Audio from JVK interview

[jvkohl]

Recently, I was interviewed by an Australian radio station. A three minute audio (.mp3) from this interview (does my voice really sound like that?) is available at the following URL:

http://sbs.com.au/elg/f21675150.mp3 (\"http://sbs.com.au/elg/f21675150.mp3\")

[MaxiMog]

Cool!

Don\'t worry. I\'m feel kinda embarrased when I hear my own voice on tape, too.

Don\'t have time to listen to it now, but will do so tomorrow.

[jvkohl]

bump... just trying to make sure you all know about this

[Watcher]

How you actually got onto sbs interests me but ive listened to it, very interesting interview, i think i will order youre book sometime in the next 2 weeks to see what you have to say on the whole pheromone field. It will prove a very interesting educational tool. Thanks again Jkohl

[jvkohl]

Lisa Kennewell arranged the phone interview via email. I usually do about 1 interview every two weeks for mags or whatever. There\'s an article I was interview for several months ago in Marie Claire magazine\'s December issue. Most times I never hear when or where the info will pop up.

[DrSmellThis]

Perhaps Bruce would like to post a link on the SOE page.

[Watcher]

Yeah links to james kohl interviews, audio downloads video downloads (for those with cable modem) and written transscipts of articles. It would have the effect of enhanceing the sciencetific views. Good idea dr smell this.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hey, JVK, I just got a chance to listen to this clip. The sound effects were funny but I think they helped keep the listener\'s attention.

One thing I\'ve noticed is that when we talk about pheromones, we link pheromone detection to smell -- but at the same time, we say that pheromones are not detectable and therefore not dependent on smell. This could be confusing to a listener and make him think the information presented contradicts itself.

Similarly with the discussion we had in the other thread about the effects of oral contraceptives on women\'s ability to detect pheromones -- there was argument that ovulation played a major part BECAUSE women\'s sense of smell is enhanced during ovulation. But we see that sense of smell is not the crucual thing.

So I wonder if it would be useful not to use \"to smell\" in the place of \"to detect\" (or \"to sense,\" or some other verb of choice) because it seems to tend to confuse the issue.

P.S. I think your voice sounds nice. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[jvkohl]

You should hear the debate when the olfactory scientists get together. Chemical communication via odors; or subliminal scents; unconscious perception, vomeropherins, pheromones, vassanas (new one from Martha McClintock), smell/smells; olfaction, olfactory system; olfactory systems--it\'s a wonder we can communicate at all about the topic. That\'s also why media representations will continue to be confusing--just depends on what terminology they want to use. Most people understand smell; fewer understand chemical communication and unconscious perception. Is it any wonder things get dumbed down for the masses? We are fortunate that it does happen, or few people on this Forum could even begin to figure out what different folks are talking about--even before we begin talking about effects.

[DrSmellThis]

There are some real theoretical differences among those constructs, so I guess they\'re sort of necessary for now.