PDA

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.