DrSmellThis
01-09-2007, 11:49 PM
Hey everybody, long time no see. I've missed everybody.
I've been busy with my psychology practice, family,
and musical projects lately; and haven't had much time for pheromones. Like most of you, I have interests besides
pheromones and perfumery.
But I decided to stop by to order some products from Bruce, and noticed a suprising
number of critical references to my past discourse about pheromones and perfumery on the forum, from one particular
member. It was suprising because I haven't been here in a long time.
I have no interest in engaging in a
debate, or saying a bunch of stuff about someone else; but I just wanted to make my positions clear, since someone
has been attributing certain things to me in my "absence". I'm not going to include the original criticisms,
because I want to devote as little space and energy to this as possible.
1. My anonymity: I prefer to
remain anonymous because my professional clinical practice with families takes precedence over my life in
pheromones; over being "a guy who helps you get laid", or something. I don't want to mix up public identities. It
always seemed the most responsible path.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with some attempt to market pheromones
or hide who I really am, as was intimated. There are people here who know me and my professional qualifications
(PhD, psychology), such as Bruce and some of the moderators. For that matter, one of the people who I once told my
real name, employment, and place of education to was the same person remarking negatively on my anonymity. The whole
issue of my anonymity seems silly and trivial.
2. My product and claims: I never made scientific claims
about my product, Pheros, which was a personal labor of love that was started long before I decided to market
it, as Bruce could attest. Every statement I ever made is on record here. I wanted to make a contribution to the
phero community as well as sell something. I wrote a lot about perfuming here, and people had been asking me to make
something for Love Scent.
My product came out of the perfumery and aromatherapy traditions by design, and was
designed to fill a niche that no one else came close to targeting. It was always designed to supplement, not
supplant, "chem lab approaches".
You have to rely on traditions and histories, not scientific research, in
those worlds. There are bits and pieces of science you can incorporate, but I was never aiming at "hard science" --
just to be true to the traditions and see what they could offer. I still believe there is a unique role for both
traditional perfumery and aromatherapy in attraction. Why can't all disciplines cooperate toward the same goal? I
wasn't coming at that project from a strictly scientific place, and always made that clear. A brief search on my
product under my forum name would confirm all this, of course; not that anyone should care enough to look it all
up.
3. My scientific debates on pheromones: On the other hand, I do claim to pass muster as someone very
conversant -- professionally conversant -- in science, psychology, human relationships, statistics and research
design/methodogy, because that is my professional training. No big deal. My advisor and some of my committee were
prominent experts in research design and methods, and I was forced to get good in that area to get them to let me
out of grad school. (The person claiming that I somehow "tossed aside the science" has an associate's or
bachelor's degree in lab tech, IIRC, so I don't take their word as the last on how scientific I am.)
When I
discussed pheromone science, I stuck with the rules and discipline of science, though trying to avoid the overly
narrow approach that so often screws up science's contribution to the rest of life. I considered the science before
I wrote anything; and I stand by the scientific integrity of everything I've ever said in this forum (which is
different from saying I was always right). This is no big deal either, as you would expect a PhD in science to be
scientific. Again, it's all on record here.
What I did was disagree with someone else's interpretation or
critical review of the science and research we were considering. We both read it, and I saw it different than they
did. In particular, I disagreed strongly with drawing certain overarching conclusions about human nature,
psychology, and relationships from the body of pheromone research.
I was qualified to do that, given that I was
professionally trained to design, produce, and critically evaluate human science research. That is just normal
scientific debate, even at its most "scientific". It was precisely my experience in human science, along with
several years of previous interest in pheromones, that led me to those disagreements.
I regret that those
debates sometimes became emotional in a negative way. That happens when you have fallible humans with egos; for
example, myself.
4. Finally, Archetypal Hybrid and I are indeed different persons -- lucky for him! Congrats
to him on his new products, BTW!
I hope everyone had a great holiday and New Year's celebration!
I've been busy with my psychology practice, family,
and musical projects lately; and haven't had much time for pheromones. Like most of you, I have interests besides
pheromones and perfumery.
But I decided to stop by to order some products from Bruce, and noticed a suprising
number of critical references to my past discourse about pheromones and perfumery on the forum, from one particular
member. It was suprising because I haven't been here in a long time.
I have no interest in engaging in a
debate, or saying a bunch of stuff about someone else; but I just wanted to make my positions clear, since someone
has been attributing certain things to me in my "absence". I'm not going to include the original criticisms,
because I want to devote as little space and energy to this as possible.
1. My anonymity: I prefer to
remain anonymous because my professional clinical practice with families takes precedence over my life in
pheromones; over being "a guy who helps you get laid", or something. I don't want to mix up public identities. It
always seemed the most responsible path.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with some attempt to market pheromones
or hide who I really am, as was intimated. There are people here who know me and my professional qualifications
(PhD, psychology), such as Bruce and some of the moderators. For that matter, one of the people who I once told my
real name, employment, and place of education to was the same person remarking negatively on my anonymity. The whole
issue of my anonymity seems silly and trivial.
2. My product and claims: I never made scientific claims
about my product, Pheros, which was a personal labor of love that was started long before I decided to market
it, as Bruce could attest. Every statement I ever made is on record here. I wanted to make a contribution to the
phero community as well as sell something. I wrote a lot about perfuming here, and people had been asking me to make
something for Love Scent.
My product came out of the perfumery and aromatherapy traditions by design, and was
designed to fill a niche that no one else came close to targeting. It was always designed to supplement, not
supplant, "chem lab approaches".
You have to rely on traditions and histories, not scientific research, in
those worlds. There are bits and pieces of science you can incorporate, but I was never aiming at "hard science" --
just to be true to the traditions and see what they could offer. I still believe there is a unique role for both
traditional perfumery and aromatherapy in attraction. Why can't all disciplines cooperate toward the same goal? I
wasn't coming at that project from a strictly scientific place, and always made that clear. A brief search on my
product under my forum name would confirm all this, of course; not that anyone should care enough to look it all
up.
3. My scientific debates on pheromones: On the other hand, I do claim to pass muster as someone very
conversant -- professionally conversant -- in science, psychology, human relationships, statistics and research
design/methodogy, because that is my professional training. No big deal. My advisor and some of my committee were
prominent experts in research design and methods, and I was forced to get good in that area to get them to let me
out of grad school. (The person claiming that I somehow "tossed aside the science" has an associate's or
bachelor's degree in lab tech, IIRC, so I don't take their word as the last on how scientific I am.)
When I
discussed pheromone science, I stuck with the rules and discipline of science, though trying to avoid the overly
narrow approach that so often screws up science's contribution to the rest of life. I considered the science before
I wrote anything; and I stand by the scientific integrity of everything I've ever said in this forum (which is
different from saying I was always right). This is no big deal either, as you would expect a PhD in science to be
scientific. Again, it's all on record here.
What I did was disagree with someone else's interpretation or
critical review of the science and research we were considering. We both read it, and I saw it different than they
did. In particular, I disagreed strongly with drawing certain overarching conclusions about human nature,
psychology, and relationships from the body of pheromone research.
I was qualified to do that, given that I was
professionally trained to design, produce, and critically evaluate human science research. That is just normal
scientific debate, even at its most "scientific". It was precisely my experience in human science, along with
several years of previous interest in pheromones, that led me to those disagreements.
I regret that those
debates sometimes became emotional in a negative way. That happens when you have fallible humans with egos; for
example, myself.
4. Finally, Archetypal Hybrid and I are indeed different persons -- lucky for him! Congrats
to him on his new products, BTW!
I hope everyone had a great holiday and New Year's celebration!