effort to disassociate my
personal friendships from my decisions as a moderator. It may not be much fun for me sometimes but it is what I
agreed to do when I signed on.
Shall we agree to disagree?
Sir Louis
04-12-2005, 07:59 PM
Shall we agree to
disagree? No problem, thread closed. :cheers:
jvkohl
04-12-2005, 10:18 PM
Completely
eliminating observations made under stringent testing protocols because they conflict with another discipline or
belief is bad science.
Agreed. It is also bad science to favor observations (e.g., what we think we
know) over biological facts (what we know).
... you have both worked hard for your
professional standing.
What professional standing does DrSmellThis have? How is it relevant to the
Pheromone Forum?
The thing I most hate about the discussions between you two is how they
always digress into stupid personal insults towards each other.
I dissagree. DrSmellThis typically
just annoys me.
I hope to see many more interesting, informative and constructive
discussions from both you and DST but do hope they can be kept more professional.
It is difficult to
keep discussions more professional, when DST remains an anonymous "professional." He has frequently belittled my
opinions and my published works, yet will not come forward with any information that allows comparison with the
basis of his opinions/published works.
JVK
belgareth
04-13-2005, 03:46 AM
I'm directing this at both DST
and JVK and is not intended to be insulting, only my opinion, for what it's worth:
Both of you are bright, well
educated professionals who have contributed tremendously to my knowledge and to this forum! Yet when you two
encounter each other you immediately clash, you both seem to revert to a much younger age.
Is it possible that
one or the other of you could open a private conversation through PMs and find some middle ground? It would require
a good faith effort on both your parts and need both of you to avoid the finger pointing. There's a lot of
bitterness that you would both have to bury but I think you both could do that if you really wanted too. The result
could be better discourse between you two and a huge benefit for us poor uneducated slobs who come here to find
knowledge.
I have no intention of participating in a "he did, no he did it" type conversation. But if you two
were making an honest effort to communicate and work out your differences I would be happy to help in any way I
could. It would be more than worth any effort on my part because I am frankly tired of your constant wrangling.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.