-Rone and It's Hormonal Effects [Archive] - Love-Scent Pheromones Forum

Holmes

07-25-2003, 08:54 AM

Quick question for any and all: I was reading JVK\'s website yesterday and it was mentioned that -rone had been linked to \"rapidly changing adrenal hormone response.\" Does this ultimately mean adrenal stimulation (i.e. \"fight-or-flight\" response) or could it mean a calming effect...or what? Anyone who knows more about this, please advise...I\'d really appreciate your input!

Thanks.

Holmes

Holmes

07-25-2003, 09:15 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Quick question for any and all: I was reading JVK\'s website yesterday and it was mentioned that -rone had been linked to \"rapidly changing adrenal hormone response.\" Does this ultimately mean adrenal stimulation (i.e. \"fight-or-flight\" response) or could it mean a calming effect...or what? Anyone who knows more about this, please advise...I\'d really appreciate your input!

<hr /></blockquote>

Perhaps that was a bit unclear. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Question is: does -rone trigger adrenal response?

Holmes

druid

07-25-2003, 03:13 PM

I THINK that JVK wants it to produce a surge in test, which would increase sex drive (ie make the person more attrative). Though I am not sure on this, just guessing because I don\'t see what adrenline would have to do with attraction.

Holmes

07-26-2003, 06:34 AM

Druid,

Thanks bro. Was curious about this because I have noticed that SOE tends to make me feel \"drained\" after awhile--and also because a few ppl. here had reported that they got a \"rush\" from AE in the beginning...

So reading JVK\'s findings made me wonder if there was in fact a connection. I\'m still not clear, however, as to whether he meant that -rone induces adrenal response (as you said, though, why would it?), or if it was found to be produced during changing hormone levels...

Holmes

jvkohl

07-27-2003, 06:23 PM

Discussed this more in my book. Androsterone/etiocholanolone ratios vary in men and women (and in homosexual men are mid-way between values for men/women). These chemicals are primary metabolites of dehydroepiandrosterone, which is a \"buffer\" hormone (from the adrenals). It converts to sex steroid hormones. Too much info, I suspect. Bottom line is that more androsterone in the scent signature is most likely to be a signal of male dominance (alpha male signature). The extra androsterone should thereby have a positive effect on women, and a somewhat territorial (spacing effect) on men--or at least get you more respect from them. This is because the stress hormone, cortisol, suppresses dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) production. The alpha male is less likely to have high cortisol levels and more likely to have higher DHEA levels that convert in a more \"masculine\" pathway to higher ratios of androsterone/etiocholanolone.

Well, if it was simple, I guess someone else would have researched the connection.

manchorito

07-27-2003, 06:54 PM

So rone can act like none by making you more alpha? I thought rone was more like nol than none. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Holmes

07-27-2003, 07:51 PM

Mr. Kohl, thanks much for your reply! Processing the info as we speak...the gears are still spinning faster than the tires on Arnold\'s Hummer (man, is something burning in here? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif)

So what I\'m gathering is 1) that it\'s actually adrenal activity which affects mone production (cortisol levels affecting DHEA production, which ultimately governs the production/levels of -rone and 2) that -rone is responsible for establishing a positive rapport with women and a territorial alpha-effect with men (who will \"respect your space.\") Cool beans. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Is this correct or.../ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif...am I way off? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

\"I\'m sorry man. Look, I\'m just talkin\' out of my ass.\" --Lawrence, \"Office Space\" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Holmes

jvkohl

07-29-2003, 03:56 PM

I\'m fairly certain that -rone is more like -nol with regard to a more pleasing natural (musky), but that it conveys masculinity more like -none. For my purposes, it has the benefits but not the drawbacks of -none.

jvkohl

07-29-2003, 04:03 PM

Good summary. What most folks don\'t get is the adrenal connection. It\'s a quick response--adrenal androgen production or suppression happens much faster than what you get from the gonads. If you wait for increased androgen from the testicles to prompt you to action, she\'ll most likely be long gone. Same with her response to you; if she doesn\'t pick up some \"air\" of dominance, why would she be interested? This also goes along with increased DHEA production heralding the onset of adrenarche, which is when boys and girls start to produce their distinctively sexual differences in natural body odor (not at puberty, as some people might think). I recall that Martha McClintock, of great pheromonal fame, wrote at least one journal article in this regard.

Holmes

07-29-2003, 05:50 PM

Okay, that definitely makes sense. Thank you sir! Looking up Martha McClintock\'s findings now. BTW, why I originally asked these questions was that I\'ve been using mones for a while (with about a 7-8 month interruption), and they\'d always shown evidence of working outwardly, but still at question (for me, anyway) was how they were affecting me (the user) not just in terms of discernable mood changes, but, further, how they might be influencing the actual functions of the sympathetic, parasympathetic, and autonomic branches of the nervous system...

Again, many thanks for your help...

Holmes

Watcher

07-31-2003, 02:58 AM

Good explanation JKohl.

That is why i mainly use SOE at work or straight ARone. As it moves the annoying males out of the way who are slackers, high performance males hang around, thus allowing me access to hard working types. Better quality women hang around and lesser types who are just lazy tend to evac due to the high activity levels and it just doesnt gel with their lazy attitude and also the dominant male tends to make them nervous.

My view is beta females are more liking to be dominant so they run away from dominant males and hang around weaker quality males.

Holmes

07-31-2003, 06:30 AM

Very interesting, Watcher.

Straight -rone? From the chemistry set?

Holmes

Watcher

08-01-2003, 02:33 AM

Yep straight Arone, you get the sexual responses without the giggling. Add 80% Arone 10% Anone and 10% WAGG for an interesting mix.

akinu

08-01-2003, 04:21 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
I\'m fairly certain that -rone is more like -nol with regard to a more pleasing natural (musky), but that it
conveys masculinity more like -none. For my purposes, it has the benefits but not the drawbacks of
-none.

<hr /></blockquote>

Ah yes! Someone who understands me finally! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

And I can kick some real ass with Watcher\'s mix! Thanks!

Skyy

08-01-2003, 08:40 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
I\'m fairly certain that -rone is more like -nol with regard to a more pleasing natural (musky), but that it
conveys masculinity more like -none. For my purposes, it has the benefits but not the drawbacks of
-none.

<hr /></blockquote>

Ah yes! Someone who understands me finally! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

And I can kick some real ass with Watcher\'s mix! Thanks!

<hr /></blockquote>

Have you tried DD Lite? Thats an extreme -Nol bombardment with a hint of -none of im not mistaken... npa:soe 1:19 isnt it?

akinu

08-01-2003, 09:38 AM

Yes, I\'m trying to get some material for a home lab, to do some advanced mixes.

drizen

08-20-2003, 03:48 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Yep straight Arone, you get the sexual responses without the giggling.

<hr /></blockquote>
VERY interesting!

How much straight Arone do you use at work, and for pickups?

So far, I can\'t seem to find out what\'s a rone overdose, and what\'s just right for certain contexts, like you can with -none (.02-.04mg max). Have any ideas on this?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Add 80% Arone 10% Anone and 10% WAGG for an interesting mix.

<hr /></blockquote>

I don\'t have WAGG yet. What sort of effect do you get with that mix, and again, how much do you use?

Thanks

darkness

08-20-2003, 05:32 AM

how does straight arone compare to straight anone?

Has anyoe not had rsults with straight arone? It doesn\'t seem like many people where it straight, and outside of chem sets, no product has it straight, so this is surprisin g to me that it can give you reactions (DIHLS ??).

Sexyredhead

08-20-2003, 06:20 AM

Female perspective here.

I LOVE -rone. SOE gets me hot faster than any of the products I\'ve tried. -None does nothing for me, and -nol just makes me really friendly. SOE, with -nol and -rone, makes me horny AND very friendly.

So I guess you could call that a result using straight -rone. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

darkness

08-20-2003, 10:36 AM

i am surprised because it is still 80 percent nol (SOE).

Also, soe has never gotten me hits. Most women seem to jsut respond to none.

Sexyredhead

08-20-2003, 11:16 AM

I wear -nol by itself a lot, and it really just makes me friendly. A little drop of SOE, and I\'m good to go. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

The -none that I\'ve had experience with (in AEw and in TEw) stinks and either does nada, or irritates me.

Holmes

08-20-2003, 11:18 AM

SRH,

Have you used the lavender -nol? Would it be recommended for guys?

Holmes

Sexyredhead

08-20-2003, 11:21 AM

Yes, I L-O-V-E lavender -nol, and no, I probably wouldn\'t recommend it for a man unless you can get it to blend with your cologne. Too girly, IMO. It\'s not your usual \'lavender EO\' type of scent--more flowery.

You might try the citrus-it\'s a bit of a lemongrass/orange, almost a \'lemondrop\' kind of smell.

darkness

08-20-2003, 11:24 AM

nol makes me happier too, and none gets me more pissed as well.

nevertheless, none breaks the ice, nol doesn\'t, when it comes to being able to have someone notice you.

**DONOTDELETE**

08-20-2003, 11:41 AM

Sexyredhead, whats up sexy? I notice that the products with none that you didn\'t like were all womens products do you think that might have something to do with why you don\'t like them because theyre meant to target males?

On another note, i have been wearing SOE with a couple of davs on NPA to my classes and i have noticed that the girl i set next to coincidentally a redhead has really been digging me. She laughs at everything i do and talks to me like shes known me forever! She goes out of her way to make conversation with me during class. I set really close to her to make sure she gets a good whiff of the mones. Is there something about Redheads and SOE? I had on alot of the SOE with like 4 dabs of NPA. Its cool because i can tell that all the guys sitting arond look at me like they respect me and envy me because shes a hot redhead. Im so glad to be back in college there so many hot women i feel like a kid in candy land! lol

darkness

08-20-2003, 11:51 AM

hey, four dabs of npa is why she is turned on, soe just makes here more giggly.

take away npa, she just isn\'t intimidated by you. take away soe, she is converesely turned on by you.

4 dabs is a lot, but still probably not quite od, though getting there.

Elana

08-20-2003, 11:53 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
hey, four dabs of npa is why she is turned on, soe just makes here more giggly.

<hr /></blockquote> gotta love that NPA /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

darkness

08-20-2003, 11:54 AM

in secret ingredients we trust!

Elana

08-20-2003, 11:55 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
in secret ingredients we trust!

<hr /></blockquote>
Amen

xvs

08-21-2003, 01:03 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Female perspective here.

I LOVE -rone.

<hr /></blockquote>

I\'ve had female friends smell chemset -rone and they all seem to like the smell.

On the other hand, when I try wearing it myself, either alone or in combos, I always seem to get worse results than when I\'m not wearing it.

Go figure!

Sexyredhead

08-21-2003, 03:57 AM

XVS, maybe you\'re already producing a fair amount of -rone in your personal signature, so you don\'t need any more? Just a thought. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sexyredhead

08-21-2003, 04:07 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Sexyredhead, whats up sexy? I notice that the products with none that you didn\'t like were all womens products do you think that might have something to do with why you don\'t like them because theyre meant to target males?

On another note, i have been wearing SOE with a couple of davs on NPA to my classes and i have noticed that the girl i set next to coincidentally a redhead has really been digging me. She laughs at everything i do and talks to me like shes known me forever! She goes out of her way to make conversation with me during class. I set really close to her to make sure she gets a good whiff of the mones. Is there something about Redheads and SOE? I had on alot of the SOE with like 4 dabs of NPA. Its cool because i can tell that all the guys sitting arond look at me like they respect me and envy me because shes a hot redhead. Im so glad to be back in college there so many hot women i feel like a kid in candy land! lol

<hr /></blockquote>

Hey, Nate honey. Glad you\'re enjoying school. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I\'ve been \'preciating all the new eye candy myself. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

It\'s possible that I\'m not liking the -none because it\'s in women\'s products. On the other hand, those are the two products I like least of those I have, and they\'re also the only two with -none. Now things may change if you bring a guy around wearing -none, but to date, it just doesn\'t do anything good for me.

Of course she likes you! Redheads have excellent taste--just ask DVK. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I dunno if it\'s a redhead/SOE thing. IIRC, FTR wasn\'t that crazy about it.

manchorito

08-21-2003, 12:39 PM

What product has the highest concentration of rone besides the Chemistry sets? I looked at the table and it seems to be the most neglected mone? How is that? There should be a product focused on rone. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Holmes

08-21-2003, 01:16 PM

AE maybe? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif Just a guess...

Holmes

Mtnjim

08-21-2003, 01:24 PM

P-10 from Stone??

oscar

08-21-2003, 03:25 PM

manchorito,

Aside from the Chem-Set Reagent Grade A-Rone which has 1mg/mL of A-Rone, the products with the most Androsterone (in descending order) are:

AE/w where A-Rone amounts to 33.33% of the total phero content at .15mg/mL

AE/m where A-Rone amounts to 22.22% of the total phero content at .1mg/mL.

SOE where A-Rone amounts to 20% of the total phero content at .1mg/mL.

P10 where A-Rone amounts to 10% of the total phero content at .1mg/mL.

Note that AE/m, SOE, and P10(m&w) all have the same overall A-Rone concentration (.1mg/mL), but are listed in descending order of the RATIO of Androsterone to the other pheros contained in those products.

I\'ve never fully understood the rationale behind the formula of AE/w. It\'s always confounded me why Stone would use so much Androsterone (relative to total phero content) in ANY product, and particularly why they would do so in a product designed for use by women.

Oscar /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

MysteriousMan

08-22-2003, 10:32 AM

SRH,

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Female perspective here.

I LOVE -rone. SOE gets me hot faster than any of the products I\'ve tried. -None does nothing for me, and -nol just makes me really friendly. SOE, with -nol and -rone, makes me horny AND very friendly.

So I guess you could call that a result using straight -rone. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

<hr /></blockquote>

How (to be more precise: how long) did you test -none? The none response takes 15 minutes and even the secret ingrediences of TE/NPA are said to take several minutes to take effect.

-rone is linked to the adrenal response which is very fast and explains your experience.

MM

Sexyredhead

08-22-2003, 11:34 AM

I\'ve worn it during the day--all day, I\'ve worn it at night for hours at a time. I\'ve had it since January. No matter when I wear it or how much, it does nothing for me. I get responses from guys, but it does nothing sexual for me. Not a thing--except that I may get irritated (no matter what time of the month) and I am uncomfortable because IT STINKS, no matter how small the app and where.

I\'m still waiting to see if any of the women here try the EE and if they can smell the -none. The reactions I get from guys when I wear it would be much easier to respond to if I didn\'t think I STANK every time I got a hit with it.

SOE can keep me happy and horny all day. It\'s different from the -nol reaction I have, because I often wear PIw or lavender SPMO by themselves. So the -rone\'s effect isn\'t just immediate--it\'s long-lasting. That\'s not just an adrenal reaction, or I\'d end up tired and b!tchy after wearing it for a while.

Holmes

08-22-2003, 11:42 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
That\'s not just an adrenal reaction, or I\'d end up tired and b!tchy after wearing it for a while.

<hr /></blockquote>

Yeah, exactly.

Holmes

MysteriousMan

08-22-2003, 11:41 PM

SRH,

thanks for the answer.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
I\'ve worn it during the day--all day, I\'ve worn it at night for hours at a time. I\'ve had it since January. No matter when I wear it or how much, it does nothing for me. I get responses from guys, but it does nothing sexual for me. Not a thing--except that I may get irritated (no matter what time of the month) and I am uncomfortable because IT STINKS, no matter how small the app and where.

<hr /></blockquote>
This is interesting.
Maybe or not it makes a difference whether you wear it yourself (and know) or if you are a women who smells a man and you don\'t know it.

I remember reading about an experiment where the effect on women differed when the juice has been on a man or on a woman. I\'m sure this experiment wasn\'t with none but maybe we see similar effects.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
SOE can keep me happy and horny all day. It\'s different from the -nol reaction I have, because I often wear PIw or lavender SPMO by themselves. So the -rone\'s effect isn\'t just immediate--it\'s long-lasting. That\'s not just an adrenal reaction, or I\'d end up tired and b!tchy after wearing it for a while.

<hr /></blockquote>
Again it makes a difference whether you wear it or smell it on a man. But the insight of a woman who knows what she does is very interesting. -rone is also said to be a territorial marker, which is a thing that lasts longer. Your experience fits to the territorial theory.

MM

Sexyredhead

08-23-2003, 05:19 AM

I think partly, we\'re both right. It may be that I\'m not reacting to it myself because I\'m not smelling it on a man. BUT, it may also be that some women just don\'t like it as well. There are women on this board that get turned on wearing TEw or NPAw alone, and there are women who don\'t at all.

As for -rone being a territorial marker, that would make a lot of sense. I really like a man who stakes his territory. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

CptKipling

08-23-2003, 05:39 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
How (to be more precise: how long) did you test -none? The none response takes 15 minutes and even the secret ingrediences of TE/NPA are said to take several minutes to take effect.

<hr /></blockquote>

Where did you get this information?

MysteriousMan

08-23-2003, 05:46 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
As for -rone being a territorial marker, that would make a lot of sense. I really like a man who stakes his territory. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

<hr /></blockquote>

[political correctness off]
-rone level is high in the pee of alpha men. Now look what dogs do.
[political correctness on]

Does anybody know if there is a relevant degree of -rone on the skin of alpha men by nature? JVK?

MM

MysteriousMan

08-23-2003, 05:49 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
How (to be more precise: how long) did you test -none? The none response takes 15 minutes and even the secret ingrediences of TE/NPA are said to take several minutes to take effect.

<hr /></blockquote>

Where did you get this information?

<hr /></blockquote>

- none: see SoE (the book)
- TE: statements from the forum
- NPA: guessing from TE

MM

CptKipling

08-23-2003, 05:53 AM

Hmmm...

It\'s just that my thinking is that it\'s a lot faster.

MysteriousMan

08-23-2003, 05:55 AM

TE or none?

CptKipling

08-23-2003, 05:59 AM

Well both really.

MysteriousMan

08-23-2003, 06:11 AM

I can\'t make a conclusion from own experiences. (I do have experiences with responses but i\'m not sure how fast they were).

JVK cites a study that claims that the hormonal response takes 15 minutes. This maybe wrong. And maybe other effects of none (and secret ingediences) are faster than the hormonal response.
And maybe there is some conditioning: She reacts positive on the scent because her body knows there will be a hormonal response in a few minutes. I don\'t know.

But I\'m sure -rone is faster than -none. Just don\'t know how much.

CptKipling

08-23-2003, 06:14 AM

Interesting.

I\'ve always expected there was conditioning involved, so maybe your right.

Sexyredhead

08-23-2003, 06:14 AM

Well, if it takes 15 minutes, then how would you explain a DIHL from somebody you just walked by?

MysteriousMan

08-23-2003, 06:19 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Well, if it takes 15 minutes, then how would you explain a DIHL from somebody you just walked by?

<hr /></blockquote>
With none? Are there such testimonals? You said that there are no effects on you at all???

CptKipling

08-23-2003, 06:25 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Well, if it takes 15 minutes, then how would you explain a DIHL from somebody you just walked by?

<hr /></blockquote>

My thought\'s exactly.

Sexyredhead

08-23-2003, 07:32 AM

I haven\'t gotten a DIHL with -none, but there are many testimonials on this forum talking about DIHLs from girls just walking by when they were wearing -none. That doesn\'t constitute a situation where the girls have been in their presence for 15+ minutes.

Sagacious1420

08-23-2003, 12:34 PM

In my experiences there seems to be some variability in response time, but I don\'t recall any taking as long as 15 minutes. I usually don\'t use none solo, though. Perhaps since I normally use AE, that the rone is speeding things up...could it be that this is one of the \"boosting\" effects that rone is supposed to have on the other mones.?

Come to think of it, IIRC I got the most \"instant\" DIHLs when using AE alone or w/ SOE (even more rone). Hmmmmmmmm....

CptKipling

08-23-2003, 05:11 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
I haven\'t gotten a DIHL with -none, but there are many testimonials on this forum talking about DIHLs from girls just walking by when they were wearing -none. That doesn\'t constitute a situation where the girls have been in their presence for 15+ minutes.

<hr /></blockquote>

SRH i think the reason that -none doesnt seem to affect you positively is because it is not implicated with the presence of a man. -none is unisex, so -none worn by you may make you stressed because the signals are akin to female competition. -rone however is largely a male pheromone, so the conditioning tells you that you can be comfortable, relaxed etc.

jvkohl

08-24-2003, 05:58 PM

Conditioning of the visual response cycle to olfactory input (pheromones) occurs throughout a lifetime: beginning at birth. You _think_ you are attracted by physical appearance because your hormone response to pheromones occurs subconsciously. By the time you hit puberty, your body knows how to react to the scent of the opposite sex, and you have been conditioned to respond to particular pheromonal characteristics--depending on your experience with hair/eye color, skin tone, muscle structure, waist to hip ratio, etc. --all of which are associated with the pheromone signature.
Sexual experience with such characteristics will reinforce the response cycle (positively or negatively). It is NOT, the visual stimili that affect your hormone levels and reinforce your sexual response. It\'s the pheromones! Add some masculine pheromones and you can expect to get increased responsiveness from women. Add feminine pheromones and you can expect to get increased responsiveness from men. The DIHL response can occur immediately because you have hit the person with an increased dose of masculinity/femininity that can cause them to react quickly and strongly (based upon conditioning accross a lifetime of experience). But this type of response would not occur if a person had never imprinted on the pheromones of the opposite sex. It takes 15 minutes to get a change in testosterone levels after exposure to copulins. A behavioral response can occur more quickly, because as soon as the scent signature hits the olfactory system, the conditioned response cycle begins (in milliseconds). With women, the conditioned response as well as olfactory acuity and specificity vary with the menstrual cycle phase. That\'s why you can\'t expect to get the same reaction from every woman, every time. Still, reactions are predictable based upon menstrual cycle phase. I\'ve written extensively about this (and more cohesively than I can write in brief correspondance.) A recently published article may help some people to better understand \"conditioning.\"
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994083 (\"http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994083\")
The article shows that our hunger response can be conditioned to visual stimuli (even very unusual visual stimuli). You didn\'t really think that you were responding to the visual representation of food (in an ad, on a menu, whatever), did you? If the food didn\'t smell right, you would not eat it, no matter how \"good\" it looked. The hunger response is hormonal, and is conditioned via association with the chemistry of food. The sexual response is hormonal and conditioned by association with pheromones. Other mammals don\'t go looking for a good looking mate; they find one who smells right. We\'re mammals too! Our ability to think about mate choice, and to make conscious choices may set us apart from other mammals, but such choices still are based upon chemical communication: pheromones.

manchorito

08-24-2003, 07:15 PM

Thanks JVK, you\'re right. It all makes sense, just because we have planes and computers, doesn\'t mean we\'re any different. When you get down to it all, we are pretty primative. We spend our lives looking for mates, things like new clothes isn\'t just her thinking its nice looking clothes, it\'s her unknowingly noticing attractive plumage, (sorry feathers is the closest thing I can come up with). All our thoughts are more than mental thoughts, they are sub concious thoughts. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

darkness

08-25-2003, 10:12 AM

JKohl -- That was one of the most valuable posts (for us) I have seen you write, so thanks.

I have one question, however. Does attraction and mating have to include the hormal responses that pheromones but not visual stimuli cause that you talked about in the \"SCent of Eros Review Thread\" last week?

What makes you say your answer? Don\'t we ever pick partners that may not share similar visual and phermonal stimuli as that of someone in the past who made us feel \"safe\" or \"loved\", etc? Or to remind us of this person(s) of the past, do shared behaviors of a potential mate not come into play, and is it all about simply finding the similar pheromonal signature as that person of the past to conjure romantic feelings?

Perhaps someone laughs, sips their tea, speaks, or uses their hands, etc closely enough to subconsiously draw a parallel to that person of the past, thus bring us feelings of safety or love, only to cause a different sort of attraction that is predicated on basically on those feelings.

Sometimes people aren\'t looking to be \"sexually turned-on\" by a partner, they are simply looking for someone who will evoke certain emotions, depending upon the circumstances of their life.

Perhaps nature is putting more importance on this as humans developed into such complex beings, with so many more deeper needs.

I guess I am asking if we no longer exclusively pick partners based on hormonal responses that pheromones can initiate?

CptKipling

08-25-2003, 10:57 AM

Thanks JVK, another piece of the jigsaw puzzel... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

jvkohl

08-29-2003, 09:16 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Does attraction and mating have to include the hormal responses that pheromones but not visual stimuli cause that you talked about in the \"SCent of Eros Review Thread\" last week?

<hr /></blockquote>

The hormone response precedes any behavioral response, but conditioning of the visual response to olfactory stimuli allows visual stimuli to elicit a hormone response. That\'s why erotic images are arousing.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Don\'t we ever pick partners that may not share similar visual and phermonal stimuli as that of someone in the past who made us feel \"safe\" or \"loved\", etc?

<hr /></blockquote>

We can pick partners who have just the opposite characteristics--it depends on the conditioned response. Women will choose (high testosterone) abusive men, despite ill treatment by them. Get rid of one macho jerk, and they\'re very apt to find another. It\'s because they are looking for the maximum olfactory stimulus that goes with the high testosterone levels. Sure, some high testosterone men can be nice guys, but did you ever wonder why so many women seem to choose the \"bad boys.\"

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Perhaps someone laughs, sips their tea, speaks, or uses their hands, etc closely enough to subconsiously draw a parallel to that person of the past, thus bring us feelings of safety or love, only to cause a different sort of attraction that is predicated on basically on those feelings.

<hr /></blockquote>

Many factors come into play, the pheromone signature remains the most important factor.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Perhaps nature is putting more importance on this as humans developed into such complex beings, with so many more deeper needs.

<hr /></blockquote>

Many sociologists would agree about this change in human nature. Not many, if any, biologists would agree. A mammalian model is rather difficult to rise above, despite increased cognitive ability.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I guess I am asking if we no longer exclusively pick partners based on hormonal responses that pheromones can initiate?

<hr /></blockquote>

Many people misinterpret what I have said, especially regarding what may appear to be exclusivity. Other factors come into play, but only because such factors are conditioned as paired with olfactory input (pheromones). No other sensory stimuli from our social environment has a direct impact on hormones, which are linked to our behavior--especially to sexual behavior. Without the direct link from social environmental sensory input to hormones, there is simply no way that social environmental sensory input can influence our behavior. Again, there is much more that I have written on this in publications that are available on the internet and linked from my website. In a nutshell, it\'s the nature versus nurture debate and its resolve: social environmental sensory input (pheromones): nurture, affect genes (nature) in cells that secrete a hormone that regulates all other hormones linked to reproductive (and other) sexual behavior.

Until some other social environmental sensory input is found to directly alter genes in hormone secreting nerve cells, the most crucial step is missing from the link between nature and nurture. I\'m betting no other such input will be found--if it ever is, it would tend to discount any mammalian model of human behavior. I\'ve been adamant for many years about someone proposing such a link, something that fits the criteria besides olfactory input. Since none of the researchers I know have ever offered such a link, it\'s hard to figure out why some of them still don\'t accept \"Human Pheromones: the link between neuroendocrinology and ethology\" as detailed in my Neuroendocrinology Letters review. But then, some people will always have difficulty grasping the obvious.

manchorito

08-30-2003, 06:34 AM

So ifI am trying to get male respect, should I wear CS rone? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

xvs

08-30-2003, 03:19 PM

If -rone acts as a \"spacer pheromone\" it may make other men avoid you.

On the other hand, they could be avoiding you out of respect, but I don\'t know if the research work has been done to establish any of that..

manchorito

08-30-2003, 07:54 PM

I really need male respect right now, some jerk is always talking crap about me. What should I use?

MysteriousMan

08-31-2003, 03:09 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
I really need male respect right now, some jerk is always talking crap about me. What should I use?

<hr /></blockquote>

A) By repect

1) Self confidence
2) Self confidence
3) Self confidence

After you\'ve gone through 1-3, none and a little rone will help. It let you have an alpha scent.

Without self confidence, the same mones just elevate aggresivity on *both* sides and you get serious troubles.

B) By calming down

1) Use nol
2) work on your self confidence.

Nol increases social habits, make both sides feel relaxed and chatty.
So it is possible to use it before you work on your self confidence. But working on self confidence wouldn\'t hurt.

MM

CptKipling

08-31-2003, 12:01 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
I really need male respect right now, some jerk is always talking crap about me. What should I use?

<hr /></blockquote>

Learn how to talk crap back.

MysteriousMan

08-31-2003, 12:32 PM

Psychology seems to be better in your case than mones.

Try \"Get anyone to do anything\" by David Lieberman or a similar book.

The titles of the chapters are typical american with words like \"anyone\" and \"anything\".
Nevertheless the chapters contain solid and practical information.

Example: The advice that was most surprising to me:

Don\'t hesitate to ask somebody for a favour (don\'t pull his leg; don\'t ask for things you could do better yourself).

If somebody does a favour to another person, the one who DOES the favour will feel more sympathy to the one he did the favour to. Not vice versa as on would assume.

So if you want somebody to like you more, ask him for a favour. But be sure this favour is not only for the favours sake.

MM

darkness

08-31-2003, 04:28 PM

<<<By the time you hit puberty, your body knows how to react to the scent of the opposite sex, and you have been conditioned to respond to particular pheromonal characteristics--depending on your experience with hair/eye color, skin tone, muscle structure, waist to hip ratio, etc. --all of which are associated with the pheromone signature.
>>>>

jkohl --

what you are saying is that we are seeking particular pheromone signatures.

what happens when physical characterstics of a particular person is unusually different then what you no0rmally associate with the physical characteristics for that type of pheromone signature .

in other words, i like many, have certain looks that i am attrate to. like eye lids that are still visible when somone\'s eyes are open. it is because of my mom. So how do people react when they have someone raising their LS levels that in previous cases would never trigger such a response because of their physiucal characteristics?

are my targets just going to react to the ls level rise,but then look at me, and be able to discount me if not physically attracted? maybe i am simplifyign the process too much....

Sexyredhead

09-01-2003, 05:44 AM

I think it\'s probably something that\'s along the lines of when you find a guy sexy, and he\'s not the usual type of guy you\'re attracted to.

You know, \"He\'s not what I usually go for, but there\'s just SOMEthing about him....\"

darkness

09-01-2003, 06:02 AM

how often does that happen to women? because most men don\'t where synthetic pheromones, which would seem to ilicit sucha response.

Sexyredhead

09-01-2003, 06:07 AM

No, most guys don\'t wear synthetic -mones, but I know that happens to all women at least once. It\'s even happened to me. I\'ll meet a guy who is nothing like what I usually find attractive, but there will just be something about him that makes him hot, and I just can\'t put my finger on it. I don\'t know if it\'s the personality, the -mone signature, or what. But it happens.

It happens with guys too. You know, \"She\'s not even that pretty, but there\'s something about her.\" I\'ve heard this a lot of times before.

darkness

09-01-2003, 06:12 AM

that comedian sandra burnhardt has a lot of guys mysteriously a\\ttacted to her.

i think it is when you like their eyes, but don\'t like their facial scructure (she\'s got a big nose and a gap between her teeth).

also, someone may have a feature reminding them of a partent or something, but you do not find the rest of them attractive. those are possibilities?

Holmes

09-01-2003, 06:14 AM

Or...could it just be confidence or an ease/comfortability one has with or about himself (or herself)? Or it is something less obvious than that?

Holmes

darkness

09-01-2003, 06:17 AM

probably on the female end. not on our end, unless some beahvioral trait reminds us of someone who made us comfortable during our childhood.

Sexyredhead

09-01-2003, 06:18 AM

Those things are both possible. But my point was that even if you are not what someone finds attractive, if you have an attractive -mone signature (synthetic or otherwise), then that type of reaction may be what you\'ll get.

DrSmellThis

09-01-2003, 08:58 PM

(A response to the above JVK post:)

Much is still to be done.

Scientific humility is a virtue that helps keep one \"beyond reproach\" in one\'s valuable work. Think of Winnifred Cutler\'s (of Athena \"Institute\" fame) lack of this virtue, and how it has exposed her to criticism. For the good of the public\'s understanding, interpreting the scientific data on pheromones with a traditionally scientific spirit takes a lot of restraint:

Let\'s hold our horses here! (No this isn\'t a call for well-endowed maturbators, Elana.) Current evidence suggests the probability that some of the sexual response to vision is pre-conditioned by olfactory cues early in life. We also know sniffing pherochemicals in the moment is associated with some of the change in LH; probably in a causal fashion. We do not know how much overall LH change is attributable to pheromonal cues. And we have little idea how much everyday sexual behavior is influenced by changes in LH.

And we have very little evidence indeed that addresses the rest of the sexual behavior picture.

So, for instance, to trumpet the above findings is absolutely not to say that olfaction causes the visual perception of attractiveness (a highly counterintuitive prospect which I doubt JVK believes). Only strictly controlled laboratory experiments (typically many of them, to address various alternate interpretations) can establish strong scientific evidence for sociosexual causality. No such experiment has been conducted.

Nor is it to say a significant percentage of changes in sexual behavior is caused by changes in olfactory cues. Only one study has even addressed the question of correlation (a much weaker relationship than causality)between the two changes; albeit in sort of a very preliminary and vague way (reference upon request).

More importantly, the role of cognition and non-olfactory input (e.g., vision) in the psychology mix that propels sexual behavior, even as regards hormonal changes, is just unclear at present. Nothing more; nothing less.

There is no evidence that visual cues do not cause LH levels to change. For that matter, there is no evidence that in-the-moment olfactory cues influence LH more than in-the-moment visual cues (not to mention cognition). If Mr. Kohl or anyone else wants to pay me I\'d be happy to design state of the art, professional studies that would address these questions more or less directly. None have been conducted so far, unfortunately; perhaps because cognitive-mediated pathways are much harder to trace than simple biochemical ones. But given that so much visual response is hard-wired or innate, and given that humans consistently self-report vision to be one of the strongest influences on there own choices; and given the role of visual cues in mating rituals throughout the animal kingdom; (e.g, peacocks, various dances, red monkey asses) and given the generally prominent function of color, geometry and visual-contrast in natural processes; it is highly unlikely that vision is not a very, very strong influence on human socio-sexual behavior.

Scientifically speaking, the burden of proof is not on those with the simplest, most intuitive interpretation of the available data. The burden lies with those who suggest something that appears preposterous (Trans: \"obvious\"? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif) at face value. So it is as much Mr Kohl\'s scientific responsibility as anyone else\'s to produce evidence on vision\'s role in attraction. Until evidence suggests otherwise, I\'ll default to the humble, common sense guess that vision and olfaction have a practically equal role in human sexuality, given the huge mass of self-report data (which is not impressive, but is the best data we now have for this purpose) that support both attractants. Touch (remember Harlow\'s monkeys; and KINO) and sound (gotta love those sweet voices /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif) are most probably very important in their own right.

Lastly, and with due respect, perhaps Mr. Kohl does not really believe that, \"Without the direct link from social environmental sensory input to hormones, there is simply no way that social environmental sensory input can influence our behavior.\"

This >ahem< curious assertion could not, of course, be interpreted literally, were it to make sense. Every social/psychological scientist worth their salt knows sensory input has overwhelmingly huge effects on general social behavior, in virtually every situation.

But even (charitably) restricting the picture to sexual behavior does not help me \"get\" the above quoted statement, which clearly presumes that hormones are the exclusive, immediate cause of changes in sexual behavior!

Unfortunately such statements do not, to say the least, help Mr. Kohl vindicate himself of those oft- heard \"exclusivity\" charges. Only a little wider, more scientifically grounded perspective on human behavior could do as much.

darkness

09-02-2003, 04:48 AM

Great post Dr. You cut to the heart of the matter. Do LS rise levels influence our sexual behavior and does visual stimulation influence LS levels?

The second question is more important, for the sake of the current argument, because I think JKohl is only arguing that pheromones are the only stimuli to have shown a hormonal response.

He\'s really not arguing about behavior, and as he said, many people misinterpret his argument.

I\'m also not sure that he said visual stimuli cannot change homronal levels, just that nothing but pheromones have shown to illicit the reponse.

Great post, you brought up a lot of my thoughts, and I would recommend you contact the kinsey institute, at the school I went to, if you were to be interested in research funds. Maybe all of the broken plate fees in the dorms that they charge freshman on the first day they get there will go to use /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

CptKipling

09-02-2003, 05:37 AM

Primates posses the most complex visual processing system ever evolved, this is clear. They are also one of the few orders of species to \"re-evolve\" colour vision, probably due to there fruit feeding lineage (as the ripening of fruit is signaled by colour). They also developed stereoscopic vision as a result of the reduction of nasal structures, which allowed the eyes to converge at the front of the head.

As vision became more developed, it had an increasing role to play in social aspects of life. Many modern primates display swollen coloured patches of skin to signal sexual receptiveness.

However, dispite reduction of the nasal organs, the areas of the brain which process the scent signals has increased in proportion to the other areas of the brain.

darkness

09-02-2003, 12:13 PM

DrSmellthis:

Have you read about people who were born with impaired olfactory systems or whatever, never show a desire to mate?

Also, they did some testing with mice, making it so their vnos/olfactory didn\'t work, and they mice never reproduced.

This would really support everything James Kohl has been saying.

DrSmellThis

09-02-2003, 03:24 PM

\"This would really support everything James Kohl has been saying.\"

No it wouldn\'t, Darkness, due to a logical fallacy. Just because smell might be necessary for mating desire (I\'m not at all convinced even of this) doesn\'t mean it\'s sufficient to cause it; or that it\'s even a meaningful cause of any of it. Further, it is not the most responsible scientific language to say \"only olfaction has shown LH effects\" if in fact it has been the only sense studied.

Nice post cakemaker. Yes, with both senses (and the others) we are processor heavy and data light. Internal creatues, we are.

In light of the present discussion, perhaps Michael Jackson\'s most important achievement to date has been to reproduce without a VNO. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

jvkohl

09-03-2003, 09:23 PM

A series of good posts that include questions invariably leads me to address only one or two issues due to time constraints. First, visual (i.e., erotic imagery) elicits both an LH and testosterone response. Neither could occur unless they were conditioned to olfactory input. There is no pathway that allows for a link between visual input and changes in levels of hormones involved in mammalian reproductive sexual behavior. There is no mammalian model that would lead anyone to expect that the hormonal changes elicited by visual input are due to anything but olfactory conditioning. There is no known sex difference in the processing of visual input, which makes it even more difficult for anyone to show that visual input leads to a sex difference in perception. If there were no sex difference in perception, there could be no explanation of the heterosexual response cycle. And if visual input was primary in physical attraction, someone should have by now come up with a reason homosexuals prefer the same sex (I\'ve published a pheromonal explanation of homosexuality). Monell researchers recently reported that homosexuals produce different natural body odor than heterosexuals and that homosexuals prefer the odor of other homosexuals.

DrSmellThis: Please offer some biologically-based evidence that our sexual behavior is based upon visual input. I\'ve already asked many of the top behavioral development specialists to do this; no one has, they just assert visual primacy. You (and many others) still seem to believe that our reproductive sexual behavior is not as dependent upon olfactory input as the reproductive sexual behavior of other mammals. Physical attraction is a necessary part of reproductive sexual behavior, and physical attraction cannot be explained via a visual model. This would be akin to someone saying that food choice is based upon the visual appeal of the food, rather than the hormonal responses that the chemistry of the food elicits. I\'m certain you\'ve read my book and my academic papers. If you wish to challenge my model, please offer the model you believe best explains human physical attraction. I\'m surprised that you indicate I should pursue the null hypothesis: the theory that visual input is more important. Meanwhile, one question: Do you think that conscious choice is more important to sexual behavior than is unconscious affect? My NEL paper details the overwhelming importance of unconsious affect, and has, so far gone unchallenged.

jvkohl

09-03-2003, 10:09 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Lastly, and with due respect, perhaps Mr. Kohl does not really believe that, \"Without the direct link from social environmental sensory input to hormones, there is simply no way that social environmental sensory input can influence our behavior.\"

<hr /></blockquote>

Let me assure everyone that this belief is fully supported by evidence from many mammalian (including humans) species. To reitterate: social environmental sensory input CANNOT influence behavior unless it first directly influences hormones. No part of th pathway: gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system can be eliminated. Social environmental sensory input must affect genes in hormone-secreting cells of tissue in an organ that is part of an organ system that affects behavior, or behavior will not change.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

This >ahem< curious assertion could not, of course, be interpreted literally, were it to make sense.

<hr /></blockquote>

Which part of this assertion does not make sense?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Every social/psychological scientist worth their salt knows sensory input has overwhelmingly huge effects on general social behavior, in virtually every situation.

<hr /></blockquote>

With all due respect, when called upon to explain how sensory input exerts these huge effects on social behavior in any situation, no social/psychological scientist has ever responded with anything but \"just so\" stories (e.g., it just does). It is left to the biologists to offer factual representations of the processes involved. We are rapidly approaching an era in which even psychologists will be called upon to explain some basis for their assertions. Social scientists, after failing to do so for many years, are already a dieing breed. Lee Ellis (a social scientist with an excellent understanding of biology) has written about the death of sociology.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Unfortunately such statements do not, to say the least, help Mr. Kohl vindicate himself of those oft- heard \"exclusivity\" charges. Only a little wider, more scientifically grounded perspective on human behavior could do as much.

<hr /></blockquote>

I dissagree. Only an understanding of what I am saying is required to vindicate me. I have never claimed exclusivity: I have repeatedly claimed (and explained) \"conditioned response.\" Understanding a conditioned response beneath the level of consciousness (i.e., unconscious affect; you don\'t need to think about it) remains most difficult for those trained to think/believe that our behavior is mostly due to conscious choice rather than to hormonal changes occuring across the mammalian, including human, lifespan.

darkness

09-04-2003, 04:08 AM

In light of the present discussion, perhaps Michael Jackson\'s most important achievement to date has been to reproduce without a VNO. >>>

People who lose their vno systems still show a desire. It is those who were born without them. He had a pretty big vno in the first place, i think that\'s why he took it away /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

DrSmellThis

09-04-2003, 04:12 AM

(Sorry folks, for the length of this post. Note that the following frustrated language is not meant to be insulting, but to be objectively truthful, to the point; and of some LT benefit; albeit perhaps at the expense of social harmony.)

I\'ve explained all this before both publically and in private communications. I do try to respond \"dead center\" to your points; to the underlying reasoning. But Mr. Kohl, I am always impressed at how supposed professional \"intellectuals\" (but apparently not fully so in spirit) can consistently not respond at all to legitimate and crucial rational arguments. There has been no discernable evolution in your position in response to anyone\'s points, despite clear logical holes which I and others have pointed out \'till turning blue in the face, ad nauseum. Why should I try again?? What\'s in it for me? You should pay me to teach you psychology first. You just don\'t get it. The same holes are there as before. If you were m more open to learning none of your position\'s shortcomings would be a problem now. You could adjust and still have a strong, confident (yet different) position.

One reason I avoid most \"pro intellectuals\" is because I believe most of them find it in their best interest to cling to all their orginal beliefs that made them \"famous\", so they can still trumpet their earlier work and gain various dividends from this activity. (\"Oh, by the way, did I mention this paragraph yet that I have a book, won awards, and attended very prestegious conferences?\") Were they to reverse their opinions, their careers would die, or so they believe (This is absolutely wrong -- perhaps the most famous philosopher today, MacIntyre, always talks about how inadequate wrong he was before). They would feel like an impostor or whatever. They\'re insecure about something (e.g., tenure). There really is little or no respect for the pursuit of wisdom in our culture at all.

As I said above and elsewhere, all those things you said that haven\'t been shown about vision also haven\'t been shown NOT to exist. There is no reason to suppose they wouldn\'t. The research hasn\'t been done, but it could easily be. It is an open, empirical question. (Phil of science term). So it is a traditional intellectual no-no to talk the way you just did. Sloppy, sloppy. Remember phero research is still new and sparse. New, interesting studies on human sexual pheromones very rarely come out (in public).

I don\'t owe you or anyone else a review of the vision literature. You are the one getting paid. If I did review it, my position would just get more compelling. I already know what I would find (what I have said), because I am generally familiar with the findings landscape, methods and boundaries of psych research. I also have studied the brain enough to know I\'d find the links.

I saw little evidence in your papers of this olfactory conditioning. I saw you assert it is so.

I believe it would be very easy (in terms of knowing what to do) to demonstrate sex differences in visual perception, and also to trace a path wherein vision leads to change in LH. It is difficult only due to newness and exhorbitance of the necessary technology (including scores of PET or SPECT scans per subject. Do you know how much just that would cost?! How could you rationally expect that \"by now\" this research would have been done. \"That\'s right, Mr. Bush, I need 12 million dollars to study why dicks go into certain pussies and not others. We\'re mapping the whole sex-brain!\") )What is the problem?

I would very probably find both direct and indirect (mediated) links. Does the term cognitive mediation mean anything to you? I\'ve said it many times as a partial vision theory, but you claim (with ZERO grounds) there could never be a theory about it. You ignore all behavioral observations and subject self report on visual sexuality, even thought these are the strongest existing data on it. There is no evidence because you look for none except your own pet evidence. The most important, central event to be observed is the subjectivity of the person who is attracted. That subjectivity IS the attraction, after all! What is the only fairly direct way we can know about that subjectivity? Self-report data.

You are mistaken about what psychologists believe about conscious choice. I am one of the few \"academically inclined\" psychologists that even cares about it. And biologists should not find it hard to believe cognition to be more important for humans than for the common drosophila milanogaster.

For the last time, I did not assert (and never have asserted... and have said this repeatedly to you) \"primacy of vision\"! Most psychologists wouldn\'t either.

Social science does not mean sociology at all! Check any dictionary under \"social science.\" Be careful before you speak about other people\'s fields. You don\'t know what social science is (any science having to do with groups of people or persons in relationship; e.g., economics, psych, anthropology.), so can\'t know of its \"impending death\". You are (by your own admission, once) not very familiar with psychology at all -- for instance Freud (I just read your post in the other thread, which is full of anti-Freud hubris: about something that has nothing to do with Freud!), behaviorism, cognitive science, research methodology, statistics, clinical psych and philosophy of science. You don\'t feel obligated to respect any of these fields (e.g., \"social science is dead\" -- on which planet?? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif ) Your hubris (not that I don\'t also have hubris)carries an element of disrespect for all the work done in these areas and others, yet your criticisms of that work miss the entire ballpark. If you don\'t know about it, why diss it? People will get mad unnecessarily. I cannot believe psychologists would let you get away with some of the things you say without screaming at you. There must not be any good ones in your circle.

OK, here\'s the theory you asked for: (I have sufficiently arranged for legal copyrights.)

I am confident (but not sure, of course) this theory is consistent with all the research you cite in all of your publications; and other research. I could easily design studies to \"test\" it.

Human attraction is relatively well viewed as a narrative or story informed by information from multiple physical, sexual, emotional, social, perceptual, sensuous, intellectual and cultural sources, both conscious and unconscious. The way these elements fit together is visible both physiologically and in the person\'s attraction story(stories). Choice and external determinism codetermine attraction, as one literally does not make sense without the other. (One cannot, therefore, be more important.) There is no simple absolute cause of attraction, but rather there is a woven narrative expressing a web of causes. No attraction is what it is without having been mediated or processed in the attraction story at some time. What are the charcteristics of the attraction story? That is an empirical question (i.e., for research to answer)

Early childhood olfaction alone cannot be a sufficient cause, for example, as other necessary elements of the attraction story are not there yet (e.g, neural structures). There is no way for your conditioning to happen in any literal sense, as sexual attraction is not there yet to be paired with anything). By the time a child is old enough and before, other causal influences enter, and are \"confounded\"(research methods term)with olfaction if one tries (in vain) to isolate it. The visual model embedded in this big picture would be small but important as are the other senses, including olfaction. There are two pathways to hormones from vision -- direct and cognitively mediated. They are not mutually exclusive. If I see a wild lion I get a hormonal surge with very little, but not NO cognitive mediation, for example. Effects like this are ridiculously easy to show in the lab. Same goes with olfaction. Your model ignores the conscious portion of olfaction as it affects attraction. For instance, something recognized as smelling sexy would attract better than that same thing if it took only unconscious biochem. pathways and was unrecognized as sexy. (This is why forum members report it works best to let some phero smell bleed through the cover scent, and also why cover scents work well in the first place).

My theory holds a place for literally every phenomenon we talk about having to do with sexuality and attraction. Ther are many sub-parts. Yours is pre-limited to a few reptilian processes that influence some other (of the millions of other) causes, just as they are themselves influenced by other causes. Remember there is a narrative context within which every pheromone reaction becomes actual attraction, as the new research on A1 already hints at. And some time ago here I detailed a thought experiment in which olfaction can be conditioned by other senses in attraction. But it\'s not even about senses.

Your paper actually details little about any \"overwhelming importance\" of unconscious processes, because it fairly compares UP to nothing else it could be overwhelming. What is \"unchallenged?\"

And now, off to bed.

xvs

09-04-2003, 04:31 AM

JVK,

How do you account for sexual preferences such as:

- some guys like women with big breasts
- some like women with big butts
- some like women who are skinny
- some like women who are fatter
- some like women with blonde hair
- some like women with dark hair
- some won\'t date any woman with short hair

etc.

Do you claim that all such preferences are pheromonally based, or is there a visual component?

darkness

09-04-2003, 04:42 AM

he\'s gone through this. here is some of his argument from a previous post on the thread:

<<<Conditioning of the visual response cycle to olfactory input (pheromones) occurs throughout a lifetime: beginning at birth. You _think_ you are attracted by physical appearance because your hormone response to pheromones occurs subconsciously. By the time you hit puberty, your body knows how to react to the scent of the opposite sex, and you have been conditioned to respond to particular pheromonal characteristics--depending on your experience with hair/eye color, skin tone, muscle structure, waist to hip ratio, etc. --all of which are associated with the pheromone signature.>>>>

DrSmellThis

09-04-2003, 05:52 AM

Darkness, that is a good example of just saying something is so without providing or referencing evidence. It is telling one story about the way things could have happened. It is a theory; an educated guess. It has not been tested against other plausible theories.

Of course, I\'m familiar. That is what I was calling into question in the first place.

CptKipling

09-04-2003, 09:22 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
- some won\'t date any woman with short hair

<hr /></blockquote>

I\'m one of these men, and I think (from my experiences) that it in fact could be that short hair doesnt trap the same amount of pheros.

jvkohl

09-08-2003, 09:29 PM

DrSmellthis refuses to respond to a biologically based presentation of facts. Instead, he protests while refusing to acknowledge any support for key aspects of my position. Olfactory conditioning (for example): odor-conditioning of hunger in response to visual input (the sight of fractal-based computer images.) http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994083 (\"http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994083\")

Classical conditioning is commonly known, accepted, and has been used to explain the human sexual response to visual input, as exemplified in the conditioning of male sexual arousal to the site of a penny in a jar.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=102249 51&dopt=Abstract (\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=102249 51&dopt=Abstract\")

The human response parallels what is exemplified in mammalian studies of olfactory conditioning of the sexual response cycle.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=126543 49&dopt=Abstract (\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=126543 49&dopt=Abstract\")

DrSmellThis chooses to toss out what is known and offer what is referred to as the \"null hypothesis\" (which attempts to draw attention away from what is known, while focussing on what is not known.)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
… all those things you said that haven\'t been shown about vision also haven\'t been shown NOT to exist.

<hr /></blockquote>

Others may comprehend the fallacy of attempting to show something exists merely because no one has shown that it doesn\'t exist. DrSmellThis continues with the assumption that visual input is central to physical attraction because no one has shown that it isn\'t.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
The research hasn\'t been done, but it could easily be.

<hr /></blockquote>

No funding will ever be available for research on any null hypothesis. Rather than caution me about intelectual no-no\'s, DrSmellThis should examine the literature.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
New, interesting studies on human sexual pheromones very rarely come out (in public),

<hr /></blockquote>

(recent studies included):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=126064 09&dopt=Abstract (\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=126064 09&dopt=Abstract\")

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
I don\'t owe you or anyone else a review of the vision literature.

<hr /></blockquote>

You owe it to yourself, lest you continue to make irrelevant statements. Comparatively speaking, there is no support for any visual perspective on the development of sexual behavior.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
I saw little evidence in your papers of this olfactory conditioning. I saw you assert it is so.

<hr /></blockquote>

You must have missed the ever-present bibliographies included in my writings. These bibliographies are a large part of publication in peer-reviewed journals. If there is no supporting evidence, you don\'t get published.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
I believe it would be very easy (in terms of knowing what to do) to demonstrate sex differences in visual perception, and also to trace a path wherein vision leads to change in LH.

<hr /></blockquote>

What model is it that allows this belief? There is no data from any mammalian studies that indicates a sex difference in visual perception, and no data that supports a pathway from visual input to a change in LH.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Does the term cognitive mediation mean anything to you?

<hr /></blockquote>

No, in the context of olfactory/pheromonal conditioning, it plays no role: the LH response occurs without thought.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
I\'ve said it many times as a partial vision theory, but you claim (with ZERO grounds) there could never be a theory about it.

<hr /></blockquote>

I\'ve said there cannot be a biologically based theory about it. As always, the key issue to me is biology, rather than just a theory--anyone can come up with a theory.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
The most important, central event to be observed is the subjectivity of the person who is attracted. That subjectivity IS the attraction, after all! What is the only fairly direct way we can know about that subjectivity? Self-report data.

<hr /></blockquote>

Subjective evidence is not a consideration in biological (i.e., factual) explanations, which require an objective approach. Biology starts with facts that have been obtained through objective study. You start with what someone says, or what a group of people say. The difference is that LH can be objectively measured; people don\'t self-report the change.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
…biologists should not find it hard to believe cognition to be more important for humans than for the common drosophila milanogaster.

<hr /></blockquote>

I\'ve never said cognition is not important for humans, though it is of no importance to the conditioned response.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
I did not assert (and never have asserted... and have said this repeatedly to you) \"primacy of vision

<hr /></blockquote>!

I continue to get the impression that you think visual input (and cognitive mediation) is more important to physical attraction than is olfactory input, which indicates to me that you think visual input is primary. The disparity is confusing, and prevents point by point comparison. Clearly, in mammals, olfaction is primary; I\'m not sure how much affect/effect you attribute to visual input in humans (we are mammals).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Social science does not mean sociology at all! Check any dictionary under \"social science.

<hr /></blockquote>

I conveyed my meaning. Those who lack a biological perspective continue to lose ground in explanatory power. Can\'t find a citation for the work by Lee Ellis; who conveyed my thoughts on this very well. He also organized two conferences on the biological basis of behavior. I\'m not the only one who thinks that social science is dying. The upsurge in publications on biological psychology is a fairly clear indication.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
People will get mad unnecessarily. I cannot believe psychologists would let you get away with some of the things you say without screaming at you. There must not be any good ones in your circle.

<hr /></blockquote>

I told about 200 conference attendees in a presentation to the Human Behavior and Evolution Society that there was no non olfactory biological basis for visually perceived physical attraction. No screaming, but definitely some anger. Still, no one offered any non-olfactory biological basis for visually perceived physical attraction.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
OK, here\'s the theory you asked for: (I have sufficiently arranged for legal copyrights.)

I am confident (but not sure, of course) this theory is consistent with all the research you cite in all of your publications; and other research. I could easily design studies to \"test\" it.

Human attraction is relatively well viewed as a narrative or story informed by information from multiple physical, sexual, emotional, social, perceptual, sensuous, intellectual and cultural sources, both conscious and unconscious. The way these elements fit together is visible both physiologically and in the person\'s attraction story(stories). Choice and external determinism codetermine attraction, as one literally does not make sense without the other. (One cannot, therefore, be more important.) There is no simple absolute cause of attraction, but rather there is a woven narrative expressing a web of causes. No attraction is what it is without having been mediated or processed in the attraction story at some time. What are the charcteristics of the attraction story? That is an empirical question (i.e., for research to answer)

<hr /></blockquote>

That\'s not a theory; you simply say that you don\'t know what attraction is; allude to conscious processing, while incorporating your lack of knowledge into some mystic phenomenon that correlates with what someone tells you is their reason for being attracted to someone else.

In contrast, research has shown that the characteristics of mammalian physical attraction are overwhelmingly olfactory characteristics, and other mammals don\'t need anything else added to the story.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Early childhood olfaction alone cannot be a sufficient cause, for example, as other necessary elements of the attraction story are not there yet (e.g, neural structures). There is no way for your conditioning to happen in any literal sense, as sexual attraction is not there yet to be paired with anything).

<hr /></blockquote>

You make obvious the fact that you lack any understanding of pre- and postnatal sexual differentiation. The neural structures are present before birth and affected by pheromones beginning at birth. The conditioned response is present long before any of us are consciously aware of sexual attraction. (I can\'t help but wonder if you think sexual attraction begins with puberty, since you say it\'s not there yet… not there when?)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
By the time a child is old enough and before, other causal influences enter, and are \"confounded\"(research methods term)with olfaction if one tries (in vain) to isolate it.

<hr /></blockquote>

These confounds seem to be throwing you off course. The influence of olfaction is predicted by the sum total of genetically determined sexual development, and manifest as a hormone response to pheromones, immediately: AT BIRTH. The hormone response has been shown to occur in all mammals studied, and has repeatedly been used as an explanation of post-natal sexual differentiation.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
The visual model embedded in this big picture would be small but important as are the other senses, including olfaction. There are two pathways to hormones from vision -- direct and cognitively mediated.

<hr /></blockquote>

There is no direct pathway from vision to the hormonal changes that govern reproductive sexual behavior, and I don\'t know of any pathway that has been detailed directly linking vision to other hormonal changes. This would require showing gene activation in hormone secreting nerve cells, as occurs in GnRH nerve cells in response to olfactory/pheromonal input. I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention a cognitively mediated pathway. Sounds as if you believe that our thought processes somehow induce hormonal change.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
They are not mutually exclusive. If I see a wild lion I get a hormonal surge with very little, but not NO cognitive mediation, for example.

<hr /></blockquote>

A hormonal response to a lion has nothing to do with the sexual response cycle unless mating is involved. Lions don\'t need cognition to mate; and we don\'t need cognition to know that attempting to mate with a lion is not a good idea. There\'s good reason that pheromones are usually species-specific. It certainly wouldn\'t do if we were sexually attracted to another species--though this paraphillia does occur.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Effects like this are ridiculously easy to show in the lab. Same goes with olfaction. Your model ignores the conscious portion of olfaction as it affects attraction. For instance, something recognized as smelling sexy would attract better than that same thing if it took only unconscious biochem. pathways and was unrecognized as sexy. (This is why forum members report it works best to let some phero smell bleed through the cover scent, and also why cover scents work well in the first place).

<hr /></blockquote>

\"The conscious portion of olfaction\" ??? My model is based upon mammalian biology in which there is no conscious portion of olfaction. Other mammals do not consciously seek out the right odors, they respond hormonally and behave accordingly.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
My theory holds a place for literally every phenomenon we talk about having to do with sexuality and attraction. Ther are many sub-parts. Yours is pre-limited to a few reptilian processes that influence some other (of the millions of other) causes, just as they are themselves influenced by other causes. Remember there is a narrative context within which every pheromone reaction becomes actual attraction, as the new research on A1 already hints at. And some time ago here I detailed a thought experiment in which olfaction can be conditioned by other senses in attraction. But it\'s not even about senses.

<hr /></blockquote>

\"A narrative context\" ???? No cognition, no narrative in my model. What model are you using to predict this narrative context, which appears to me to only include human physical attraction?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Your paper actually details little about any \"overwhelming importance\" of unconscious processes, because it fairly compares UP to nothing else it could be overwhelming. What is \"unchallenged?

<hr /></blockquote>

The entire conceptualization is unchallenged from any biological perspective. The details on unconscious processing are self evident (and also available through minimal reading of articles cited in the bibliography). Unconscious processing is believed to be far more important to behavior than our conscious thoughts. Makes sense, doesn\'t it. You can control conscious thought/action, the hormone to behavior connection is automatic. If the hormone to behavior connection were not automatic, there would be no conditioning, and no mammalian model. There wouldn\'t be any other mammals at all, since other mammals don\'t think much about mating; they just follow their nose.

jvkohl

09-08-2003, 09:37 PM

Every sex difference that is either hormonally mediated (fat distribution; breast size) or culturally mediated (long hair) is accompanied by a pheromonal component. Testosterone and estrogen make the largest contribution to sex differences and the pheromones associated with these typically male/female hormones condition your hormone response. If, for example, conditioning has, from birth, led you to prefer large breasted women, a traumatic experience with a large breasted woman could recondition your hormone response--you might even begin to fear a sexual encounter with a large breasted woman. Similarly, a woman who is traumatized by rape will tend to \"freeze\" with any man--even her loving spouse, because a single trauma of great magnitude can influence everything that follows.

The epilogue of my book details such connections.

jvkohl

09-08-2003, 09:40 PM

Thanks Darkness; unfortunately DrSmellThis is not grasping most of what I\'m writing.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
he\'s gone through this. here is some of his argument from a previous post on the thread:

<<<Conditioning of the visual response cycle to olfactory input (pheromones) occurs throughout a lifetime: beginning at birth. You _think_ you are attracted by physical appearance because your hormone response to pheromones occurs subconsciously. By the time you hit puberty, your body knows how to react to the scent of the opposite sex, and you have been conditioned to respond to particular pheromonal characteristics--depending on your experience with hair/eye color, skin tone, muscle structure, waist to hip ratio, etc. --all of which are associated with the pheromone signature.>>>>

<hr /></blockquote>

jvkohl

09-08-2003, 09:48 PM

It is not common for others to reference what they write on this Forum; it\'s far too time-consuming. I have referenced sufficiently in peer-reviewed journal articles, and in my book. You know the information is there. Why indicate that this is story telling? It is a well-accepted model that crosses many biologically based disciplines. There are no other plausible biologically based theories to test against. There has never been a non-olfactory biologically based explanation of how visual attraction develops differently in mammalian males and females. Others need only look at my website for additional information and any scientific evidence that might be required--all the links are there.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Darkness, that is a good example of just saying something is so without providing or referencing evidence. It is telling one story about the way things could have happened. It is a theory; an educated guess. It has not been tested against other plausible theories.

Of course, I\'m familiar. That is what I was calling into question in the first place.

<hr /></blockquote>

DrSmellThis

09-10-2003, 05:51 PM

Misc points are all I have time for at this moment:

*I\'m not interested in a strictly biological reduction of psychology (trying to cram the human mind in to a comfortable place they already \"know\"), but in a psychological psychology, that incorporates biology (and other disciplines) in a big-picture context. Trying to reduce all psychology to simplistic (e.g., simple hormonal paths) biology is silly, especially when one who tries to do so doesn\'t care to understand psychology in the first place. Most of being human and the psyche is about consciousness first and foremost -- arguably all of it. It is superficial and silly to say there is no cognitive mediation (no thinking, no meaning-formation and no processing)or that you don\'t care about it. Ok, then you won\'t know much about humans. Ignorance is free and everywhere found. Cognition is what the brain does. It is meaningless to say these are not important for your biology, because you constantly pretend to talk about psychology. Cognition is also not important for studying rocks, but we are studying people. If you want to talk only about biology, then make statements only about certain biochemical reactions, and simple physiological process, but don\'t pretend to be able to make sense when you are talking about whole people. You don\'t.

*You think my theory is not a theory because you don\'t know what a scientific theory is, nor what psychology is. Just because something isn\'t a biology theory just like the ones you know doesn\'t mean it isn\'t a plausible, well constructed theory. Mystical???! Narrative is quite often accepted as the best and most practical everyday model for the human mind from a big-picture standpoint; and has also proven to be the most useful model for counselors to help people in our current funding-restricted mental health environment, as it enables quick progress. Narrative can (and does)incorporate biology, but superficial biology cannot incorporate narrative, or the human mind. I have a \"peer-reviewed\" published series of studies I conducted which support the validity of narrative. There are many other such studies. Now, I don\'t mean to insult biologists, as there are many who do take a bigger approach. I don\'t even think you can speak for biologists, since you are not one.

*No funding for null-hypotheses?? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Most funded studies employ null hypotheses! Arguably, all good scientific research tests null hypotheses (although I think that too, is a bit extreme). Again -- you suffer from holes in general knowledge of scientific research.

*You probably would think the psychologists at your conference had nothing to say, as you seem to think no one in any discipline but your own (which I\'m not even sure what that discipline is) has anything to say.

*I read your award winning article (which is a lit review), and also saw no evidence there (or research reviewed) for the extremist position you take. For instance, the one you linked above only show that one scent can be conditioned to another. That is irrelevant to arguing about visual anything.

*Thanks for the very recent link above -- it is one of few new studies on human pheromones role in sexuality I haven\'t seen, as there ARE so few of them in this very new and immature field (compared to other fields of study).

*People are not the same as rats, and studying them cannot profitably be the same, lest one\'s position on humanity becomes as I have just described.

*You still insist I argue for visual primacy (I only said it was significant), /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif even though I have obviously never done so in any post! Others have here, but not me. You are acting as if you need to paint someone into some extreme position you know how to \"defeat\".

*There are \"no other\" plausible biology theories... So what?? There are also none in architecture or mechanical engineering. Most people don\'t turn first to biologists or architects for the most fundamental questions about the human psyche, behavior or experience, but to psychology. Psychologists (and other social scientists), accordingly, have done all the work in such areas. The responsible, professional conclusion is simply that more needs to be done.

*Still, all you can say is that \"there is no visual model.\" Who cares? As I have pointed out so many times, the phero field is immature, and the necessary research has not been done yet on humans. Now is not the time for arrogance about what \"one thing\" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif causes physical attraction. Such arrogance is just masturbation to me. And new research on the bigger picture of attraction would not have to imitate biology studies on olfaction, as you state, as psychological/neuroscience has research methods and dependent measures (research methods term)of it\'s own.

*Give me a break. I bet quite a few forum members have seen most of the human sexuality pheromone research -- there is so little of it (although it has grown, thankfully). I\'ve been dissapointed several times searching the literature in vain for something new.

*Psychology is still one of the most popular majors. The other social sciences, such as social work, sociology, economoics, and anthropology are doing quite well too. Most biologists respect these fields. Dying??? There are a dozen social scientists on every street corner where I live. That is a bit grandiose and ignorant of you to say we are dying. Who are you to comment on the state of psychology or the other human sciences? A week ago you did not even vaguely know the definition of the word \"social science.\" If you knew anything about psychology, you would know that psychologists already incorporate biology, and are increasingly doing this whenever possible -- but they are incorporating and integrating it. There is no conflict between the biology and social science; unless you take a narrow, shallow, and disjoined view of one or the other.

*Basically, you seem on thin ice whenever you generalize to human nature, but are already convinced you know THE TRUTH. Therefore, why let in new information? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif In fact, dozens of fields of study are all BS and dying anyway, so we don\'t need to listen to them!

*Getting in a peer reviewed journal does not mean your conclusions are sound, or that you have correctly interpeted the research.

*Yes, some links are there, but that research still doesn\'t support your narrow, piecemeal, and superficial position. Please, give me a reference to even one article that supports your extreme position. I haven\'t seen one yet. Those referenced above, and in your \"flagship\" article surely don\'t cut it (your article does shows pheros have effects in humans, which I agree with and have praised you for -- clearly the research supports it.). If you are unwilling to provide it, then don\'t expect critical thinkers here to believe you. You don\'t need us anyway. You can always go back to preaching to your choir.

*By the way, darkness was not talking to me, he was talking to xvs. He wasn\'t saying you went over my points already at all (which you didn\'t). I also misunderstood that post.

*So you agree that you say there is no room for consciousness, thinking, awareness, cognition, or the mind in your biological world-view of human relationships and sexuality. Fine. That of course means that if such psychic things were in fact important you would have no way of knowing about them! It seems this is indeed what is happening. It seems sad that a member of Mensa would curse himself in such a way. But we\'ll all be dead soon, and a new generation of thinkers will take over.

jvkohl

09-13-2003, 07:47 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

*So you agree that you say there is no room for consciousness, thinking, awareness, cognition, or the mind in your biological world-view of human relationships and sexuality.

<hr /></blockquote>

I keep trying to say that consciousness is not required in a biological explanation of mammalian, including human, sexuality. You don\'t get it, but still summarize with your twist. Of course consciousness is involved, in humans. But we would reproduce given our mammalian biological heritage, even if we were not conscious beings. Thus, consciousness is not required.

Others have critiqued your approach much better than I.

For example see:

http://pedantry.blogspot.com/2003_03_02_pedantry_archive.html (\"http://pedantry.blogspot.com/2003_03_02_pedantry_archive.html\")

excerpt: \"Stripped of adaptationist thinking, \"evolutionary psychology\" ceases to be evolutionary. It becomes merely biological psychology and conventional sociology. Stripped of its ability to associate behaviours to genes without having to present pathological theories, it looses everything that distinguishes it from ordinary social science. The grand conclusions advanced by its luminaries loose all force. WIthout this veneer of scientism, they represent nothing but political rhetoric and should be judged in the same way as all other political rhetoric.\"

I tend to ignore the rhetoric, and strongly favor a biological model that has extraordinary explanatory power. Obviously, you favor the rhetoric, which explains nothing.

Holmes

09-14-2003, 06:26 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
and a new generation of thinkers will take over.

<hr /></blockquote>

Yes. Scary thought, isn\'t it? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Holmes

DrSmellThis

09-14-2003, 08:37 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
I tend to ignore the rhetoric, and strongly favor a biological model that has extraordinary explanatory power. Obviously, you favor the rhetoric, which explains nothing.

<hr /></blockquote>I get it, I just don\'t agree with it. I just won\'t adopt a biologically myopic and superficial mind-set, or give myself a lobotomy so I can agree. I\'ll agree when you bring something to the table that passes muster. I appreciate you are trying, but frankly you have not earned your cockiness, scientifically speaking, as much as I admire your entrepreneurial prowess.

You have a habit of talking without regard to the meanings of intellectual terms used, but I guess that might just be lack of formal training (here I am trying to be generous, as I know large vocabularies are one of the most common correlates in those who score well on standardized IQ tests.).

You apparently know bigotry toward non-biologically restricted sciences well. But you adequately understand neither theory of rhetoric (which is rooted in Plato\'s Gorgias. You are way more rhetorical throughout this thread than I, as I articulate a logical framework more often -- which is both the precise opposite of rhetoric and the prescribed antidote to it.) nor scientific explanation (Quick, tell me what determines explanatory power in science!? How about distinguishing theoretical from mathematical explanation, or prediction from explanation? These are all relevant issues here, but I can\'t discuss them by myself.)for the purposes of even discussing that cockily ignorant (my very favorite human quality, comedy-wise) statement you just made. I will mention:

\"Obviously...Extraordinary...Nothing\"!

These are rhetorical flourishes. By rhetoric I mean empty, base emotional appeals in place of reason, meant only to persuade, according to a some motive besides truth-seeking (e.g., will to power. With your misleading, exaggerated accusations, you sound like you are desparate about book sales, or something.); which is the traditional definition of rhetoric.

Just keep talking about human nature and how your theory about a few organic chemicals, a small part, of a small part, of a small part, of human sexual relationships; explains it all better than all the information from other sciences combined; information which you feel no need to integrate into any big picture that resembles the everyday world of human relationships in their richness. You are not doing yourself any favors. Scientific humility is so much easier, and is absolutely essential to all good science.

Scientifically speaking, nothing is \'extraordinary\' about the \'explanatory power\' of a theory (jvk\'s) that is incapable of ever accounting for more than a tiny part of the variation in the phenomena of ultimate interest, such as the everyday experience of attraction, desire for intimacy, and human actions that flow from it). The explanatory power of my theory is far more than yours on those formal grounds. Explanatory power has to do with testability also, but we are equal there, as both theories are well testable, if you understand human scientific research. It is scientifically irrelevant to talk about how much my fledgeling theory in fact explains, as that rides on whatever research would/could flow from it. So you continue to talk like something other than a professional scientist, per se.

I don\'t know what you were thinking when you decided that article you just posted was relevant, as I was not offering an evolutionary explanation at all. That rather weak article could only be a sound critique of some hypothetical evolutionary psychologist, who is trying to do just what a evolutionary biologist does without the biology, and whom we have good reason to judge only according to the standards of biology. (unlikely conditions, indeed) Complaining that psychological research falls short on identifying genes is like saying Michael Jordan threw too few touchdown passes to be considered a great athlete. He isn\'t a football player, and psychologists aren\'t biologists, thank you very much. How well psychology explains sexuality is to be measured against the rich content of everyday stories of sexual living, and how useful such explanations are to counselors in practice, etc. You have to know just barely enough to be dangerous to think, for instance, that explaining everything but the genes involved in some huge complex multi-systemic phenomenon is explaining \"nothing\". Maybe you think all science is evolutionary biology, or should be. You are all about what is needed in biology (consciousness vs. none, etc.)

And regail us please, how exactly would humans be mating just finewithout consciousness??! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I can see it now -- scientists behind a glass waiting patiently for two pheromone soaked, completely vegetative, deeply comatose individuals to mate. Sexuality without consciousness is not only not sexuality. It is not even human life. Hilarious.

jvkohl

09-15-2003, 08:50 AM

I don\'t have time to continue useless discussion, but will attempt to show others why I think the discussion is useless.
---------------------
DrSmellTHis <blockquote>Quote:<hr />

*So you agree that you say there is no room for consciousness, thinking, awareness, cognition, or the mind in your biological world-view of human relationships and sexuality.

<hr /></blockquote>

JVK <blockquote>Quote:<hr />

...consciousness is not required in a biological explanation of mammalian, including human, sexuality. [cut] Of course consciousness is involved... But we would reproduce..., even if we were not conscious beings. Thus, consciousness is not required.

<hr /></blockquote>

After several more pages of debate/rhetoric DrSmellThis:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
And regail us please, how exactly would humans be mating just finewithout consciousness??!... Sexuality without consciousness is not only not sexuality. It is not even human life. Hilarious.

<hr /></blockquote>

I extend a mammalian biological model to explain human sexuality. Other mammals are not conscious, and still reproduce. When I say that humans would still reproduce, without consciousness, DrSmellThis informs us that this is not sexuality, while pretending to respond to something I said; twisting my words and their meaning to a ridiculous assertion that I did not make:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Sexuality without consciousness is not only not sexuality. It is not even human life. Hilarious.

<hr /></blockquote>

Sexual behavior without consciousness is characteristic of other mammals and the biological basis of mammalian sexuality extends well to humans. Again, \"consciousness is not required in a biological model of mammalian, including human, sexuality.\"

An overview of posts to this Forum would almost undoubtedly leave the impression that women (and men) are not thinking about their response to pheromones, which is conditioned to occur just as it is in other mammals. Minimally, the mammalian first response, and a woman\'s first response, are based on unconscious affect, rather than any conscious (thinking) cause and effect. Pheromonal processing does not require consciousness to elicit a hormone response! Minimally, all further responses to mammalian pheromones are conditioned as part of a hormonal response that leads to a behavioral response (or lack of one). In humans, as with all mammals, the hormone response has been shown to occur upon exposure to pheromones. There is no evidence that indicates consciousness is required for this response to occur.

DrSmellThis shows that he cannot understand what I have repeatedly said/written. Instead, he continues his rhetoric, and continues to twist my words. Unfortunately, this is very typical of my experience in debates with psychologists, who often attempt to mislead others. As I have indicated: they just don\'t get it! DrSmellThis berates me for my lack of formal education. It is evident to me that his formal education has not led to an understanding either of mammalian biology or its consequences. He continues to show that he just doesn\'t get it. Perhaps those of us who are informally educated (or less educated) have an advantage in this regard.

nonscents

09-15-2003, 10:30 AM

1. Science (I make no distinction between natural and social) seeks the best explanation of the phenomena under investigation.

This means that a priori commitments to either biological or cognitive models are unscientific limitations on the acquisition of knowledge.

2. Big words, bad spelling, big credentials: They don\'t mean squat.

Ad hominem arguments add to the bread and circuses atmosphere. But again, they do not advance the acquisition of knowledge.

3. There really is more to explaining human behavior than is contained in Behaviorist or Pavlovian models.

Language acquisition, for example cannot be explained.

These models do have the advantage of eliminating any reference to consciousness. But they lack broad explanatory power.

4. Mones influence human sexual behavior and human hormone levels.

Just like JVK says in the epilogue (or afterword, or whatever it\'s called, I don’t have it in front of me) of the revised edition of his book.

5. The evidence does not support the claim that mones determine human sexual behavior.

A while back I posted a link about a US soldier who seduced, via e-mail, large numbers of stateside women. They all thought they were engaged and many had shelled out thousands of dollars on a wedding dress. All of this was a conditioned response? Possibly. But very very unlikely.

JVK can rightly respond, if not mones, then what? Very good question. Since DrST likes Plato so much, I will socratically argue that I am the wisest interlocutor in this thread because I know that I do not know the best explanation of human sexual behavior. I am unlikely to sell many products telling people I am ignorant, nor am I likely to attract large numbers of followers. But I will be speaking the truth. And those who claim that they do have good explanations of human sexual behavior are, most likely, like the sophists Socrates opposed. They do a brisk business. To advance historically from Greek to Latin: caveat emptor.

6. Prediction and control, alone, provide an insufficient basis for scientific understanding.

If you can predict and control human behavior in a few very narrowly constrained kinds of environments, you do not necessarily have a superior theory. If you remove all variables except scent, no doubt you can demonstrate that scent is the determinate variable in selecting a sexual partner. You have satisfied the criteria of prediction and control.

But you have not demonstrated that in authentic social environments chemical signals trump kinesthetic, visual, or aural stimuli.

Prediction and control, alone, is insufficient. Prediction and control in complex social environments is the gold standard. Show me that you can take a group of socially inept, highly asymmetric, short, overweight, middle-aged men, splash some mones on them, and make it so that fertile young women reliably have sexual intercourse with them and you’ll make your case and I will trumpet your success.

Irish

09-15-2003, 10:31 AM

Ah, the debate rages on. There are some fine papers showing visual \'hardwiring\' from birth related to inter-personal issues (apart from olfaction), but in my laziness I\'ve decided it\'s easier to ignore them. My model becomes so much easier to explain that way. Allow me to use a simple argument to illustrate my model:

PREMISE: JVK is right about all his claims. Attraction is SOLELY based on olfaction and olfaction-conditioned influences. All attraction is either olfaction-driven or may be traced back through a olfaction-conditioned channel.
FACT: Modern hygiene practices eliminate/severely modify the natural phero scent of humans. Our scrubbed bodies resemble more than anything a juvenile scent signature. Added chemical perfumes resemble nothing in the animal kingdom. We have substituted a juvenile and/or non-human artificial scent for our natural human phero signature.
CONCLUSION: It is therefore virtually impossible for modern humans to be attracted to adults of the opposite sex. We are attracted to children or the deodorants/soaps we were exposed to growing up (after all, we were deprived of normal exposure to the natural scents of our own species, unlike every other member of the animal kingdom). We therefore are a species of pedophiles and chemo-philes.

What? Don\'t like my logic?? I dare you to present a model that explains why humans can have normal sexual orientation, given that ALL attraction is olfaction-driven, and modern humans deliberately alter and modify their natural scents. See - you haven\'t presented such a model, therefore my model is NECESSARILY correct. Case closed. I love science. So much easier than thinking…

Irish

09-15-2003, 12:32 PM

Kim Wallen has written a brilliant paper showing how in the higher primates sexual behavior is influenced but not controlled by the endocrine system (unlike other mammals). The work is supported by clever experimentation and is thoughtfully extended to humans. I\'ve cited that paper in previous posts.

There\'s no doubt in my mind pheros influence our sexual behavior. Plenty of doubt in my mind that there are no other independent channels of sexual attraction. Wasn\'t it Sobel that advanced the multiple channel theory of attraction? Sobel certainly has credibility in the \'hard biology\' arena of phero research (lovely brain scan photos of phero activation).

belgareth

09-15-2003, 12:35 PM

The muliple channel theory seems to encompass the available data better than anything else I\'ve heard argued so far.

DrSmellThis

09-15-2003, 02:31 PM

Nice posts, belgareth, nonscents and irish. There is no quarrel here about the well known raw findings of human pheromone research, per se; there is rather about the way the findings are interpreted. You all summarize the divide between jvk and myself fairly well. There are two very different languages/realities at stake here; and my earnest(if clumsily ad hominem) efforts at bridging them have been unsuccessful, since communication was still sorely lacking after all that.

I falsely assumed the mainstream language of research methodology and theoretical science would provide a common medium for discussing what turned out to be shifting, ghost-like, and too slippery to pin down. I reacted in frustration to the unnecessary lack of forward movement and good faith communication, by overly dramatizing points that seemingly weren\'t heard -- Turns out that didn\'t work too well. However, I am glad that at least several others are able to grasp the basic issues clearly while adding their unique twist. It is a pleasure to hear measured and balanced opinions. Indeed no one here has a grip on Truth. I just threw a theoretical sketch in the hat to suggest that there is more to the picture.

The process of science might have a bit of a handle on a portion of truth with a little \'t\'.

Reasonable, testable theories that fit existing data pass muster, and are then tested in the lab and field. They are taken seriously as a theoretically related set of testable hypotheses. They receive more or less support down the road, and are modified along the way. We have to sort of suspend our beliefs and let the chips fall where they may. But ultimately, rational argument is the main tool we have left to distinguish theories with broad explanatory power from among those that merely fit the data in some relatively small number of studies. It would be interesting to have another scientist here that agrees with JVK\'s ambitious interpretation of the basic research.

jvkohl

09-15-2003, 04:21 PM

nonsents approach:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I will socratically argue that I am the wisest interlocutor in this thread because I know that I do not know the best explanation of human sexual behavior.

<hr /></blockquote>

Spoken like a philosopher. The study of what is known will lead to the best explanation. What is known is that pheromones activate genes in cells that secrete the hormone that regulates all of mammalian sexual behavior.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I am unlikely to sell many products telling people I am ignorant, nor am I likely to attract large numbers of followers. But I will be speaking the truth.

<hr /></blockquote>

I do not find it admirable that philosophers truthfully say: I don\'t know. It takes no education/study to say this; why study anything? You could find many followers, since followers, in general, don\'t know either. The problem here is that since none of you know, who will be the leader, and who will be the followers.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
6. Prediction and control, alone, provide an insufficient basis for scientific understanding.

<hr /></blockquote>

Predicting a cause and effect relationship and demonstrating this relationship in a controlled experiment is an exceptional basis for scientific understanding.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Prediction and control in complex social environments is the gold standard. Show me that you can take a group of socially inept, highly asymmetric, short, overweight, middle-aged men, splash some mones on them, and make it so that fertile young women reliably have sexual intercourse with them and you’ll make your case and I will trumpet your success.

<hr /></blockquote>

I have never attempted to make the case that pheromones act as aphrodisiacs. You offer yet another example of how to mislead others with regard to claims that I never made. A subtle twist is all that\'s required.

jvkohl

09-15-2003, 04:26 PM

Irish writes:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Don\'t like my logic?? I dare you to present a model that explains why humans can have normal sexual orientation, given that ALL attraction is olfaction-driven, and modern humans deliberately alter and modify their natural scents. See - you haven\'t presented such a model, therefore my model is NECESSARILY correct. Case closed. I love science. So much easier than thinking…

<hr /></blockquote>

The model you request was detailed in my Neuroendocrinology Letters paper. Subsequently, the model for homosexual orientation, other orientation, and for paraphilias was presented in my Across Species Comparisons and Psychopathology paper. Both papers are available on-line and are linked from my web site. (Am I repeating myself?)

jvkohl

09-15-2003, 04:43 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Sobel certainly has credibility in the \'hard biology\' arena of phero research (lovely brain scan photos of phero activation).

<hr /></blockquote>

Irish: Noam Sobel introduced the work of I.Savic in an issue of Neuron which I\'m sure is cited on my web site. Savic et. al. showed that pheromones from men or from women activated different part of the brain in men and in women. This brilliant demonstration helps focus on the need to incorporate a sensory stimulus that varies between males and females, and a sex difference in the processing of this stimulus. This focus allows one to rule out the importance of sensory stimuli from the social environment that is, biologically speaking, not different in males and females in its production or interpretation. The difference in the stimulus and the difference in interpretation are required before one attempts to explain sex differences in behavior that are due to sensory input from the social environment.

I am also very familiar with Kim Wallen\'s work, and not at all surprised that he stops short of using a mammalian model to explain human sexuality. He has certainly provided many details from primate studys, but also incorporates cognition as is appropriate for humans. The difference between Kim and me is that I don\'t incorporate cognition, as it is not required in the mammalian model.

jvkohl

09-15-2003, 04:49 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
The muliple channel theory seems to encompass the available data better than anything else I\'ve heard argued so far.

<hr /></blockquote>

belgareth,
The multiple channel theory encompasses so much data that it has no explanatory power, unless you think \"I don\'t know\" or subjective reports offer a sufficient explanation. There is only one channel (olfaction) that is different in males and females, and no way I know to objectively get past this crucial point.

jvkohl

09-15-2003, 05:38 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Reasonable, testable theories that fit existing data pass muster, and are then tested in the lab and field. They are taken seriously as a theoretically related set of testable hypotheses. They receive more or less support down the road, and are modified along the way. We have to sort of suspend our beliefs and let the chips fall where they may. But ultimately, rational argument is the main tool we have left to distinguish theories with broad explanatory power from among those that merely fit the data in some relatively small number of studies. It would be interesting to have another scientist here that agrees with JVK\'s ambitious interpretation of the basic research.

<hr /></blockquote>

Ambitious interpretation of basic research? This is not my interpretion, it is biological fact:

Mammalian pheromones activate genes in cells of tissue in the brain, the most important organ of any organ system involved in behavior. This gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system pathway is essential to any biologically based explanation of how our social environment influences sexual behavior.

It would be interesting to find any other scientist with even a cursory understanding of biology who did not agree with what you refer to as my ambitious interpretation. Others may not agree with extension of this explanation to human sexual behavior, but nearly every biologist I know uses a mammalian model to explain and to interpret research findings.

I will close my participation in this discussion with quotes from the last paragraph of a recent Scent of Eros book review:

\"In short, this lack of a critical approach undermines the validity of the book\'s contents. However it should be remembered that this book is aimed at a general audience...\"

My comments on this Forum also are aimed at a general audience.

\"For a more academic consideration of the field by the authors, I would recommend Kohl\'s more recent review paper (Kohl et al, 2001), which addresses the issues outlined above.\"

Even if this Forum were more academically oriented, it would not allow for a more academic consideration. Minimally, an extensive review of the available data is required (I\'ve published a 16-page review, that cannot be detailed or duplicated in a Forum discussion.) So, rather than address any details or discuss them, DrSmellThis focusses on cognition and what I have not shown/proven, rather than on my model and its explanatory power. The model integrates many biologically based disciplines. This discussion no longer has anything to do with biology, and most of you should already understand why I rarely enter debates with psychologists. As I\'ve repeatedly said: They just don\'t get it!

Bernard

09-15-2003, 06:13 PM

is it possible for jkohl to add in new fragrance to the scent of ero so that we have choice to choose ? eg having lavender in the oil /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Holmes

09-15-2003, 06:28 PM

Yeah, or no fragrance. A choice would be great.

Holmes

Irish

09-16-2003, 06:08 AM

My tongue was firmly in cheek in that post – trying to show how it is possible to mix true facts with a dubious premise and end up with an extreme and extremely bogus conclusion. Nevertheless, the underlying point in that remains: If olfaction is the sole determinant of human sexuality, and virtually no civilized human is exposed to natural human scent anymore (modern hygiene), why aren’t our orientation and sexual process not extremely disturbed? We seem to be orienting and copulating just fine as a species, even with our deodorized and perfumed bodies. I bring this up to point out there MAY be other pathways of sexuality/attraction, independent of olfaction. The fact you point out that homosexuality may involve an alternate pheromone process is not surprising (I believe you), sounds quite plausible, and has nothing to do with answering the above question I pose.

If I had to bet the house I’d say olfaction has precisely as much to do with sexual attraction, as the removing/muffling of olfaction (through nearly universal modern hygiene) has impact on modern body-washing humans. That is to say, I’m convinced olfaction has some important effect, but when we seriously disturb it as a species (with hygiene) we still manage to orient and copulate pretty well. There must be other factors at play.

For evidence we have a culture-wide experiment to observe: our un-natural (from an animal viewpoint) removal of body scent and deliberate addition of artificial non-human scents:hygiene. We are turning down (if not off) the natural scent signal, and covering/scrambling it with artificial scent signals. We should be able to observe the importance of olfaction by noticing the effect of its removal/disruption via hygiene. The result is apparently minimal - we are not all in fact pedophiles or antiperspirant fetishists as I sarcastically referred to before. We find a way to normal sexuality without experiencing the natural human scent signal over our lifetime.

As far as the Kim Wallen reference, I was bolstering the specific point that hormones are not the sole determinant of human (and other higher primates) sexual behavior. Rank in the group and real-time social settings carry the day and can cause actions in opposition to the individual’s hormonal condition (in primates – not other mammals). Wallen goes so far as to say that the sexual activity of the higher primates is emancipated from their hormonal condition (hormones affect motivation obviously, but the forebrain predominates in sex behavior in higher primates and can override hormones in either direction). I invite those interested to read for themselves; the work is specific and convincing, and case studies of human castrates and others are used to extend the premise to humans. The experimentation behind his work is well designed and to the point.

Of course we can ignore it if we choose, or refute it if we can, or imply Wallen is an evil idiot, or … maybe even accept his work and attempt to incorporate it into our thinking – until a fuller explanation enhances or replaces his findings. Nah…that’s too hard.

To be a little serious, I think the crux of the disagreements here tend to be your position that olfaction is the SOLE influence on sexual activity/development (directly or by conditioning), based on evidence presented. The evidence is compelling for olfactory effect, the evidence for sole effect is not quite there. Plus I personally have read material that runs counter to some of your claims. This isn\'t an attack - but an attempt to absorb all relevant evidence and find the best position that incorporates it all. This position will (and should) change as more evidence comes forth. If you want to read something funny, read a 50 year old science book - scientific data and understanding evolve. I\'m not ready to follow you as a guru (unless you can lay out sufficient evidence, and effectively refute credible counter-evidence and positions). Credible questions and critiques should be addressed on their merits, without reference to the possible mental inferiority of those making them, if you you want to convince those who aren\'t quite on board with your positions yet.

Challenging others to produce a better \'model\' has nothing to do with the truth of your own model, nor does it prove it. It certainly didn\'t make the earth-centric \'model\' of the solar system any more true during the time before the sun-centric model was finally advanced.

Off topic, I also joined Mensa, but quickly gave up on the meetings. The random company at the local pub is consistently more entertaining and informative. And open-minded.

jvkohl

09-16-2003, 08:29 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
the underlying point in that remains: If olfaction is the sole determinant of human sexuality, and virtually no civilized human is exposed to natural human scent anymore (modern hygiene), why aren’t our orientation and sexual process not extremely disturbed?\"

<hr /></blockquote>

Olfaction is not the sole determinant! Despite modern hygeine, all humans continue to be exposed to pheromones as components of natural body odor. Pheromones do not need to be consciously perceived to elicit the hormonal changes that influence behavior. (How many times have I written this?) Our orientation and sexual processes are disturbed because few people recognize the underlying biological basis for their sexual development. Minimally, the understanding that women are typically more susceptible to men\'s pheromones around ovulation, might explain some extra pair copulations (adultery?) when a woman is most likely to get pregnant. Understanding that men prefer the scent of an ovulatory woman, and that a novel scent stimulus typically is more powerful might explain why many men find it difficult to resist \"hitting on\" a novel female.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
We seem to be orienting and copulating just fine as a race, even with our deodorized and perfumed bodies.

<hr /></blockquote>

Just fine? As a race we are the most perverted of any species on the planet. Other mammals are atypical when they exhibit odor related paraphilias; rubber, leather, shoe, underwear fetishes, for example, not to mention pedophilia, B&D, S&M etc.

Besides, deodorized does not mean we lack pheromone production, and perfume does not limit the pheromonal effect on hormones. One study indicated that women choose perfumes that enhance their genetically diverse scent.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
there MAY be other pathways of sexuality/attraction, independent of olfaction.

<hr /></blockquote>

There are _NO_ other direct pathways from sexually dimorphic social-environmental sensory stimuli to sexually dimorphic processing; sexually dimorphic hormonal changes; and sexually dimorphic behavior. Think about this, please. It\'s simple to say that there may be other pathways, but much more difficult to make such an assertion when you realize what the pathway must contain: genes in hormone secreting nerve cells of tissue in the brain, for example, is the first criteria that must be met. From my ASCAP paper: \"Social phenomena are biological phenomena and the interaction between sensory input from the environment and neuroendocrinology is a general rule in endocrine relationships that underlie behavior.\" Yes, there are rules involved here! Unless, that is, you take a psychological approach where virtually anything goes. No need for hormones, or sexual dimorphism at all with a psychological approach. Just tell people that human sexual behavior is very complex or that it can only be understood by examining subjective reports (case studies). Forget biology, entirely, and you\'re free to invent whatever theory you wish.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
As far as the Kim Wallen reference, I was bolstering the specific point that hormones are not the sole determinant of human (and other higher primates) sexual behavior.

<hr /></blockquote>

Does anyone still think that this point needs to be bolstered? Conscious choice so obviously overrides the influence of hormones in higher primates that it is ridiculous to think otherwise. That you bolter this point in correspondence to me, suggests that I am an idiot who needs to learn that hormones don\'t determine conscious choice.

Still, when the influence of hormones rules, behavior is animalistic. So, the question is at what point does conscious choice enter the picture. DrSmellThis indicated that sexual behavior has its onset with puberty, which is very misleading. Males and females are born with genetically predisposed characteristics of their adult sexual behavior. But, even if there was validity for such an indication, questions remain. For example, is adult oral-genital sex simply an animalistic response to pheromones, or is it a conscious choice. Perhaps there\'s some visual stimulus that makes oral-genital sex popular (sarcasm intended here). How did this visual signal manage to draw us to an area of potent pheromone production and distribution? What are you looking for, down there?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Wallen goes so far as to say that the sexual activity of the higher primates is emancipated from their hormonal condition (hormones affect motivation obviously, but the forebrain predominates in sex behavior in higher primates and can override hormones in either direction).

<hr /></blockquote>

So? Kim does not deny the influence of pheromones on sexual development, and will never deny that they are very much responsible for the properly timed reproductive sexual behavior of his primates. I\'m relatively certain he would agree that human oral-genital sex is not forebrain dependent, and know that he agrees with nearly everything I\'ve written. His comments to me are limited to toning down my approach, so that others don\'t get the idea that I\'m saying pheromones are all that matter.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Of course we can ignore it if we choose, or refute it if we can, or imply Wallen is an evil idiot, or … maybe even accept his work and attempt to incorporate it into our thinking – until a fuller explanation enhances or replaces his findings. Nah…that’s too hard. Bull-headed dogmatism is easier and more fun! I’m right you’re wrong! Those that disagree are too dumb to understand what I’m saying!!

<hr /></blockquote>

I\'m tired of people indicating that I am unaware of other issues, that I am dogmatic, or that I consider myself too intellectually superior, or am too close-minded to discuss the issues. I consistently see that others think such accusations are called for, simply because of a general failure to look at what I\'ve written. Instead most people respond by telling me what I meant. I\'ve been involved in an endless series of debates, since 1992 when I first presented my mammalian model and extended it to humans. Still, there is no other biologically based model linking nature and nurture at the genetic level, which is the crucial link between our social environment (nurture) and our genetic predisposition (nature). What does that tell me? Most people would rather continue to believe that humans are primarily visual creatures, or that, minimally, the influence of pheromones has little to do with human sexual behavior. If true, how did we manage to survive as a species, long enough to have such debates? Just because we are now able to indulge ourselves in academic debate does not mean we have risen above the biological underpinnings of our behavior. Simply put, as a species, we\'re not nearly as intelligent as we think we are. Perhaps this is because we don\'t think about unconscious affect (on hormones), and the role that it plays in conditioning our behavior, so that we act without thinking--like other animals.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Off topic, I also joined Mensa...

<hr /></blockquote>

Congratulations! Some of the local groups are more interesting than others. Regional and National gatherings are always fun.

nonscents

09-16-2003, 08:47 AM

JVK wrote <blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Conscious choice so obviously overrides the influence of hormones in higher primates that it is ridiculous to think otherwise.

<hr /></blockquote>

So, in addition to the heat, we have generated some light.

Holmes

09-16-2003, 08:54 AM

But, remember: light without heat is generally a crashing bore. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Holmes

Irish

09-16-2003, 10:37 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Does anyone still think that this point needs to be bolstered? Conscious choice so obviously overrides the influence of hormones in higher primates that it is ridiculous to think otherwise. That you bolter this point in correspondence to me, suggests that I am an idiot who needs to learn that hormones don\'t determine conscious choice.

<hr /></blockquote>

I made this point not because I think anyone is an idiot, but because you seemed to make the point earlier that hormonal change was necessary to a sexual response. The paper I refer to clearly indicates otherwise - that is in fact the thrust of the paper. Conscious thought (or some other pathway) can not only override hormonal prompting in primates incl. humans, it can generate sexual reponse in the absence of hormonal changes. I was pointing out what some might consider a factual error in your argument, and offering evidence, which one can weigh in the light of whether they believe Wallen or not.

Again I encourage intersested readers to check out the material for themselves.

felly

09-16-2003, 10:54 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
The model you request was detailed in my Neuroendocrinology Letters paper. Subsequently, the model for homosexual orientation, other orientation, and for paraphilias was presented in my Across Species Comparisons and Psychopathology paper. Both papers are available on-line and are linked from my web site. (Am I repeating myself?)

<hr /></blockquote>

Maybe, maybe not. But whatever. You sound like a dork who doesn\'t get out of his own head much. I\'ve read your posts and the others and cruised this forum for over a month now. And while I don\'t know which side of the argument I fall on (and, quite frankly, I don\'t care), you need to chill out.

I think what people MAY be trying to point out to you is that, while it is POSSIBLE that chemical signals are the primary sexual catalysts, they may not be the ONLY deciding factor. And, no matter how precise you get with your instrumentation and your experimentation, the chances are VERY LIKELY, you\'re missing a few pieces of the puzzle.

Besides, relying only on pheromonal triggers seems like just a good excuse not to develop your personality, or your capabilities of interacting with human beings (male or female). While that may be good for someone who\'s creating pheromone products (and for the people buying them), that sort of single-minded focus (a positive way of saying \"closed-minded\") probably get you laid very often.

Unless pheromones are the only sexual trigger.

Felly

Mtnjim

09-16-2003, 02:09 PM

\"Maybe, maybe not. But whatever. You sound like a dork who doesn\'t get out of his own head much. I\'ve read your posts and the others and cruised this forum for over a month now.\"

GREAT, some dildo who has \"cruised the forum for a month now\" and has established NO credability insults someone WITH credability as his FIRST post.

\"Besides, relying only on pheromonal triggers seems like just a good excuse not to develop your personality, or your capabilities of interacting with human beings (male or female). While that may be good for someone who\'s creating pheromone products (and for the people buying them), that sort of single-minded focus (a positive way of saying \"closed-minded\") probably get you laid very often.\"

AND if you had \"cruised the forum for a month\" you would have noted that it is repeatedly pointed out that ~mones are only ONE tool. There have been repeated comments that personality and social skills must be combined with ~mones, that ~mones WILL NOT do the job on their own!!

Just my humble opinion!

Holmes

09-16-2003, 02:48 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
AND if you had \"cruised the forum for a month\" you would have noted that it is repeatedly pointed out that ~mones are only ONE tool. There have been repeated comments that personality and social skills must be combined with ~mones, that ~mones WILL NOT do the job on their own!!

<hr /></blockquote>

Yeah, the fact that mones are hardly a quick-fix substitute for things like body awareness/presentation, social savoir faire, and attitude is a topic which has been addressed quite a bit around here.

Holmes

DrSmellThis

09-16-2003, 05:13 PM

Nonscents, you are correct: prediction and control are not near enough in science. You did a good job explaining why, but jvk \"ignored\" the salient issues you raised, merely asserting you are wrong. JVK seems to like to hear himself repeating \"they don\'t get it.\" How many ways can I put it? Honestly, nothing he has said challenges my faculty for \"getting things\". Much of it is boring, except that I find nonsense itself interesting, on some occasions. Nothing he said or wrote caused a feeling of confusion. I understand as much of the biology as I need to for the meta-discussion. When he has made a legitimate point, I have tried to incorporate it into my mindset. JVK has said nothing new here, and I am not overwhelmed by HIS \"genius\". (It seems \"high school\" that he has to keep reminding people he is in Densa.)

I am not using an exclusively biological perspective, and neither should he; because we are \"meta-biology\" here! We are applying biology within a larger sociologic/psychologic/philosophical discussion with very different standards! He chose to \'go there\'! This is one of the things he does not get, after repeated attempts to help, but should. For instance, I cannot believe he still says \"consciousness is not required in biology\". Indeed, we have moved on to a bigger human picture now because he has forced it on us with his general statements about human nature, on one hand; and denial of responsibility to transcend biologic myopia, on the other hand. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Folks must see the irony here.

Moreover, it seems highly unlikely that all those psychologists, and all other social scientists, just can\'t \"get it.\" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Hmmm... What could it be? It is, on the other hand, increasingly apparent why psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, counselors, and other \"dying breed\" social scientists might all choose not to waste their time debating with him. Perhaps they\'re neither looking to buy anything, stuck in biology class, nor taking public speaking lessons.

drchaos

09-16-2003, 06:22 PM

The apparent evidence suggesting that visual pathways are important in human attractiveness sorting is obvious from the success of the romantic leads in films.

I happen to buy some of JVK\'s hypothesis---generally mammalian biology has been more successful in explaining significant amounts of human behavior than psychology.

This requires a number of things:

1) humans who are visually more attractive made more and better pheros. This has to be demonstrated experimentally.

The obvious place to start is female waist to hip ratio which has a very strong and obvious cross-cultual preference. Basically, can it be unambiguously shown that fat chix make worse pheros?

2) in controlled circumstances, putting \'ugly person\' pheros with pictures of visually-hot subjects would have to be rated lower than \'pretty person\' pheros matched with pictures of the ugly subjects. I would guess that the
results would be that pheros can modify the response but the
magnitude of the effect would be quantitatively less (e.g. measured with logistic regression) than the visual regression variable.

Now what does that show? On one hand somebody says
\"see visual input is more important\", which is true in this measure, but then somebody else says \"but the visual preference is the result of years on years of olfactory conditioning over hundreds of subjects and so represents the
\'time-averaged\' effect, i.e. an olfactory \"prior\" which when combined with the present input leads to the observed result.

One can make up an evolutionary hypothesis (again without experimental evidence) about this. Suppose that the \"best\" mates are those with the superior pheromonal signatures, but because of the vagaries of biology, the actual instantaneous pheromonal production by any animal fluctuates very highly.
You want to mate with that animal which has the highest **average** level of pheromonal quality, but you have to try to *estimate* this from short-term instantaneous observations. The physical shape (i.e. visual input) of potential mates may reflect the cumulative effect of their pheromonal signature over long times and thus may be an approximate, but not-time varying, indicator of the target\'s average pheromonal/sex hormone levels. The best Bayesian estimator will combine the visually-estimated \"prior\" which in addition to the presently smelled/sensed pheromonal output from the animal will give the best estimate of the potential mate\'s true \"underlying\" long-term pheromonal level.

If this scenario were the case, can you say that \"visual input\" is more important than \"pheromonal input\"?

It depends on what you mean by this. It is using visual input as a proxy for pheromones, which may be even more important than actual pheromone output in the presence of strong time-dependent fluctuations.

Bad analogy: the size and quality of a rich man\'s house is more important than the particular amount of actual Benjamins in his wallet at any one moment in time. does this mean that a gold-digger is in truth a plaster and bedroom digger? No, we all know that the cash capability of the man is the true attracting factor but is evaluated indirectly.

jvkohl

09-16-2003, 06:27 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

... you seemed to make the point earlier that hormonal change was necessary to a sexual response. The paper I refer to clearly indicates otherwise - that is in fact the thrust of the paper. Conscious thought (or some other pathway) can not only override hormonal prompting in primates incl. humans, it can generate sexual reponse in the absence of hormonal changes.

<hr /></blockquote>

You appear to be focussed on the adult sexual response, one that is already conditioned by pheromones. Once it is conditioned, it can occur in response to visual input, like the testosterone increase when men watch an erotic video. However, the origin of the sexual response is still hormonal. Kim could not possibly dissagree with this developmental approach. I can\'t imagine how he would explain consciously determined sexual behavior in the absence of hormonal change. If need be, I\'ll read the article again. If this were possible, there would be no need for Viagra. Very difficult to consciously \"will\" an erection, or for that matter female lubrication. A mammalian correlate: Sexually naive males rats that are made anosmic do not mate; experienced males retain their mating behaviors even after being made anosmic--at least for a while. Finally, the lack of a pheromonal effect appears to get to them; they lose interest, most likely because the odor of the female no longer is hormonally rewarding to them.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I was pointing out what some might consider a factual error in your argument, and offering evidence, which one can weigh in the light of whether they believe Wallen or not.

<hr /></blockquote>

Wallen can be believed within the context of his paper. You do not address the context. Simply put, gonadal hormones regulate motivation, not the physical ability to copulate. But would any primate copulate without the motivation provided by gonadal hormones? Indeed, how would any primate experience the desire to copulate in the absence of gonadal hormone motivation? One of us needs to read the article again. Let me know.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Again I encourage intersested readers to check out the material for themselves.

<hr /></blockquote>

The title is Sex and Context: Hormones and Primate Sexual Motivation. Hormones and Behavior 2001: 40; 339-357.

The title sufficiently advises to take the information in context. He is talking about hormonally mediated physical changes that either allow copulation or do not.

<hr /></blockquote>

jvkohl

09-16-2003, 06:30 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
JVK wrote <blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Conscious choice so obviously overrides the influence of hormones in higher primates that it is ridiculous to think otherwise.

<hr /></blockquote>

So, in addition to the heat, we have generated some light.

<hr /></blockquote>

Forcing me to state the obvious is not enlightening.

DrSmellThis

09-16-2003, 06:48 PM

Drchaos: Nice post and welcome. It\'s nice to read posts from someone who understands statistics and research methodology. I do like your \"body as weighted average\" idea. I agree with your idea that biologists have helped explain an unexpectedly large chunk of human behavior too, but disagree strongly that psychology has not. Much of what we take for common sense when talking about ourselves and each other comes originally from psychology (Freud alone would account for a ton). Moreover, meta-studies show psychology can account for approximately 1/3 of human behavior (Cohen, et al), without allowing for free will. When \"free will\" (Doing something because you intend to, based on it\'s meaning for you, when you could have chosen otherwise) is added into the picture, which has only recently become possible methodologically, that proportion goes astronomically higher(like 95%), according to many studies in the past 15 years (Howard, et al). A caveat: I suspect that 95% number would turn out to be a bit lower where the \"complexities\" (and there are some!) of sexual relationships are concerned, mainly due to the newness of the fields of study (e.g., pheromonology, gender studies, phenomenology) likely to produce such explanatory power.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gifI wonder if there is an evoloutionary advantage to being clueless about the opposite sex? To keep us from usurping nature too much?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Still, when the influence of hormones rules, behavior is animalistic. So, the question is at what point does conscious choice enter the picture. DrSmellThis indicated that sexual behavior has its onset with puberty, which is very misleading. Males and females are born with genetically predisposed characteristics of their adult sexual behavior.

<hr /></blockquote>
Well, having a genetic predisposition to exhibit a certain trait or way of experiencing things is different from having that trait or experience.

Conscious choice is always part of the picture, as all humans are conscious when they are awake. The salient quantitative question is, \"What relative weights are given to various sources of motivation by consciousness?\", not, \"When does consciousness enters the picture?\" Such weights, as they are, are neither constant nor predetermined. The weights themselves are emotional meanings that only approach full significance in the context of the person\'s life story. \"Pre-motivations\" that originate preconsciously in the body still develop a conscious \"shell\" and are processed (albeit somewhat in disguise) by the intending consciousness (the will). Hence, in a post above I articulated a narrative theory of human sexual relationships (after JVK asked for a theory). Scores of students have told me they found such a narrative way of thinking helpful for understanding their own relationships, and integrating this understanding, after they wrote \"relationship autobiographies\" as a tool to help them better do so.

In everyday terms, for instance, I might acknowledge my body wants me to seduce someone (Here I might be recognizing the mentally detectable shell, skin, or veneer of an originally preconscious bodily impulse), but not do so, as the dearly held \"heroic\" theme of my life story requires I not, due to some other higher-weighted sub-meaning that this seduction might have for me. The life theme helps organize all my motivations and assign weights to them. Some of that weight is given by biology, but can still be modified.

And no, DST did not say \"sexual behavior has its onset with puberty\", nor would any psychologist. Again jvk in effect demands a free psychology class, via his uninhibited public misrepresentations. I\'m going to have to stop reinforcing this maladjustive behavior by providing the lesson. But for others\' benefit, here goes:

The whole idea and original theory of early childhood sexuality came from Sigmund Freud, an early psychiatrist. Yes, most of our adult brain cells are present at mature birth, but relatively many arent (recent findings), and relatively very few adult neural connections are (also recent findings). Genitosexual awareness is very stripped down (no pun intended /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif)during infancy. The earliest close approximation of adult genitosexual experience, but still a quite impoverished approximation, happens at age 4-6, on the average, during the \"genital stage\". Incidentally After 6 and before puberty comes the \"latency period\", during which sexual awareness receeds somewhat in favor of more purely social and industrious considerations. (\'Ooh, girls...yuck!\') Psychologically, the experience of sexual attraction/romance/sexual relationship is not fully/essentially what it is, generally speaking, at least until adolescent hormonal changes exert their huge effect on neuro cognitive development. That is the largest qualitative change in the psyche. However, Erickson found that the sense of intimacy mostly develops after the sense of identity, on the average, which itself develops in the teen years (approx 14-16). So strictly speaking, adult sexual attraction, per se cannot be paired with pheromones until then, about age 16 and after. I\'m not that strict, however, and will vote for adolescence as a nice middle ground. These stages are not absolute in order or age-limits. But they are generally supported by the research.

So the same pheromone exposure \"means\" (yes, the effect is partly preconscious) something somewhat different to one exposed at puberty versus at infancy. Obviously, pheromones and hormones affect \"sexual\" (in the stripped down biological sense of male versus female, along with orientation-tendency) development from conception onward. But human sexual development occurs gradually, not instantly with birth. Limiting discussion to changes in LH or another hormone in response to pheromonal stimuli could be fine, but only if you want to talk just about biology (also physiology, anatomy or biochemistry), and are uninterested in actual human behavior or experience (i.e., what psychology studies). But if you want to talk scientifically about human experience and actions, you would be wise to study the psychology of it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
...psychological approach where virtually anything goes. No need for hormones, or sexual dimorphism at all with a psychological approach. Just tell people that human sexual behavior is very complex or that it can only be understood by examining subjective reports (case studies). Forget biology, entirely, and you\'re free to invent whatever theory you wish.

<hr /></blockquote>

Actually all those things are important to psychologists, who study the big picture of psychology, inclusive of biological information (Look at the fields of neuropsychology, biopsychology, developmental psychology, geriatric psychology, medical psychology, evolutionary psychology, and psychiatry, for example; and look at my everyday example, above.) as it helps constitute the psyche. Single case studies are in fact rare in universities and professional psychology journals, which document mostly tightly controlled experimental, quasi-experimental, and correlational studies.

I thought JVK said he was leaving the discussion? He continues to make bigoted, false statements about psychologists, even though he has admitted to knowing almost nothing about psychology: \"I know mostly what I read in some 70\'s self help books\". This is very unprofessional. Which self help book says psychologists disregard biology? Was it written by Oprah or Jerry? I would request he try not to speak further about psychology or psychologists, but he is free to spread arrogant disinformation about whatever he wants.

Freedom is a two way street, however.

jvkohl

09-16-2003, 06:50 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
The apparent evidence suggesting that visual pathways are important in human attractiveness sorting is obvious from the success of the romantic leads in films.

<hr /></blockquote>

Due to a lifetime of conditioning by pheromones. Visual input alone cannot elicit hormonal change.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I happen to buy some of JVK\'s hypothesis---generally mammalian biology has been more successful in explaining significant amounts of human behavior than psychology.

This requires a number of things:

1) humans who are visually more attractive made more and better pheros. This has to be demonstrated experimentally.

<hr /></blockquote>

It has through studies of scent and symmetry, scent and genetic diversity, and ovulatory scent cues versus other menstrual cycle-related cues.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
The obvious place to start is female waist to hip ratio which has a very strong and obvious cross-cultual preference. Basically, can it be unambiguously shown that fat chix make worse pheros?

<hr /></blockquote>

No, but fat tissue converts sex steroid hormones, which means that fat chicks produce a somewhat different pheromone signature. Some men prefer fat chicks, most likely because of this variation in scent and its association with sexually rewarding experiences, which are less likely for some men who pursue only \"model\" figures.

\"Visual input as a proxy for pheromones\" is simply saying that the visual response is conditioned to pheromones. But it may say this in a way more people can understand. You seem to have a good grasp of the topic, but it would be nice if you would read my academic papers, which detail the studies that already have been done.

jvkohl

09-16-2003, 07:00 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
GREAT, some dildo who has \"cruised the forum for a month now\" and has established NO credability insults someone WITH credability as his FIRST post.

<hr /></blockquote>

Thank you for sharing your feelings. I was simply going to call this idiot an idiot, but thought that might be a bit harsh.

Irish

09-17-2003, 06:27 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
But would any primate copulate without the motivation provided by gonadal hormones? Indeed, how would any primate experience the desire to copulate in the absence of gonadal hormone motivation? One of us needs to read the article again.

<hr /></blockquote>
To quote the paper:
\"Even though his T was suppressed for almost 8 weeks, this male continued to mount and ejaculate at frequencies not significantly different from his pre-treatment levels.\"

High ranking primates are not limited to hormonally-prompted motivation to copulate. The whole point of the paper is such differences between higher primates and the rest of the mammals.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
However, the origin of the sexual response is still hormonal. Kim could not possibly dissagree with this developmental approach. I can\'t imagine how he would explain consciously determined sexual behavior in the absence of hormonal change

<hr /></blockquote>

To quote the paper:
\"Thus the ability to get an erection to sexual stimuli is not under hormonal control in humans\".
The context is evident throughout the paper: an experimental context that reveals the extent of primate sexual response independent of hormonally prompted desire. The paper shows the difference between higher primates and other mammals in this regard.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
The title sufficiently advises to take the information in context. He is talking about hormonally mediated physical changes that either allow copulation or do not.

<hr /></blockquote>
No. He is talking about the ability of higher primates to copulate independently or even in the absence of hormonally-prompted motivation, the \"...separation of mating ability from hormonally modulated mating interest.\" This is the stated scope of the paper; the context is simply experimental testing of this premise, the conclusions are conservative and superbly supported by his experimentation. The use of the word \'context\' in the title refers to the situational and/or group rank \'context\' affecting or replacing hormonally driven desire. The paper is exciting because it exposes a fundamental difference in hormonally-driven behavior between primates and other mammals.

I do agree one of us needs to re(read) the paper.

Mtnjim

09-17-2003, 09:25 AM

\"Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GREAT, some dildo who has \"cruised the forum for a month now\" and has established NO credability insults someone WITH credability as his FIRST post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for sharing your feelings. I was simply going to call this idiot an idiot, but thought that might be a bit harsh.\"

Well, I have never been considered \"politicaly correct\", always considered it dishonest! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Sagacious1420

09-17-2003, 11:27 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

GREAT, some dildo who has \"cruised the forum for a month now\" and has established NO credability insults someone WITH credability as his FIRST post.

<hr /></blockquote>

Oh man...that\'s just great! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif It has taken me over 500 posts to establish that I have no credibility! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif I\'m jealous! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

jvkohl

09-17-2003, 12:20 PM

Forum members: This lengthy post provides a good example of biological debate regarding the mammalian model I use to explain human sexuality. Note, Irish focusses on issues that I can respond to, rather than throw in psychological aspects that merely serve to obscure the biological facts. I am happy to spend time debating biology, but completely disinterested in further debate with DrSmellThis over his psychological approach. I am pleased that Irish allowed the opportunity for this exchange, because it shows how a subtle difference in debate/discussion style can effectively limit the exchange (as DrSmellThis has done).

JVK previously
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
how would any primate experience the desire to copulate in the absence of gonadal hormone motivation?

<hr /></blockquote>

Irish <blockquote>Quote:<hr />

To quote the paper:
\"Even though his T was suppressed for almost 8 weeks, this male continued to mount and ejaculate at frequencies not significantly different from his pre-treatment levels.\"

High ranking primates are not limited to hormonally-prompted motivation to copulate. The whole point of the paper is such differences between higher primates and the rest of the mammals.

<hr /></blockquote>

JVK previously
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
However, the origin of the sexual response is still hormonal. Kim could not possibly dissagree with this developmental approach. I can\'t imagine how he would explain consciously determined sexual behavior in the absence of hormonal change

<hr /></blockquote>

Irish <blockquote>Quote:<hr />

To quote the paper:
\"Thus the ability to get an erection to sexual stimuli is not under hormonal control in humans\". The context is evident throughout the paper: an experimental context that reveals the extent of primate sexual response independent of hormonally prompted desire. The paper shows the difference between higher primates and other mammals in this regard.

<hr /></blockquote>

JVK
Not under hormonal control is not the same as independent of hormonally prompted desire.

JVK previously
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
The title sufficiently advises to take the information in context. He is talking about hormonally mediated physical changes that either allow copulation or do not.

<hr /></blockquote>

Irish <blockquote>Quote:<hr />

No. He is talking about the ability of higher primates to copulate independently or even in the absence of hormonally-prompted motivation, the \"...separation of mating ability from hormonally modulated mating interest.\" This is the stated scope of the paper; the context is simply experimental testing of this premise, the conclusions are conservative and superbly supported by his experimentation. The use of the word \'context\' in the title refers to the situational and/or group rank \'context\' affecting or replacing hormonally driven desire. The paper is exciting because it exposes a fundamental difference in hormonally-driven behavior between primates and other mammals.

<hr /></blockquote>

JVK
I think I see why we are interpreting things differently. From page 354, paragraph 2 of the conclusion: \"Hormonally modulated systems of sexual motivation coordinate the occurrence of sexual activity with fertility, but primates have evolved the capacity to engage in sex at any time, whether or not one is experiencing increased sexual desire.\"

From this part of the conclusion, you might interpret that hormones are not required for motivation. Look again. Kim says that they are not required for the _increased_ sexual desire that is typical of other mammals, and which is invariably coordinated with fertility as well as the physical ability to copulate (in all but some other primates). Other direct quotes from the paper support my interpretation:
\"...gonadal hormones primarily influence the motivation to copulate.\"
\"...the female\'s hormonal condition affected the occurrence of sexual behavior..\"
\"...hormonally modulated sexual motivation is a mechanism that increases the likelihood that sexual behavior will occur.\"
Kim also discusses the importance of hormonal motivation during developmental staging (which I incorporate into a conditioning paradigm).
\"...pubertal increases in testosterone (T)...\"
\"...significantly higher rate of mounting...\"
He also alludes to \"...evidence that very low levels of T are sufficient to initiate adult copulation...\"
\"...the transition to adult male heterosexual mating appears to require specific sexual experience that is typically triggered by the increased sexual motivation produced by pubertal androgens.\"

Some additional information may assist us in resolving this issue:
Kim Wallen on July 5, 2001 wrote to Sexnet:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
The unique characteristic of primates, including humans, is that arousal and the capacity to engage in sex is not under hormonal control. We can have sex any time any where and become aroused at any time. This means that cultural and social factors become great regulators of arousal, which is one reason we aren\'t engaging in sex during faculty meetings (at least not here at Emory). Sexual desire, on the other hand is very much influenced by hormones and provides a markedly different drive pattern for males and females. This does result in markedly different patterns of male and female sexuality. However, the final pattern of sex is a combination of differences in drive, but also differences in context, safety, and the markedly different consequences of sex for males and females.

<hr /></blockquote>

I understand why our interpretation of this paper varies somewhat drastically, but stand on my past comments regarding the need for hormonal change to proceed behavioral change. This is the change that occurs as part of the olfactory conditiong of the hormone response paired with visual, and other sensory, input. If this conditioning does not occur, there is no sexual desire, and there can be no consciously driven sexual behavior. Simply put, hormonal changes are responsible for increased motivation. That\'s why pheoromones work; they elicit the hormonal changes, whether or not one is consciously aware this is happening.

I have participated in numerous group discussions with Kim as well as discussed these issues in personal correspondence with him. I\'m sure that our biologically based positions on mammalian, including human, sexual behavior are the same, or limited to minimal differences. That\'s because we\'re both using biological facts to support our positions. It is a biological fact that conditioning occurs, for example, and that once our sexual response cycle is conditioned, a hormone response that cannot be measured will elicit behavioral change. But the hormone change must occur--even if only in a fraction of the GnRH molecule that acts as a neurotransmitter, which leads to an ever more complex aspect of mammalian reproductive sexual behavior. Kim does not discuss in this paper the issue of minimal hormonal change, but he definitely (and repeatedly) asserts that a hormonal change is required for motivation.

Mtnjim

09-17-2003, 12:44 PM

\"Oh man...that\'s just great! It has taken me over 500 posts to establish that I have no credibility! I\'m jealous!\"

But at least it\'s well established! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

DrSmellThis

09-17-2003, 02:02 PM

A Glimmer of truth peeks through. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Wow. I didn\'t know one kind of knowledge obscures another! Those pesky psychological considerations ruin everything, don\'t they? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Since when is this a biology only forum? If you can\'t hang get out!

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gifCertainly there is no place for psychology in a discussion of human attraction, sexual relationships! Right?! I will cover my ears and hum!

Notice, folks, JVK calls psychological information \"aspects\" and biological information \"facts\"!!! What a transparent joke!

I\'m sorry you can only respond to biology talk and cannot respond to any psychology, jvk. You don\'t debate psychologists or human scientists, and you shouldn\'t. You should be asking them questions instead. I read your papers to learn. Why do you refuse to learn?

Why didn\'t you, in the first place, just say that you don\'t know enough to respond, but \'gee that\'s interesting, I\'ll have to learn more about it\'?!!

\'I only find biology relevant because I don\'t listen to psychology, and don\'t care to learn about it even if I did.\' OK. But rather than admit to this, which would not have been so bad at all, he just tries to make anyone with a perspective he can\'t understand look silly next to his expertise; throwing up smokescreens.

This post makes it clear you could give a rat about honest intellectual, and scientific debate. I busted my ass to make genuine replies, wasting an enourmous amount of time. So did others! I think you owe everyone an apology for disingenuous debate and wasting our valuable time.

I like your summary of pheromone research for what it is -- that was a service -- but for putting it in context, folks, you are well advised to do that on your own.

Sagacious1420

09-17-2003, 02:29 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
\"Oh man...that\'s just great! It has taken me over 500 posts to establish that I have no credibility! I\'m jealous!\"

But at least it\'s well established! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

<hr /></blockquote>

At least I\'ve got that goin\' for me! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

metroman

09-17-2003, 03:38 PM

JVK & DST I\'ve always appreciated your posts...they get a bit technical at times (for me at least) but I always read through them & glean what I can from them. STOP BUTTING HEADS! theres room for the both of you on here...This is like the scientific version of the \"Hatfields & McCoy\'s\" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Holmes

09-17-2003, 03:53 PM

Yeah, c\'mon guys, a little anger management: \"I\'M a kitten, YOU\'RE a kitten...\" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Seriously: What Metro said. Appreciate all the information offered here and am just glad you guys are posting as much as you are. Thanks. But...\"Serenity Now!\" (Or \"Hoochie Mama!\" Whichever affirmation you prefer...) /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Holmes

franki

09-17-2003, 03:54 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
JVK & DST I\'ve always appreciated your posts...they get a bit technical at times (for me at least) but I always read through them & glean what I can from them. STOP BUTTING HEADS!

<hr /></blockquote>

No, please don\'t stop now! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Irish

09-18-2003, 06:22 AM

Wallen, K. (2001) Sex and context: Hormones and primate sexual motivation. Find at:
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~kim/ (\"http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~kim/\")

The article in question is straightforward and requires no special expertise to understand – curious parties are encouraged to read for themselves. Here’s why this line of research is interesting to phero users:

* We wear applied pheros to get a sexual response of some kind from the opposite sex ... that’s our usual goal

* Pheros affect hormone levels and areas of the brain associated with sex and hormones – most everyone accepts this and good research supports it. Pheros change hormone levels.

* To understand what kind of behavioral response that hormone change will cause is the million dollar question. What happens sexually when hormone levels change?

* The type of research that shows how humans react sexually to hormonal changes, what they might or might not do (and what they might do anyway even without a hormone shift) helps us understand what type of effect pheros might have on our targets.

A lot of phero research has been done on lower mammals like rats. The above article helps us understand that only part of those findings with lower mammals is applicable to humans, since primates have a less automatic sexual response to sex hormone shifts than lower mammals.

And primates (including humans) can have a sexual response even without the requisite hormonal shift seen in lower mammals! This points out that there are multiple doors to the prize, and should probably encourage us to attack on multiple fronts (unconscious effects such as pheros, mental/emotional, conscious sensory effects, etc.). The human sexual response is (surprise!) more complicated than the rat model, and the better one understands that the more effectively one can bring various ‘weapons’ to bear on a human \'target\'.

Scientific research is a great tool for understanding the world around us – but it should always be interpreted with a critical eye. In a new field like phero research it is important to integrate emerging findings into a larger context, to avoid the tendency to make unsupported claims or lapse into guru-ism. You don’t have to be a scientist to understand the gist of scientific research, and I always encourage everyone to subject other’s interpretations to a good old-fashioned ‘sanity check’, the common sense standard.

If you want a good laugh read a 50-year-old science book. And the scientific knowledge we hold dear today will be equally funny 50 years from now. That’s not to say we never truly understand anything scientifically. But science is a process, an attempt to come ever closer to ‘truth’ through accepted techniques. And it’s fun to watch science break into new areas, esp. concerning human behavior, and even apply some of that knowledge in your own life.

CptKipling

09-18-2003, 10:11 AM

I\'m leaning towards Irish\'s point of view. To quote myself:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Primates posses the most complex visual processing system ever evolved, this is clear. They are also one of the few orders of species to \"re-evolve\" colour vision, probably due to there fruit feeding lineage (as the ripening of fruit is signaled by colour). They also developed stereoscopic vision as a result of the reduction of nasal structures, which allowed the eyes to converge at the front of the head.

As vision became more developed, it had an increasing role to play in social aspects of life. Many modern primates display swollen coloured patches of skin to signal sexual receptiveness.

However, dispite reduction of the nasal organs, the areas of the brain which process the scent signals has increased in proportion to the other areas of the brain.

<hr /></blockquote>

This in itself shows that we are very different from \"regular\" mammals. Our brain structures are much more complex, including visual processing areas. This might tell us that it is not strictly correct to rely completely on an entirely mammalian model.

DrSmellThis

09-18-2003, 01:50 PM

I\'m leaning toward Irish\'s view as well. Excellent posts, guys.

If I might now suggest a psychological perspective,/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif humans are \"raw sensory data-light\", and \"data processing-heavy\". Metaphorically, most of our vision happens \"with our eyes closed\", and olfaction \"with our noses plugged\".

This is why schizophrenia and other psychotic brain disorders are such a problem for humans, and not non-primates: If you have a \'small\' problem with the activity in your brain\'s vision (back of head) or hearing centers (above ears -- temporal lobe), you can have full-blown visual or audio hallucinations that are extremely difficult to differentiate from real sights and sounds. Your brain\'s perception \'headquarters\' ( /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif )are often \'just fine\' with making decisions about what is real based mostly on internal, processor-generated information, since the raw data is just the tip of the perceptual iceberg anyway.

So I have seen that folks experiencing hallucinations can help themselves a bit by training themselves to be more \'raw data focused\'. For example, they can be aware one can\'t walk around the back to see the other side of a visual hallucination; or determine accurately which place the unreal \'sound\' is coming from -- our sensory processing centers aren\'t fully \'3-D enabled\'. You need the raw information for that. At least, 4 years\' clinical experience with 200 schizophrenics suggests as much.

Similarly, not only doesn\'t unconscious hormonal response determine sexual response (it only influences it), it doesn\'t even determine olfactory response, per se. Much of this response relies on conscious processing, as every perfumer and forum member who uses a cover scent knows.

As regards the bigger picture /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif, if one would like a starting point-estimation for the upper limit of one\'s potential influence on a subject of attraction, one could use a 1/3, 2/3 model, based on Cohen\'s and Howard\'s work, which shows deterministic, (non-free will) influences max out at about 1/3, leaving the rest for free will.

So use all your multiple external influences on your targets (music, dim lights, pheros, cologne, subliminal tapes, etc) to get the 1/3 flowing in your direction. But at some point, you have to involve someone\'s intentions (free will), which is 2/3. That means knowing your target\'s goals, hopes, interests, and fantasises (all part of intentionality); and demonstrating you fit in with these (kinda like how internet dating services work). Moreover, that means picking targets that share your intentions for living! This strategy stands a better chance of getting you to the top. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Aristotle believed friendship and other lasting relationships were based on shared life-goals (telos), and perhaps he was 2/3 right, then! But even though \'1/3 is only 1/3\', that deterministic 1/3 is \'basic\', \'fundamental\', \'first in line\', primary, or \'primal\'. The initial, prerequisite third is necessary (but not sufficient!)for the rest (which is still roughly twice as important!) to have a chance, and that if the initial third is missing, the rest generally won\'t come into play.

This is what we can learn from the mammalian model. Yet this is also why the concept of \'primacy\', whether applied to vision, olfaction, or another faculty, can be misleading as used in biological discussions of attraction by certain people. The mammalian stuff can get you on the mountain, but you still have two-thirds of the way to climb. On the other hand, it is hard to climb to the top of the mountain before you get on the bottom third! The bottom of the mountain is not \'more important\' than the rest, it just generally has to come first, as a precondition.

Now in humans, things are probably not that cast in stone. The top 2/3 can, stangely enough, get you on the mountain, as internet chat rooms demonstrate!

But the problem remains: If the bottom 1/3 is missing, expect a rapid and hard desent. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

See, isn\'t integrating biology with psychology fun?! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Holmes

09-18-2003, 02:27 PM

DST,

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
So use all your multiple external influences on your targets (music, dim lights, pheros, cologne, subliminal tapes, etc) to get the 1/3 flowing in your direction. But at some point, you have to involve someone\'s intentions (free will), which is 2/3. That means knowing your target\'s goals, hopes, interests, and fantasises (all part of intentionality); and demonstrating you fit in with these (kinda like how internet dating services work). Moreover, that means picking targets that share your intentions for living! This strategy stands a better chance of getting you to the top. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Aristotle believed friendship and other lasting relationships were based on shared life-goals (telos), and perhaps he was 2/3 right, then! But even though \'1/3 is only 1/3\', that deterministic 1/3 is \'basic\', \'fundamental\', \'first in line\', primary, or \'primal\'. The initial, prerequisite third is necessary (but not sufficient!)for the rest (which is still roughly twice as important!) to have a chance, and that if the initial third is missing, the rest generally won\'t come into play.

<hr /></blockquote>

...all of which then pointing to the notion of \"opposites attract\" as being invalid...no? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Holmes

DrSmellThis

09-18-2003, 02:34 PM

Good question.

It can\'t be opposites throughout, especially in terms of fundamental intentions, or else one won\'t get to the top of the mountain.

Yet overall, to cooperate toward a shared goal, each must bring something to the table others don\'t have, but need.

So a combination of same/opposite works best.

Holmes

09-18-2003, 04:39 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
It can\'t be opposites throughout, especially in terms of fundamental intentions, or else one won\'t get to the top of the mountain.

<hr /></blockquote>

Hmmm. In other words, conflicts in fundamentals like ambition, enthusiasm, passion, etc. (i.e. goals and dreams and the desire to achieve them--and the basic philosophies and outlooks which drive these fundamentals--will override pretty much any deterministic influence, no matter how strong or craftily \"utilized\" (as in the case of pheromones, etc...)? Makes sense.

(Excellent posts, DST. Thanks.)

Holmes

jvkohl

09-18-2003, 05:35 PM

Irish wrote:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
The context is evident throughout the paper: an experimental context that reveals the extent of primate sexual response independent of hormonally prompted desire

<hr /></blockquote>

I responded with a lengthy explanation of why I\'m certain Wallen says the hormone response is required: for motivation (i.e., hormonally prompted desire).

Irish
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
The article in question is straightforward and requires no special expertise to understand – curious parties are encouraged to read for themselves.

<hr /></blockquote>

I think the article does require some insight to understand. You and I understood it very differently. In my opinion, one review article may not clearly state a position. If you know a bit about the studies being reviewed, you should be better able to interpret an individual paper, especially a review.

My direct question to Irish is:
Do you still think that Wallen is saying the primate sexual response occurs independent of hormonally prompted desire? You seemed adamant about this; did you misinterpret, or did I? I don\'t mean to dwell on this point, but I spent a lot of time rereading and attempting to detail my position to you. Simply put, I clarified my position with several examples from the paper, as well as input from Wallen. Does any of this make a difference to you, since you so boldly challenged my interpretation?

Irish
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
What happens sexually when hormone levels change?

<hr /></blockquote>

A change in sexual behavior occurs in response to a change in a level of any hormone that impact the GnRH neuronal system, unless we consciously override the behavior that is destined to change. If this answer makes me guilty of guru-ism than so be it; it\'s a biological fact.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
A lot of phero research has been done on lower mammals like rats. The above article helps us understand that only part of those findings with lower mammals is applicable to humans, since primates have a less automatic sexual response to sex hormone shifts than lower mammals.

<hr /></blockquote>

A lot of pheromone research has also been done on higher mammals, including primates -- even humans -- and is accompanied by data on hormonal changes and even some data on the neuroanatomical structures that are involved in both the hormonal and behavioral change. Guess what folks, the hormone response is the same, as measure in LH levels, or in testosterone levels (for example in response to estrogenic copulins--primate vaginal secretions). That ups the ante a bit from using rodent models. Some people are very reluctant to look at the background info that is available. Human pheromones were discussed a lot in 1971, proved to exist in 1998, and since then the LH response has been shown to occur, yes, in humans. This is the crux of the issue. If the hormone response is the same, how is it that our behavioral response varies? Or course it can vary with conscious override, but when? I used the example of oral-genital sex, an extremely intimate act. If conscious override does not occur with oral-genital sex, when does it occur--in any particular developmental stage; during any particular part of courtship behavior; before we get to intercourse; is the conscious override different in men than in women? Or do pheromones condition our behavior so that we really have no idea of why we\'re doing what we\'re doing when we\'re \"doing it.\"

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The human sexual response is (surprise!) more complicated than the rat model, and the better one understands that the more effectively one can bring various ‘weapons’ to bear on a human \'target\'.

<hr /></blockquote>

I may be paranoid, but I think that this is a dig. So much discussion results, and then someone brings us back to the fact that the human sexual response is complicated. Well, obviously, or we wouldn\'t be discussing our differences in trying to explain the human sexual response.

The human sexual response is hormonally driven just like it is in every other species of mammal. That\'s why we are now able to bring to bear a mammalian model in an explanation of the human sexual response. Sure, we can always keep in mind that no one can explain consciousness or how it influences us, or even when. But that sort of thinking hasn\'t gotten us very far in explanations of mammalian sexual behavior. Can we really expect it to help in understanding/explaining human sexual behavior?

Of course we\'re more complicated than rats, but the hormone response is the same. If we were talking about serotonin reuptake inhibitors (responsible for determining serotonin levels, which have been linked to behaviors) someone would already be well on their way to developing a drug for human use, to attempt to regulate/control/adjust a behavior.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Scientific research is a great tool for understanding the world around us – but it should always be interpreted with a critical eye. In a new field like phero research it is important to integrate emerging findings into a larger context, to avoid the tendency to make unsupported claims or lapse into guru-ism. You don’t have to be a scientist to understand the gist of scientific research, and I always encourage everyone to subject other’s interpretations to a good old-fashioned ‘sanity check’, the common sense standard.

<hr /></blockquote>

In doing this, please keep in mind that the common sense standard, until recently, said that there is no such thing as human pheromones. So much for common sense, in my book. And since 1995, my book has been cited in many college textbooks written about human sexuality.

We still are influenced by what we see in the media, and are taught in school. If the media makes fun of human pheromone research, as it often does; and teachers continue to believe that pheromones play a minimal role, if any, in human sexuality, where does that leave you with your common sense? Hanging right out there with: Human sexuality is too difficult to explain, right? Rodent models, and other mammalian models just don\'t do it, right? Get it? Most of us have been handed a lot of \"BS\" as we grew up, and it\'s hard to wade through it as adults. But we should at least be more aware of the BS we are handed as adults--regardless of who or where it comes from.

DrSmellThis

09-18-2003, 11:15 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
It can\'t be opposites throughout, especially in terms of fundamental intentions, or else one won\'t get to the top of the mountain.

<hr /></blockquote>

Hmmm. In other words, conflicts in fundamentals like ambition, enthusiasm, passion, etc. (i.e. goals and dreams and the desire to achieve them--and the basic philosophies and outlooks which drive these fundamentals--will override pretty much any deterministic influence, no matter how strong or craftily \"utilized\" (as in the case of pheromones, etc...)? Makes sense.

(Excellent posts, DST. Thanks.)

Holmes

<hr /></blockquote>
Almost. A deterministic influence can torpedo it.

Irish

09-19-2003, 06:59 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
As regards the bigger picture , if one would like a starting point-estimation for the upper limit of one\'s potential influence on a subject of attraction, one could use a 1/3, 2/3 model, based on Cohen\'s and Howard\'s work, which shows deterministic, (non-free will) influences max out at about 1/3, leaving the rest for free will.
....But even though \'1/3 is only 1/3\', that deterministic 1/3 is \'basic\', \'fundamental\', \'first in line\', primary, or \'primal\'. The initial, prerequisite third is necessary (but not sufficient!)for the rest (which is still roughly twice as important!) to have a chance, and that if the initial third is missing, the rest generally won\'t come into play.

<hr /></blockquote>
Thanks, this is the kind of thinking that can help us understand what we should expect from phero use, and more importantly what we should not expect. Any other insights and research along those lines you would like to share would be helpful and appreciated.

Becoming interested in pheros is a double-edged sword. At first there is the lure of a possible ‘love potion’, that might make up for life’s romantic failures and awkwardness. And then if you take a serious look at it you joyfully discover there actually is strong emerging evidence for the real physiological importance of pheros. But then….one must come back to an understanding of what that physiological influence might mean in terms of real-life human behavior. That deeper understanding is surely a life’s work and more, but I think even a casual curious ‘student’ can learn enough general truths to put the whole thing into a reasonable perspective.

Personally I became interested in pheros when I saw some apparent results from trying them out on a whim. That led me to look into the science behind it, which is very heartening – pheros are clearly active in humans, and there is much to learn about phero influence across the animal kingdom. But it’s easy to become blinded by that light, and forget why I was interested in pheros in the first place.

So I turn to many disciplines to try to understand what these hormonal and neurological phero effects might mean in behavioral terms. If I know pheros do this or that to a woman’s brain, well then what does that mean she will DO in response (if anything!)? What’s really going on here, and how important is it in the bigger scheme of human interaction? Of course I can’t master behavioral sciences nor do I wish to try, but I do want to understand from the experts the broad extent of various influences. And anything I learn about human behavior in general is fascinating in its own right.

So there’s lots for me to learn from many experts. The fun part for me is to gain more understanding of myself and my fellow humans, and hopefully apply these new understandings in a practical and rewarding fashion .

So much effort, just to get laid…

skeptic

09-19-2003, 09:12 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
...all of which then pointing to the notion of \"opposites attract\" as being invalid...no?

<hr /></blockquote>

This is a bit old now, but basic psychology tells us that people tend to like people that are similar to themselves. It\'s not universally true, but if you look around, it holds for the great majority of relationships.

Where this is NOT the case, and where pheromones may have something to do with it, is in terms of genetics. The more different two individuals of the same species are, generally the stronger offspring they will produce. (This is yet another reason those white-hooded morons are completely off base about race mixing being bad, incidentally.) You can refer to it as the \"histocompatibility index\", I believe there are other names for it as well, but I don\'t know them. Plants employ methods to \"sniff out\" and reject pollen from neighbors that are too closely related to them, for example. In one study I read about recently, men were given fragrance-free toiletries and strict instructions on washing with them before bed, and then wore T-shirts to bed. Women allegedly preferred the smell of the shirts of the men whose immune systems differed from their own the most on some scale I hadn\'t heard of.. in fact, I might have read the abstract of that study on this site.

So in psychology, like tends to attract like.

In biology, it\'s better if opposites attract, so it\'s not surprising that mechanisms may have evolved to do so, such as pheromones, pollen differentiation, etc.

DrSmellThis

09-19-2003, 08:36 PM

Interesting idea.

CptKipling

09-21-2003, 11:41 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
The more different two individuals of the same species are, generally the stronger offspring they will produce.

<hr /></blockquote>

This is only (excuse the sweeping statement) true of MHC genes, in general, we want to breed with someone who has similar genes (because our overall goal is to pass on our DNA, so why mess up your DNA with some completely different code?), but as you may have guessed it\'s a lot more complex than that.

DrSmellThis

09-22-2003, 02:54 AM

The kid is just alright.

Watcher

09-24-2003, 02:18 AM

IT comes down to if women are at that time of the month - they are 2.5x more likley to cheat on a husband and seek out alpha males with which to breed and the husband is usually a beta male who is there for support and is less likely statistically to be the father of the children. Of course women cant hide it anymore as DNA testing can catch them out but historically and genetically its more of a success for the genes to reprodcue with a powerful alpha male.

So when they are on heat they prefer men that are genetically different
The other 3 weeks of the month they will settle for the provider and supporter but is less likley to concieve unless he is on his toes during her period and manages to bonk her.

Anone signals dominance and alpha male (cheat with)
Arone signals support and less dominance (mr sucker supporter) of course the above applies more to alpha females than beta females who cant attract the alpha males as much so they are forced to settle for mr less attractive beta man.