Article by James V. Kohl

[jvkohl]

Perfuming the

mind
Entelechy: Mind and Culture
http://www.entelechyjournal.com/

The article offers some

basic info with alternative biologically based explanations for reports that we are primarily visual

creatures.


JVK

[supefly]

This article was a good

read:wave:

[NaughtieGirl]

This article

was a good read:wave:

Yes, thank you JV!

I'll be printing them both out so I can read them as soon

as I get a chance!

[chicago]

nice article,

jvk
________
Cheap box vaporizers (http://www.vaporshop.com)

[jvkohl]

Thanks all; let me know if there's

something specific you would like me to address in a follow-up article. For example, the ratio of the 2nd digit

(your pointer finger) to the 4th digit (your ring finger) is different in men and women (and some reports say that

it varies with sexual orientation). Quite a few articles link the difference to levels of testosterone in the womb.

So far, no one has hinted at the probability that there is a correlate between 2D:4D and a more masculine or more

feminine scent signature. If 2D:4D is a function of testosterone, we should be able to sniff out differences in

scent that vary with the ratio.

Though I may not respond to you directly, I'll consider any input for

another article.

JVK

[Watcher]

v. good article JV Kohl - ive

cutted and paste to my PC along with a lot of youre other articles for future reference thanks

[pherohero]

JVK,

I haven't read your

other work but you make some very strong statements regarding the efficacy and importance of pheromones, not only in

humans, but in all mammals.

For example:
"People are the only mammals who incorporate conscious processing into

what they think when they see another person.[3] Other mammals do not think about the visual appeal of a potential

mate; their sexual behavior is biologically directed by the unconscious affect of pheromones on hormone levels."



This implies that pheromones are the basis of all sexual preferences and behavior, which you also go on to

directly state; but if this is true, then what about babies who were born vomeronasally impaired or anosmic? Are

there studies showing that these children have lower or non-existent sex drives? What about in other species?



Another interesting phenomenon is how some people find traits visually attractive (simply from a photograph) even

though they could not have come across these traits during childhood, and could not have established the pheromonal

link.

You also state that: "The unconscious affect of pheromones on hormones directly links olfactory input and

changes in our hormone levels to what we see... Once visual appeal is conditioned to pheromones, olfactory input is

no longer required. "
From my readings about the vomeronasal complex, I understood that it is entirely separate

from the olfactory system. Does the olfactory system play a role as well, and is it as strong a role?

[Mtnjim]

...Are there

studies showing that these children have lower or non-existent sex drives? What about in other species?

i

can't answer the other questions, but the answer to this one is "Yes"!
There are also studies that show when

people later in life loose their ability to smell, either through illness or injury, their sex drives disappears.

[jvkohl]

JVK,
... what

about babies who were born vomeronasally impaired or anosmic? Are there studies showing that these children have

lower or non-existent sex drives?

The human vomeronasal organ presence and function is a dead

issue--debated to no end. It is not required to process pheromones in humans and in several other species. Male

children who are anosmic (no sense of smell) from birth were reported to exhibit emotional apathy, have no interest

in dating, etc--or more simply put "they don't fall in love."


What about in other

species?

Anosmia from birth means the animal will show no sexual interest.





Another interesting phenomenon is how some people find traits visually attractive

(simply from a photograph) even though they could not have come across these traits during childhood, and could not

have established the pheromonal link.

Explained below



You also state

that: "The unconscious affect of pheromones on hormones directly links olfactory input and changes in our hormone

levels to what we see... Once visual appeal is conditioned to pheromones, olfactory input is no longer required.

"

What don't you understand regarding the ability of pheromones to condition the response to a

picture? Ever see a picture advertisement for food that made you want the food? It's the chemical appeal of the

food that makes it look good; it's the chemical appeal of people that makes them look good--whether or not the food

or the person is physically there.



From my readings about the vomeronasal complex, I

understood that it is entirely separate from the olfactory system. Does the olfactory system play a role as well,

and is it as strong a role?

You could forget everything you read or think you know about the VNO;

pheromones elicit a hormone response which explains their effect on behavior. Unconscious affect=the hormone

response; the hormone response effects behavior.

Thanks for your interest; it would help you to read my

book.

JVK

[Gegogi]

I don't doubt our internal

responses to pheromones are involuntary. However it would be unfair not to mention the role of freewill in the

resulting social and sexual behavior. I've gotten involved with women I wanted so bad I thought my little willie

would explode. I couldn't stop thinking about them and could barely draw myself away. Nevertheless I later decided

to flee from her for various reasons: too young (jail bait), big mean husband, incompatible lifestyle, etc. Yes, the

attraction was uncontrollable but the actions resulting from the attraction can easily contradict the biological

urge.

[pherohero]

Originally

Posted by pherohero
Another interesting phenomenon is how some people find traits visually attractive

(simply from a photograph) even though they could not have come across these traits during childhood, and could

not have established the pheromonal link.


Explained below


Quote:
Originally Posted by

pherohero
You also state that: "The unconscious affect of pheromones on hormones directly links olfactory

input and changes in our hormone levels to what we see... Once visual appeal is conditioned to pheromones, olfactory

input is no longer required. "



What don't you understand regarding the ability of pheromones to

condition the response to a picture?

Thanks for the response, JV, but it seems like you jumped the gun

there. You were just too quick to assume I didnt understand the sort of conditioning you were talking about, but I

took that into account when constructing my question.

I understand that people can be conditioned to respond a

certain way to certain visual or aural cues, based on association. My question was: how can people be attracted to

traits they could not have been conditioned to, because they have not seen them before (because they are facial

features that belong to members of a race they have not been physically exposed to).

For example, showing

members of certain remote tribes living in landlocked regions of the world pictures of people with very different

facial features can turn them on more than pictures of ordinary people in their tribe. How do they 'know' these

far away people whom they have never sniffed before are hot?
Also, how can the attraction for those with genetic

dissimilarities be explained in light of what we know about pheromones? That they are the basis of all sexual

attraction, and that preference for any other traits are formed through conditioning.
Most young children (and

members of remote tribes) spend most of their time exposed to people with similar genes (family, etc), so wouldnt

they be conditioned to be hot for people who look like themselves?

Lastly, and on a more personal note, I know

it's hard not to assume other people are flat out stupid when you're part of the MENSA/intellectual crowd, but at

least you can try.

[jvkohl]

...how can people

be attracted to traits they could not have been conditioned to, because they have not seen them before (because they

are facial features that belong to members of a race they have not been physically exposed to).

We

are conditioned to respond to pheromones associated with genetic differences -- XX or XY dependent

genetic/hormonal
/pheromonal differences, but also differences in the HLA/immune system (e.g., tissue type).

People can be attracted to genetically distinct phenotypes (how genes structure the features of a person) either due

to novelty, or due to similarity. With no exposure to racial traits such as skin color, the likely response to lack

of exposure (novelty) is fear of darker skin color, which also signals higher testosterone levels, and increased

androgenic/dominant male pheromone production.

We can also be conditioned to respond to more

estrogenic/child-like or female features (e.g., lighter skin) due to more common associations with features that are

close to the maximum signals of estrogen. When we then encounter the maximum signals of estrogen, we respond with

increased attraction.



Also, how can the attraction for those with genetic

dissimilarities be explained in light of what we know about pheromones?

Selection for genetic

diversity via pheromones is the only way most mammals can avoid inbreeding. It works because they adapt to the

pheromones of close kin, and because they cannot adapt to the immediate effects on their hormone levels of novel

potential mates.



Lastly, and on a more personal note, I know it's hard not to assume

other people are flat out stupid when you're part of the MENSA/intellectual crowd, but at least you can

try.

I made no such assumption. Perhaps you assumed that you knew enough about conditioning to ask

"new" questions. If my response seemed terse, it's because I've answered the same questions many times--and my

book is all inclusive. Still, I did my best, and thanked you for your interest. Making me out to be an intellectuial

snob seems somehow inappropriate, especially for someone new to this

Forum.

JVK

[ohmmmm]

How about this?

After sex, production of the hormone prolactin surges. This in turn causes

stem cells in the brain to develop new neurons in the brain's olfactory bulb, its smell

center.

"But I like it, I love it, I want some more of it,
I try so hard, I can't rise above

it.
Don't know what it is 'bout that little gal's lovin',
But I like it, I love it, I want some more of

it.":drunk:

[pherohero]

I was thinking people can

extrapolate indicators of higher testosterone/estrogen (and, proportional pheromone output from things like skin

tone, size of breasts, etc.) based on what they have already come across. But what about totally new features like

round nose vs pointy nose, or high eyebrows vs low.. how would the landlocked tribesman/woman know 'this chick/guy

has to have some awesome pheromones'?


I made no such assumption. Perhaps you assumed that you

knew enough about conditioning to ask "new" questions. If my response seemed terse, it's because I've answered the

same questions many times


It's not at all because your

responses were terse... on the contrary, it's because you asked questions like "What don't you understand

regarding the ability of pheromones to condition the response to a picture? Ever see a picture advertisement for

food that made you want the food?" Didn't say or imply my question was new, just wanted to make it clear that you

misinterpreted it the first time.

I was considering other things, like how you say pheromones are used to

transmit signals regarding reproductive fitness. What about visual indicators of reproductive fitness itself... dont

they play a role, totally bypassing the use of pheromones?

Like, I wouldn't be turned on by a fat woman even if

she was emitting a tub's worth of the most ass-kicking pheromones out there. There's no way I can be conditioned

into wanting to have sex with such a chick, simply because they cant be as good at it. Ages ago, when the norm was

for women to be underweight, and those who weighed a little more than average were 'fit' or 'normal', a guy

preferred these women knowing that they wouldnt faint before he reaches an orgasm.

To be fair, the same is true

for women. They probably dont prefer men with thick penises just because they've sniffed enough naked guys to know

that size correlates with pheromone output... the more plausible explanation is that i perform better in bed, and

that the extra surface area increases the sensation of pleasure during sex.

I'm sure none of these points are

new, since I'm just restating what most others say in other threads (even here).. that pheromones dont seem to be

the only route to sexual attraction and cant be used to explain all of it.

[jvkohl]

I'm sure none

of these points are new, since I'm just restating what most others say in other threads (even here).. that

pheromones dont seem to be the only route to sexual attraction and cant be used to explain all of

it.

Quite the contrary; there's no other biologically based explanation other than pheromones. Those

who think that there are other routes should begin to detail them; provide a mammalian model for some inclination of

another route (non-olfactory); clue us in to innate sexual dimorphism in the sensory system involved, detail a link

from the sensory input to a neuroendocrine response, and it would help if the model incorporated developmental

staging.

Instead, what I continue to read about visual or other aspects of physical attraction is that it

just happens. So, I continue to ask, how does it happen in homosexuals? Humans are more visual creatures--just

doesn't cut it for any of the behavioral development specialists that I know. Feel free to believe whatever you

like, but don't read my book or technical papers because you won't find any support for the belief that attraction

is not fully dependent on olfactory-genetic-neuronal-
hormonal-behavioral reciprocity.

Earlier I posted

links to two more journal articles in the Research section. A co-author on one of the articles (i.e., Linda Buck)

shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology and/or Medicine with Richard Axel, whose lab links to . Such

things mean little to those whose belief in the visual primacy of human physical attraction is based on nothing but

psychobabble. Why bother to read anything that doesn't support your current belief--including my posts to this

Forum?

Just continue to assert that pheromones aren't the only route; it's a more popular position to

take, regardless of the fact that there is no biological basis for the

position.

JVK

[Gegogi]

I don't think anyone disagrees

that at it's most primordial, attraction has a biological basis. And pheromones are at the heart of that process.

Nevertheless, biological urges still must intermingle with the social and intellectual aspects of human existence.

Pouring a bottle of SOE on a loser will not a Casanova make.

Why are some women attracted to withered but

rich old men? It's not their pleasing visual appearance or their virile pheromone signature. Well, the abstract

concept of lust for money and power doesn't fit well into a biological model does it? At a lower level, hookers

have sex with anyone willing to pay their fee. Other women are attracted to and marry convicts with lifetime

sentences based on letters and phone calls. They know there is little or no chance of actual physical contact.

Groupies follow rockstars from city to city hoping for a chance union. They haven't been near enough to even catch

a hint of their pheromone signature.

My point is human attraction is multifaceted. That is, the intermingling

of the biological (real or imagined), visual, social and intellectual. To reduce human attraction to a purely

biological or visual basis is misleading.

[jvkohl]

My point is human

attraction is multifaceted. That is, the intermingling of the biological (real or imagined), visual, social and

intellectual. To reduce human attraction to a purely biological or visual basis is misleading.

My

point is that the only means by which the visual, social and intellectual environment can biologically interact with

behavior, is via a neuroendocrine (e.g., hormone) response. Pheromones directly elicit this neuroendocrine response;

no other sensory input from the social environment does this.

To complicate the biological facts with

scenarios that are purely functions of socialization is misleading. Our sexual behavior, when reduced to its lowest

common denominator, is based upon the interaction of olfaction with hormones--as sexual behavior is in all mammals.

I use a mammalian model; you use no model.

If you want to debate a reductionist approach (e.g., ask me to

explain why this or that happens), at least offer some common ground. Let's compare

models.

JVK

[mavo]

I think that pheromones do play an

important role but what differs human beeings from other animals is that they are much more complex and that there

are much more other factors. Especially beauty itself does seem to play an important role -more important than

pheromones.

To constate my opinion I'd like to show you an interesting article from: Social Psychologie, Brehm

et. all, 5th edition, New York 2002, S.309:

"A source of evidence for the view that beauty is an objective

quality is that babies who are too young to have to have learned the culture's standarts of beauty

exhibit a nonverbal preference for faces considered attractive by adults. Picture the scene in an infant laboratory:

A baby, lying on its back in a crib, is shown a series of faces previously rated by college students. The first face

appears and a clock starts ticking as the baby stars at it. As soon as the baby looks away, the clock stops and

the next face is presented. The result: young infants spend more time looking at attractive faces than

unattractive ones -regardless of whether the faces are young or old, male or female, or black or white.

Other studies showed the same"

Babies without any sexuality are more attractes by good looking fathes rather

than by ordinary looking faces.
So beauty seems to be something that can cause arousal or attraction by itself.



I really do think that pheromones do play an important role but luckily there are (in my opinion) many other

factors beyond them. I think that's one big aspekt what differs human beeings from animals that relationships and

arousal go beyond the evolutionry perspective.

[jvkohl]

Babies without any

sexuality are more attractes by good looking fathes rather than by ordinary looking faces.
So beauty seems to be

something that can cause arousal or attraction by itself.

This type of baby study offers no

explanation for how one face becomes more attractive than another: male/female, black/white, symmetrical or

asymmetrical; big nose/small nose, whatever. What do you think is being measured when an infant spends more time

looking at one face than another? What makes anyone think that its linked to attractive facial features, when the

attraction is based upon adult responses?

Like many psychological studies, there is no mammalian model for

face preference (though some sheep studies present comparable, yet ridiculous, findings). In contrast,

hormone-dependent pheromone production correlates well with attractive facial features. All infants are exposed to,

and respond to pheromones before they can focus on faces, or facial expression. This brings in a developmental

staging effect that is absent in the baby studies of facial attraction. It is also consistent with a mammalian model

(e.g., sheep rely on olfactory cues for mate choice--even homosexual sheep).

Leave out the need for a

mammalian model and leave out developmental staging and you can have lots of findings that suggest something is

going on other than a response to pheromones. But use biological logic, and you'll get back to the primacy of

pheromones.

JVK

[Kardz]

The human

vomeronasal organ presence and function is a dead issue--debated to no end. It is not required to process pheromones

in humans and in several other species. Male children who are anosmic (no sense of smell) from birth were reported

to exhibit emotional apathy, have no interest in dating, etc--or more simply put "they don't fall in love."





Anosmia from birth means the animal will show no sexual interest.



Explained below



What don't

you understand regarding the ability of pheromones to condition the response to a picture? Ever see a picture

advertisement for food that made you want the food? It's the chemical appeal of the food that makes it look good;

it's the chemical appeal of people that makes them look good--whether or not the food or the person is physically

there.



You could forget everything you read or think you know about the VNO; pheromones elicit a hormone

response which explains their effect on behavior. Unconscious affect=the hormone response; the hormone response

effects behavior.

Thanks for your interest; it would help you to read my book.



JVK
(http:///)

Actually JV, I got the same impression

the other guy did. It's not what you said, it's how you said it. And not just in this post.

I think your too

blunt to have too many friends here with the exception of the respect people have for your knowledge and profession.

That and the fact you come off like you take the intellectual highground wich comes off very condescending.

Take

a stab at diplomacy and etiquette. You know so much about pheromones and human behavior, it shouldn't be hard to

pick up on word patterns that amount to social manners that would also obviously affect human behavior.

Send me

a sample of your pheremones, that way when I enter scent range of you or someone like you, I'll know if they're

enemy or not without having to remember them.

Ryan

[jvkohl]

I think your too

blunt to have too many friends here with the exception of the respect people have for your knowledge and profession.

That and the fact you come off like you take the intellectual highground wich comes off very

condescending.

Good points. Let me explain a bit. I've been a Forum participant for several years.

Every so often, someone comes on with the attitude that "it's not just pheromones; can't just be conditioning" or

some other comment in reference to what I've said/written. In nearly every case, they fail to understand what I've

said/written, but without looking further (past posts, reading my book) they tell me how they "think" it is, or that

it's much more complicated than I think it is. Nothing else. No background info, no mammalian model, no biology, no

developmental staging... In any case, it's always more complicated that I make it out to be.





Take a stab at diplomacy and etiquette. You know so much about pheromones and human behavior, it shouldn't be

hard to pick up on word patterns that amount to social manners that would also obviously affect human

behavior.


I used diplomacy and etiquette for many years--until my model was validated and

accepted by most of my colleagues. I wrote an entire book for a general audience that was well-received and got many

good reviews from other authorities. I've debated with other authorities things like the baby study results--and

the other authorities know that babies can identify their mother's scent within a few hours of birth--and that

visual perception is not nearly as acute or specific.

Then, someone who uses no diplomacy or etiquette,

offers the Forum an example of something that they think can't be explained by pheromones. No need to read my book,

or any other writings (mine or by others). Just tell me how it is. Sometimes this irritates me more than usual.

Sometimes I want to limit my involvement in the discussion, and so, sometimes I'm not diplomatic. I don't know how

to be diplomatic with someone who has so little interest in human pheromones that they won't inform themselves a

bit before commenting on what I've said. And so, I'm blunt, or maybe I take the intellectual high ground--as a

means to show them they need to learn more to debate the topic with me. Hasn't stopped anyone, yet.

I might

be better off just ignoring the posts that try to tell me how it is, rather than become indignant. But my

participation in this Forum, means that I can't ignore all the posts, and I can only advocate that others read my

book once in a while--not in response to every post. Clearly, there are many people whose interest in pheromones

does not extend much beyond the Forum postings. Those are not the people that I am addressing my comments to. I try

to interest people in looking beyond what they think they know, and hope they will learn something new. Most don't.

Those that do learn, don't try to tell me how sexual attraction works--they know, I know.

For those who

don't read any books, my domain provides plenty of information--more than enough for anyone to figure out that we

are not primarily visual creatures; we follow the same biologically driven mammalian model as other species

follow--if mammalian sexual behavior is driven by visual input ours would be too. Mammalian sexual behavior is

driven by olfactory input; so is ours.

JVK

[Gegogi]

JVK comments, "To

complicate the biological facts with scenarios that are purely functions of socialization is misleading. Our sexual

behavior, when reduced to its lowest common denominator, is based upon the interaction of olfaction with

hormones--as sexual behavior is in all mammals. I use a mammalian model; you use no model."
First, the

main focus of this forum is hands-on advice for artifical pheromone users. We crave information useful in our daily

endeavors, e.g., making friends, business contacts and getting laid. Therefore, information presented here is viewed

in the light of said application and not for scientific appreciation.

Furthermore, you may note in my above

post I did, in fact, agree with you that "our sexual behavior, when reduced to its lowest common denominator, is

based upon the interaction of olfaction with hormones..." I merely pointed out that human socialization can and oft

does circumvent the biological process, a painful lesson many young men learn while using artifical pheromones. In

other words, a few dabs of NPA doesn't break down social barriers as effectively as it may elicit an neuroendocrine

response. Artifical pheromones may make her want to jump your bones but it won't override the color of your skin,

religion or socioeconomic level. It that light, my statements are not misleading. They are practical reality for the

man in the street.

[jvkohl]

First, the main focus

of this forum is hands-on advice for artifical pheromone users. We crave information useful in our daily endeavors,

e.g., making friends, business contacts and getting laid. Therefore, information presented here is viewed in the

light of said application and not for scientific appreciation.

Good point. I'm not really

considering the purpose of the Forum when I post, or respond to a post. What I tend to consider most important is

dissemination of factual information, as opposed to opinions. The Forum is a good place to exchange opinions. Yet,

when I read an unsubstantiated opinion, my reaction is to challenge it without concern for

context.



Furthermore, you may note in my above post I did, in fact, agree with you that

"our sexual behavior, when reduced to its lowest common denominator, is based upon the interaction of olfaction with

hormones..." I merely pointed out that human socialization can and oft does circumvent the biological process, a

painful lesson many young men learn while using artifical pheromones.

If a young man must learn this

lesson from the use of artificial pheromones, he's pretty far gone from reality. Granted, marketing claims for some

products indicate they're "guarenteed to get you laid," but I don't recall seeing such claims on the Love-Scent

site. So, I don't feel the need to offer up the obvious fact that socialization can/does circumvent the biological

process. Only a fool would think otherwise.



In other words, a few dabs of NPA doesn't

break down social barriers as effectively as it may elicit an neuroendocrine response. Artifical pheromones may make

her want to jump your bones but it won't override the color of your skin, religion or socioeconomic level. It that

light, my statements are not misleading. They are practical reality for the man in the street.

Which

man in the street do you think isn't aware of these facts. More likely is that they deal with them on a day to day

basis, but are unfamiliar with any factual representation of the biological basis for human sexual

behavior.



Why are some women attracted to withered but rich old men?

It's not their pleasing visual appearance or their virile pheromone signature. Well, the abstract concept of lust

for money and power doesn't fit well into a biological model does it? At a lower level, hookers have sex with

anyone willing to pay their fee. Other women are attracted to and marry convicts with lifetime sentences based on

letters and phone calls. They know there is little or no chance of actual physical contact. Groupies follow

rockstars from city to city hoping for a chance union. They haven't been near enough to even catch a hint of their

pheromone signature.

In each of your scenarios above, you ignore the fact that pheromones condition

the visual response. For example: this is why women (most of them) are attracted to men--not just withered but rich

old men (which is more a function of socialization). Lust for money and power do fit into a biological model: the

model of provisioning. Again, however, there must be a more basic model for the attraction that comes before one is

in a position to provision or to be provided for. Physical contact is no longer required once the sexual response

has been conditioned to pheromones, but you don't seem to acknowledge this. Instead you offer comments that ignore

the biological basis for women fixating on prisoners or following rock stars.

If others can freely ignore

biology, why should I not freely ignore socialization? Making a point here--I understand your acknowledgement of the

biological basis. Still, in the scenarios you offer--the biology is gone, as if it were never there in the first

place. And pheromones are part of the biology that is there in the first place. Olfactory communication is first and

foremost in the lives of all mammals. Drawing only from one species in an attempt to downplay the role of biology

seems somehow inappropriate to me. Might be better if more people learn/acknowledge what pheromones can do, and the

role that they play in all socialized scenarios.

JVK

[Kardz]

Good points. Let me

explain a bit. I've been a Forum participant for several years. Every so often, someone comes on with the attitude

that "it's not just pheromones; can't just be conditioning" or some other comment in reference to what I've

said/written. In nearly every case, they fail to understand what I've said/written, but without looking further

(past posts, reading my book) they tell me how they "think" it is, or that it's much more complicated than I think

it is. Nothing else. No background info, no mammalian model, no biology, no developmental staging... In any case,

it's always more complicated that I make it out to be.



I used diplomacy and etiquette for many

years--until my model was validated and accepted by most of my colleagues. I wrote an entire book for a general

audience that was well-received and got many good reviews from other authorities. I've debated with other

authorities things like the baby study results--and the other authorities know that babies can identify their

mother's scent within a few hours of birth--and that visual perception is not nearly as acute or specific.



Then, someone who uses no diplomacy or etiquette, offers the Forum an example of something that they think can't

be explained by pheromones. No need to read my book, or any other writings (mine or by others). Just tell me how it

is. Sometimes this irritates me more than usual. Sometimes I want to limit my involvement in the discussion, and so,

sometimes I'm not diplomatic. I don't know how to be diplomatic with someone who has so little interest in human

pheromones that they won't inform themselves a bit before commenting on what I've said. And so, I'm blunt, or

maybe I take the intellectual high ground--as a means to show them they need to learn more to debate the topic with

me. Hasn't stopped anyone, yet.

I might be better off just ignoring the posts that try to tell me how it is,

rather than become indignant. But my participation in this Forum, means that I can't ignore all the posts, and I

can only advocate that others read my book once in a while--not in response to every post. Clearly, there are many

people whose interest in pheromones does not extend much beyond the Forum postings. Those are not the people that I

am addressing my comments to. I try to interest people in looking beyond what they think they know, and hope they

will learn something new. Most don't. Those that do learn, don't try to tell me how sexual attraction works--they

know, I know.

For those who don't read any books, my domain provides plenty of information--more than enough

for anyone to figure out that we are not primarily visual creatures; we follow the same biologically driven

mammalian model as other species follow--if mammalian sexual behavior is driven by visual input ours would be too.

Mammalian sexual behavior is driven by olfactory input; so is ours.



JVK
(http:///)

You talk and act like you're dealing

with people that are clinical scientists like yourself, or people who have atleast gone to school or studied this

stuff long term.

You don't at all act like or keep in mind people here are your average joe, or a few steps

above that.

And furthermore, you act like they're completely ignorant when they obviously haven't studied

pheremones more than a few weeks or months. They are in comparison to you--myself included, but there's no reason

to ever show that if you choose to post and reply to these types of people.

People here develop their own

perceptions and facts weather they're true or not, just as you have. Although yours are obviously broken down into

a deep level of science, and you've obviously been studying this stuff for years or decades whereas probably noone

here has atleast in anywhere near the time you've got logged.

And with all of this in mind, i'm sure, you

still don't get it.

Loosely, this entire community is your average jane and joe. And you act like this isn't

going to happen. That people aren't going to list their own findings in a less than desirable way and challenge

what you have to say.

Do you think your average joe is going to spend months or years researching,

experimenting, developing models, and concluding like you?

By comparison you argue this stuff to us like a

college grad could be arguing the finer points of trig to a gradeschool student.

It's 100% redundant, and with

all of your intellect i'm not sure why you bother the way you do it.

You of all people are experts on human

behavior, don't you think the way you do it is not at all the best way? Don't you think your obvious tone in your

posts is going to close people's minds to you?

Speaking of closed minds, weather your right or not--you post

and reply and state your infinite knowledge on the topic as the end all, be all.

A good scientist is always open

minded, open to other possibilities. Pheremones are just one of the MANY dynamics of human behavior from any one of

our 5 senses. It's a small piece of the pie in the grand scheme of things.

But weather you know your right or

not, I don't think your going to win much respect doing that. And it's an attitude and a mindset you need to shake

if your going to deal with people that aren't at a comparable level as you in the pheremone world.

That's not

to say we can't benefit from your knowledge, because you've obviously got alot to offer. And i'm sure plenty of

people see that. But I can guarantee alot of people aren't going to be nearly as open minded until you get rid of

the supremacy attitude and come down to our level and our social standards. THAT is how you reach people.

Not

by acting like your all-knowing and arguing the finer points of pheremones with your fellow scientists on a 50foot

yacht off the coast of australia to some rich retard over cocktails.

There's really no point otherwise.



Ryan

[jvkohl]

A good scientist

is always open minded, open to other possibilities. Pheremones are just one of the MANY dynamics of human behavior

from any one of our 5 senses. It's a small piece of the pie in the grand scheme of things.

Thanks

for your opinion. It's settled then, pheromones don't matter much in YOUR grand scheme of things; pheromones are

the basis of my grand scheme of things.

JVK

[pherohero]

Quite the

contrary; there's no other biologically based explanation other than pheromones. Those who think that there are

other routes should begin to detail them; provide a mammalian model for some inclination of another route

(non-olfactory); clue us in to innate sexual dimorphism in the sensory system involved, detail a link from the

sensory input to a neuroendocrine response, and it would help if the model incorporated developmental

staging.


I was considering other things, like how you say pheromones are used to

transmit signals regarding reproductive fitness. What about visual indicators of reproductive fitness itself... dont

they play a role, totally bypassing the use of pheromones?


There are other biologically based

explanations. Fortunately, visual indicators, like the appearance of actual reproductive fitness, play a major role.

Sure, these phenomena may CORRELATE to natural pheromone levels, but they dont necessarily rely on them. For

example, human pheromones cant produce sexual attraction for someone that lacks gender, or for a non-human.

You

accuse me of ignoring all your evidence (at least I read all of your posts, entirely), yet you completely

disregarded the second half of my last post.

[jvkohl]

There are other

biologically based explanations.

Name one, or provide a few details about how non-olfactory sensory

input from the social environment influences hormones and behavior. I'd even accept an explanation of how birds

become visually attracted to features in other birds--like the peacock's tail. Where's the connection to hormones,

and to behavior.


Fortunately, visual indicators, like the appearance of actual reproductive

fitness, play a major role. Sure, these phenomena may CORRELATE to natural pheromone levels, but they dont

necessarily rely on them.

Visual indicators of reproductive fitness not only correlate with pheromone

production and distribution, but must rely on pheromone production and distribution to become visual indicators. If

you think that visual indicators don't rely on pheromone production and distribution, then it is time to tell me

how these visual indicators develop to become visual indicators. There is no biological explanation--either

researchers say "it's just so" or they offer no explanation. The peacocks tail is attractive to peahens--a "just

so" story. Have you ever read anything that offers the foggiest details on how this happens. A visual

template--perhaps. Then where is the link to a hormone response from this visual template?




For example, human pheromones cant produce sexual attraction for someone that lacks gender, or for a

non-human.

So, what sensory input does produce sexual attraction in someone who lacks gender? Human

pheromones do elicit cross species reactions (reactions in non-humans). What makes you think that a male dog is

humping a woman's leg because he finds her visually appealing? Clearly it's her pheromones. I've written

extensively on these cross-species attractions. Why do you think you can just say they don't exist?




You accuse me of ignoring all your evidence (at least I read all of your posts, entirely), yet

you completely disregarded the second half of my last post.

If you continue to insist that it's not

pheromones, I will continue to ignore most of your posts. It's time to give me more information on what you think

is happening and how it is happening.

JVK

[Gegogi]

What makes you think that

a male dog is humping a woman's leg because he finds her visually appealing? Clearly it's her

pheromones.
Maybe the dog knows something's up and the BF should quickly follow suit and make babies!

I've been around bitches in heat many times and, fortunately, didn't get horny. However, when I was a kid a dog

ambled up to me and peed on my leg. I'm not sure if I had the appearance of a tree or fire hydrant, or I lacked

pheromones to signal I was in fact a mammal and not a territorial marker.

[Rbt]

I have a quick question concerning

that baby and face study, and I'm hoping those of you who have cited it can answer this so I don't have to take my

own limited time to dig out the answer.

In all the pictures that were shown to the babies, did those pictures

include the baby's parents? Could there be a possibility of a link between the parent's pheromone signatures and

the baby's "image" preferences? I'm thinking baby might link the positive "feelings" (food, protection, comfort)

with the parents, both in terms of odors and visual perception. What would if mean, if anything, if said baby

reacted well or poorly to it's mother's photo?

PS And us Mensa folks can be "stupid" too...

[mavo]

Hi Rbt,

they showed them

pictures across many different cultures especially North Americans and Europeans. No pictures of there parents.



American college students were shown the same pictures.

Exactly the pictures which were rated to be very

attractive by the students got much more attention by the babies (they spendet much more time starring at them).



The interesting think is (as this study took place in the U.S.- and most of this babies didn't have any contact

to Europeans so far in their short lives) that the babies even starred longer to good looking Europeans (even though

they were never exposed to Europeans and their pheromones)

Many scientists share the oppinion that perceptions

of facial beauty are largely consistent across cultures. Those regarded as good-looking in one culture also tend to

be judged as attractive by people from other cultures -even without any contact to this other culture and their

special pheromon signature.

[mavo]

Yesterday I meet an very attractive

woman. I was very intersted in getting to know more about her so I started talking to her. After we talked about 10

minutes I started to notice that she's pretty stupid and after the consversation with her has finished, I was

turned off.

I suppose that most of you guys made comparable experiences so far.

Judging other people

(especially women) to be attractive or not depend on many factors like their humor, their look, the way they use to

smile, their intelligence, their eyes, etc.

I'm really convinced that the real life is much too complex to be

captured in a model.
Models can help us to understand the world as they simplify complex circumstances and

therefore they are only one perspective of the world.

[Gegogi]

I think models are useful because they allow us to isolate a physical trait or behavior and view it

unfettered by outside systems. Once you understand the isolated trait or behavior you're ready to stand back and

view it in the context of the whole. We do this in music and I imagine science does it for similar reasons. However

it is human nature to sometimes "miss the forest for the trees." Lots of young men talk about women as numbers based

on appearance: "she's only a 6," 9s are conceited," etc. Women are more than bodies and to score high in my book

she must be smart, witty, educated, liberal, culturally refined, kinky, horny and attractive. Of course I'm willing

to compromise and exchange a little appearance for personality as the total package is what counts, not individual

traits.

[Holmes]

Lots of young men

talk about women as numbers based on appearance: "she's only a 6," 9s are conceited," etc. Women are more than

bodies and to score high in my book she must be smart, witty, educated, liberal, culturally refined, kinky, horny

and attractive. Of course I'm willing to compromise and exchange a little appearance for personality as the total

package is what counts, not individual traits.

Thank you!

[ohmmmm]

From what I've read and

experienced, the selection of males by human females duriing the teens and twenties are based mainly on the

availability of men. If a relatively ugly guy and a good looking female were stranded on a desert island then they

would likely have sex. When there are a few guys and one woman, then she can get a bit more selective and the

attraction changes and other things may factor in. There is probably a hiarchy of needs... Such as will the guy

have a good dna match (pheromones?), does the guy have good inherent health, will the guy be a good father, will the

guy be a good provider. In a society where these issues are less important, then possibly the woman starts to be

attracted to other things too.

I don't know, but just thinking out loud....

[jvkohl]

... When there are a

few guys and one woman, then she can get a bit more selective and the attraction changes and other things may factor

in.

As Gegogi indicated, this is why a model can be helpful. Mavo, on the other hand, seems to think

that real life is too complex--apparently by his example, because her intelligence level is part of what determines

her overall level of attractiveness.

Using a mammalian model, you can limit attraction to its basic biology

(e.g., pheromones and the way they influence hormone levels, and behavioral development). At the same time, you

limit "attraction" to its basic biology, because non-human mammals don't seem to demonstrate that adult

intelligence (or any other human concern) is a prerequisite for reproductive sexual behavior. That takes us back to

the basic biology of mate choice: is the male sending a more dominant scent signature than another male; is the

female sending a more fertile scent signature than another female--once again using the mammalian model.

The

explanatory power of a mammalian model allows for things such as the development of therapeutic drugs--including

those psychotropics that are used to affect behavior. The psychotropic drugs with sexual side effects, act on the

same brain pathways that are activated by mammalian pheromones, including human pheromones. These psychotropics do

not influence every person who uses them in exactly the same way; neither do pheromones, but the effects of the

psychotropics and affect of the pheromones is predictable.

From time to time, someone will ask me how

pheromones explain what appears to be a human behavior that is not influenced by pheromones. If the human behavior

truly cannot be influenced by pheromones, it is probably not a mammalian reproductive sexual behavior. If the human

behavior is influenced by human pheromones, but is somewhat atypical, it might not be fully explained by the

influence of pheromones--just as atypical human behavior may not be completely changed by psychotropic

drugs.

Mavo offers an example of an atypical mammalian sexual behavior: not finding a female attractive

because she's not intelligent. However, the same example suggests that human female intelligence is important to a

human female's ability to attract him (a human male). Note, that his sexual interest/behavior is not dependent on

her intelligence--only his overall level of attraction to her is influenced by her intelligence.

Some Forum

members would use Mavo's example to show me that it's not just pheromones that determine attraction (as if I

don't know that other things, like intelligence are important to human attraction). Some Forum members have learned

enough to know that the mammalian model I continue to use to explain the development of human sexual behavior has

more explanatory power with regard to physical attraction than any other model. (And that no other mammalian

biologically based model for the development of human sexual behavior has ever been proposed.)

I participate

in this Forum because I think it is important for people to learn more about the explanatory power of pheromones,

and their role in physical attraction. I do not participate to debate the finer points of human physical attraction

and all its complexity with those who continue to fail in their understanding of basic human nature.

We are

mammals, our basic human nature is mammalian biologically based nature. The basis for human sexuality is mammalian

reproductive sexual behavior, which is determined by the action of pheromones on hormones. Clearly, this means that

the biological basis for human physical (e.g., sexual) attraction is the way that pheromones influence hormone

levels.


JVK

[ohmmmm]

That is a great post jvk, thank

you. I have to say that as I get older and my hormone production declines a bit, I can see how important hormones

are to sexual attraction, interest, behaviour and what I think about....LOL. Its so interesting to view pheromones

as the main precursor to hormone stimulation and sexual attraction. I'm sure there must be some learned

behavious/reactions that effect hormonal changes as we gather new experiences. Peoples reactions could then

intercede at the pheromone, hormonal or behavioural level. Although these reactions/learnings probably mostly occur

at a subconcious level to some degree as we conciously search for a rational/explaination....I guess. We then

unconciously and conciously may set up patterns of preferences and reactions we use to conduct our lives and define

ourselves. I dunno...:run:

Thanks again!

[Gegogi]

I have to say that as I

get older and my hormone production declines a bit, I can see how important hormones are to sexual attraction,

interest, behaviour and what I think about....LOL.
Okay, I'm 51 and am enjoying the most female

attention ever in my life. Women hit on me nearly everyday. Most of these women are much younger than me. I don't

doubt both my hormone and pheromone production have declined since my 20s. Sure I workout everyday and am in top

shape compared to most of my collegues (& many students!), but I think other aspects of attraction have increased in

my favor, e.g., social status and skills, confidence, etc. Now I don't doubt the role of pheromones (I'm all

dabbed up in SOE & TE as I write this) as a underlying force, but I believe everyone has the power to increase their

attractiveness to the opposite sex through conscious self-improvement. And thank you Jesus for pheromone replacement

therapy!

[jvkohl]

... I believe

everyone has the power to increase their attractiveness to the opposite sex through conscious

self-improvement.

What is it that you think you are doing with conscious self-improvement to increase

your attractiveness, that does not also influence your pheromone production? Maintaining physical fitness means

you're keeping your level of testosterone higher than it is in colleagues/students. Social status means you're not

likely to have your testosterone suppressed in the presence of otherwise dominant males (cortisol suppression of

testosterone), so your pheromone production maintains it masculine appeal. Social skills and confidence won't

develop if you're fearful of your surroundings, and the fear also suppresses testosterone /masculine pheromone

production. Did I miss anything?

Those of you who continue to think that such factors as mentioned by Gegogi

have nothing to do with pheromones might want to consider reading a little bit about non-verbal communication and

aspects of physical attraction. Karl Grammer, who co-authored with me on an award-winning review in 2001,

contributes regularly (along with colleagues and students) to a site that discusses various aspects of physical

attraction. If you find any information that indicates physical attraction is not based on hormones (in either men

or women), let me know, because if physical attraction is based on hormones, than the social environmental

connection to the signal (non-verbal communication) that's being sent is pheromones.

Here's the

URL:

http://evolution.anthro.univie.ac.at/institutes/urbanethology/projects/index.html

JVK

r

[jvkohl]

Its so interesting

to view pheromones as the main precursor to hormone stimulation and sexual attraction. I'm sure there must be some

learned behavious/reactions that effect hormonal changes as we gather new experiences. Peoples reactions could then

intercede at the pheromone, hormonal or behavioural level. Although these reactions/learnings probably mostly occur

at a subconcious level to some degree as we conciously search for a rational/explaination....I guess. We then

unconciously and conciously may set up patterns of preferences and reactions we use to conduct our lives and define

ourselves.

Wish I could have put this as clearly as you did in my response to Gegogi, about fitness,

social status, fear etc--all of which influence pheromone production that influences the behavior of others.

Pheromonal conditioning occurs at a subconscious level; our patterns of preferences and reactions depend on this

conditioning, which begins at birth based on innate sex differences in the olfactory system.



JVK

[Gegogi]

Those of you who continue

to think that such factors as mentioned by Gegogi have nothing to do with pheromones ...
I didn't state

or imply that things we do to improve ourselves have nothing to do with pheromones. In fact I count on it and enjoy

enhancing my natural signature with additional pheromones. I merely stated we can choose to be more attractive by

doing those things. Our level of attractiveness isn't set in stone. Yes, I'm very aware exercise increases

testosterone levels (so does the close proximity of an attractive woman). Sheesh, I can feel it in my body and my

attitude. Probably because I spend most of my time on stage and in lecture halls I've gotten extremely conscious of

how my actions, words and appearance influence those around me.

[jvkohl]

I didn't state or

imply that things we do to improve ourselves have nothing to do with pheromones. In fact I count on it and enjoy

enhancing my natural signature with additional pheromones.

Thanks for clarifying this; I wasn't sure

that you knew, and your comments provided excellent examples regarding the link to pheromone

production.



I believe everyone has the power to increase their attractiveness to the

opposite sex through conscious self-improvement.

The self-improvement that is most effective in

increasing attractiveness to the opposite sex, typically relies on either improving testosterone-related pheromone

production, or the appearance that you have increased testosterone-related pheromone

production.

JVK

[ohmmmm]

The self-improvement that

is most effective in increasing attractiveness to the opposite sex, typically relies on either improving

testosterone-related pheromone production, or the appearance that you have increased testosterone-related pheromone

production.


Thanks... a statement most helpful. :thumbsup:

Thank god I don't need english

writing skills...:LOL: to be effective...

[jvkohl]

Thanks... a statement

most helpful. :thumbsup:


You're welcome, but I should have qualified the statement with regard

to men only. With women, estrogen is the key. Lipstick for fuller lips, make-up to make the cheeks more rosey,

breast implants to indicate more estrogen receptors in the breast tissue--all correlates with female

hormone/pheromone production (and largely the opposite of what men want to signal: testosterone-determined

masculinity).

But, as most men know, women are more complicated. That's why SoE for men hit the market, a

few years before SoE for women (with its estrogenic copulin appeal).

JVK

[Kardz]

Thanks for your

opinion. It's settled then, pheromones don't matter much in YOUR grand scheme of things; pheromones are the basis

of my grand scheme of things.

JVK
(http://)

Did I

say they weren't important or didn't matter much? Obviously not.

I just said there were 1 of MANY things going

on.

What I DIDN'T SAY but indicated: that you were shortsighted, in more ways than one since that part of it

wasn't completely obvious. And that it might benefit you if you kept an open mind toward the big picture.