Close

Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 49

Thread: Back to Theory

  1. #1
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default Back to Theory

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    It\'s better to light a candle...

    Pheromone and attraction information and theory is far from boring, or repetitive! Quite a few inspired scientists are devoting their careers to this extremely interesting topic. The growing literature is full of fascinating \"hints\", pregnant with profound implications about who we are. Countless hardly-explored areas are screaming for our insightful attention.

    Many of us are (or were) here because we share a more or less passionate interest in such things. Those favoring serious discussion should have somewhere to go (besides \"away\"). Indeed, forum members are, in fact, the practitioners of the field. As such, members contribute to the cutting edge (no pun intended) of theory, by virtue of their relatively vast collective experience-base. Whether for better or for worse, forum content has expanded to encompass, and sometimes embody, the social lives of its members, similar to the function of traditional internet chat sites; and some, especially some \"old hands,\" grieve what they believe to be a loss of \"serious\" discussion.

    Hence some feel they need more \"academic\" (loosely speaking) thread(s); devoted to careful theory and information about pheromones and the biopsychology of sexuality.

    This, then, is a thread for everyone. On the other hand, \"Yet another mix to worship!\" posts, trash talking, flirtation, space-filling, projection of emotions, and flippancies should find other threads to be more inhabitable. The hope is that participants will be mutually cordial, reasonable, mature and respectful of each other at all times, without sacrificing useful candor.

    Enjoy!

    Moderators: Please support this thread by deleting distracting or inappropriate posts promptly.

  2. #2
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default Why we Stink

    In an award-winning paper, Kohl, et al (2001) observed that humans are relatively much smellier than other primates, an observation that might seem counter-intuitive until one compares our hygiene maintenance requirements with those of other primates. Why this is indeed the case, the authors noted, was unclear.

    Yet educated guesses about reasons for our smelliness are well within reach; when we look at what makes human responses to putative pheromones remarkable and relatively unique. At first, with the discovery of the active VNO in humans, almost nothing seemed unique. But the human VNO is a fraction of the relative size of the same organ in other mammals. And thus far we can\'t account for much, if any, everyday sexual behavior by accounting for changes in VNO output.

    Participants in the ongoing controversial debate over the function of the vomeronasal organ (VMO) have tended to assert mutually exclusive extremes: that either the VNO is a relic of a pre-homosapienic past (most researchers in the past); or, that not only is the VNO functional, it\'s evoked electrical activity is the only distinguishing characteristic of pheromones (or \"vomeropherins\": Berliner and the \"Erox gang\").

    Both positions are untenable. The VNO is tiny in humans, but pumps out the micro-voltage. Androstadione (A1) and other chemicals reliably evoke vomeroactivity, as compared to androstenone, muscone, and other \"failed\" vomeropherin candidates. Such signals travel directly to the hypothalmus.

    But the above and other putative pheromones do whatever they do to our sexual endocrinology (e.g., leutinizing hormone, testosterone) changes in sensual biology (e.g., skin conductivity) and behavior (e.g., judgements of attractiveness, more sexual partners), regardless of our recognition, thank you very much. At this relatively naive stage of enquiry, we ought to be humble enough to recognize such activity. Later we can stick on labels.

    These putative pheromones take typical conscious (if we smell them) and unconscious (if we don\'t), olfactory pathways on their way to our psyche. They demand relatively more higher-order processing or cognition than do vomeropherins (at least one of which nonetheless still requires extra-vomero processing for its effect). Yet many of these chemicals have demonstrated more compelling sexual effects than \"true\" pheromones. Do we care? Yes!

    Pragmatically speaking, then, there are two ways for a substance to act like a pheromone, via the VNO (or \"Va va va VNO!\")and via olfaction (stinkin\' thinkin?).

    Humans very likely \"stink\" because they have to attract mates through two pheromonic channels (smell and VNO/hypothalmus communication), and not just the VNO.
    Smell is richer, but much less sensitive than, vomeropheric response, and requires a \"stronger\" signal. This stink is relatively noxious to other animals who would be our predators ( -- were we not so unpalatable. Sorry, human ego! Ask not why the dog wanders out of the room.); or otherwise intrude on our survival space. With fewer such \"rapid auto-response\" survival concerns and demands, homosapiens is now freer to engage in cognition which is slow, unreliable, and \"high maintenance\" (we have to pay attention) for ensuring survival/reproductive fitness. But cognition is delightful for other uses. And it still works adequately in many or most survival or reproductive selectionsituations, and can even supplant \"lower brain\" survival responses. For example, if someone were unable to sense hunger normally, they might still look at a watch and know when it is time to eat. And perhaps it is more incredible than the \"moon-walk\" that Michael Jackson, the man with the disppearing nose, may have managed to produce offspring, and almost drop them on their heads, without any VNO!

    We process conscious smells with the whole of our memories, present awareness, and imaginations (ask any perfumer.). We make cognitive decisions based on it\'s input. But at the most, our sexual behavior is ambiguously determined by it, added together with other nature-based determinants of our behavior.
    Is this bimodality adaptive for humans? You bet! We have two phero-pathways we utilize for survival and making reproductive decisions. If environmental trends proceed as they are proceeding, of course, we will need both of them. This is perhaps both good, as our success at dominating and enslaving nature has evinced, and bad, as our success at dominating and enslaving nature has evinced.

    Descartes credo should have read, then, \"I stink therefore I think!\" Thinking may be, in part, a by-product of our past victories over immediate, natural survival threats; and our odiferous bodies\' clearing out of space in which we might think. And with this greater reliance on higher order neural processing, comes greater freedom.

    Did nature intend such human freedom? Or is freedom instead a merely accidental byproduct of smell, which is, in turn, merely a back up system for ensuring reproductive success?

    Now that\'s something to stink about.

    (c) DrSmellThis, 2003

  3. #3
    Banned User EXIT63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    2,029
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    We process conscious smells with the whole of our memories, present awareness, and imaginations (ask any perfumer.). We make cognitive decisions based on it\'s input. But at the most, our sexual behavior is ambiguously determined by it, added together with other nature-based determinants of our behavior.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">


    Hmmm, you\'re the expert on this stuff. I agree completely about the smell/memory trigger thing. I can walk down the street in Seaside Heights, New Jersey and I can smell the bungalows (rentals) and be transported back to 1968. Quite amazing, really.

    Based on this I believe if the mad scientists could somehow synthesize a scent that would trigger memories of safety and comfort in the opposite sex while they\'re in our proximity, we would have the magic bullet.

    Get busy on that will ya?!

    (c) EXIT63, 2003

    penis

  4. #4
    Phero Enthusiast nonscents's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    349
    Rep Power
    7916

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    Despite pleas for seriousness, I assume that DrST, you have your tongue firmly implanted in your cheek, if not up your nose (if it\'s not long enough to go up your nose, please check out the many lingual enlargement sites).

    I too was overcome for a short period of time by the swan song of JVK\'s chemical sensory reductionism, but, to mix metaphors, I have bound myself to the mast of my multifactorial vessel and am now able to resist DrST\'s siren call.

    I saw about 45 minutes of the TV show (in the USA) last night called \"Nature.\" It was light entertainment. It was not published scientific literature. But the message I took to bed was that animals (not just mammals) get their emotions from various sensory channels. One kind of fish (sorry, I don\'t remember the name) was being researched about why it lets a symbiotic species clean it. They tested the appearance of the cleaner fish, they tested all kinds of stuff. Then they realized that it was kinesthetic. The cleaned fish liked to be touched, even if by a bare wire. The fish likes the kinesthetic feel of bare wire.

    Now, I can\'t prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that all pleasure from touch was initially conditioned to a chemical stimulus. But, on the face of it, it does seem absurd.

    All except some radical few used to deny the significance of human chemical sensing. Those radical few were not taken seriously. They needed to have single-minded devotion to human chemical sensing to get their message out. To make the stick straight again, they had to bend it too far in the other direction. So, instead of being told that we noble humans are uninfluenced by chemical sensing, they now tell us that chemical sensing is the primary pathway for determining sociosexual interaction.

    Well someone had to bend the stick in order to straighten it out. But they are bending it too far in the opposite direction.

    If I smelled like Wilt Chamberlain do you really think I\'d get the opportunity to sleep with a different young, fertile, attractive woman each night?

  5. #5
    Phero Enthusiast nonscents's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    349
    Rep Power
    7916

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    P.S. I believe I was the first to say on this forum, \"I stink therefore I am.\"

    DrST tells us, \"I stink therefore I think.\" Acknowledging where his tongue is when he tells us this, let us agree that mine is the superior description of the human chemical sensory primacy position (reductionism by its detractors {of which I am one}). For thought is superfluous to the advocates of primacy. It is worse than superfluous, it has been misleading human inquiry for a good 4,000 years. The implicit argument behind DrST\'s formulation is A causes B, B causes C, ergo A causes C. I.e., chemical sensing causes thought, thought causes behavior, ergo, chemical sensing causes behavior. The error here, according to the primacy advocates, is that there is still a major role given to consciousness. Using \"I stink therefore I think\" as one\'s foundational slogan says stink determines consciousness. But who cares about consciousness? Consciousness is a distraction. (So B causes C is rejected. Thought does not cause behavior. It only appears to do so by misguided investigators during thousands of year of Western inquiry.)

    DrST\'s is the superior formulation to mine and Descartes\' in that it rhymes in English. It is also superior to mine in that it does a better job making lighthearted fun of the centrality Descartes gives to consciousness.

    Let me hereby announce that I renounce my slogan, \"I think therefore I am,\" because I renounce the untenable chemical sensory primacy that underlies it. I freely give it, however, to my partner in inquiry, DrST, to use and abuse as he sees fit.

  6. #6
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    Having fun? Yes. Trying to make us think? Yes. Tongue in cheek? Not too much! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

    Reductionistic? No. Consciousness and reflective thought are different. One can be conscious without much thinking. Thinking seems to have evolved; and reflective consciousness as well; whereas consciousness \"itself\" was probably always present.

    What were some of the conditions facilitating the evolution of thought, and how might this have come to happen? This question calls mainly for a story, not an equation or physiological model. This is a Darwinian evolutionary story, a plausible kind of narrative causality (hence the \"therefore,\" which was indeed tongue in cheek. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]); but not simple, immediate, physical causality. These latter kind of causes are not the causes of history. The synopsis: When one\'s main threats become other people, or longer term environmental threats, rather than immediate threats from nature; something like cognition becomes needed.

    (It would be interesting JVK, to hear your perspective on this paleopsychological question, if you are listening.)

  7. #7
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    Bat Signal for JVK...

  8. #8
    Administrator Bruce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    7,109
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    Bat Signal for JVK...

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    He\'s on a bike trip around the US. I\'ll send out the bat signal and see what happens.

    B

  9. #9
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    I\'ve debated the issue of olfactory primacy with many of the world\'s top behavioral specialists. Most are convinced that the mammalian model for olfactory primacy (conditioning of our response to other stimuli, based upon the effect of pheromones on hormones) applies to humans. Since 1995 (book publication), data from human studies supports the conditioning paradigm. Also, there is no mammalian model that offers any data supporting the common belief that humans are more visual creatures than other mammals. It would be interesting to learn whether Nonscents has read anything I have published, and to find out what he thinks about the ridiculous concept that visual input is primary to our sexual behavior. Typically, others will advise that it\'s not olfactory, but fail to offer any other viable explanation--viable being directly related to survival of the species. No species of which I am aware can survive without some form of chemical reception/sensitivity. There is also the issue of sexual orientation, specifically, how anyone can explain homosexuality using a visual model for physical attraction. Bottom line: Nonsense rather than say it ain\'t so, tell us how you think it works.

    As indicated, I\'m on an extended motorcycle trip (started on May 1; 6000 miles so far). I\'ve had only sporadic internet access while staying with friends, and am meeting with about 10 others who will ride with me for the next week (starting Wednesday). So, if I don\'t respond right away to further input, it\'s not that I\'m ignoring anyone--just that I\'m enjoying myself too much.

  10. #10
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    I should have mentioned that consciousness was addressed in the Neuroendocrinology Letters paper you mentioned. Our behavior is largely determined by unconscious affect: pheromones cause changes in hormones. Should be easy to determine whether other sensory input, or something like consciousness is more important to behavior than sensory input that causes changes in hormone levels. Minimally, someone should suggest how much they think consciousness contributes to behavior. From a paleopsyche perspective, there\'s not much support for conscious effect compared to unconcious affect--at least in the literature I\'ve read.

  11. #11
    **DONOTDELETE**
    Guest

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    Gosh, I\'m so glad JVK was called in on this one. What a surprise to read his views on the subject. Who woulda thunk it? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

  12. #12
    Phero Enthusiast nonscents's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    349
    Rep Power
    7916

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    Pheromones influence human behavior. The scientific evidence is incontovertible.

    That is the weak claim to which I ascribe.

    Pheromones determine human behavior.

    That is the strong claim argued for by JVK and DST. But their evidence only demonstrates the weak claim. They then invoke multiple subsidiary hypostheses like conditioning to argue for their strong claim.

    I used to support the claim \"being determines consciousness.\" The gist of this slogan is that the statements people make about political and social issues are determined by one\'s position in society and serve one\'s material interests. But this strong claim is clearly false.

    There are instances which support it. JVK sells pheromones. So it is in his interest to advocate tirelessly for the strong claim about pheromones. But Bruce, who also sells pheromones, behaves in ways that cannot be simplistically explained by financial interest. Bruce really seems to hold to some ethereal ideals of justice and righteousness that cannot be explained away by the strong claim \"being determines consciousness.\" Bruce tells people not to use \'mones every day. He urges moderation when it would apparently be in his material interest to urge them to use as much as possible. Bruce\'s behavior transcends simplistic reductionist explanations.

    I am not saying that JVK\'s business interests do or do not determine his scientific work. Generally, rational readers of scientific publication want to know if the authors of scientific investigations have a financial stake in the outcome of their research. But only a crass reductionist would argue that such financial interests are the sole determinant in such scientific research.

  13. #13
    Full Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    154
    Rep Power
    7661

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    Well, I\'ll admit I\'m talking from a position of ignorance here, but that\'s never stopped me before, sooo...

    Nonscents, I think part of it is the difference between academics and \"real world\". To be useful, research studies need to be done in isolation. What I mean is, that external influences need to be limited in order to get a more accurate idea of what\'s happening. But because of that, there\'s often a tendancy to overplay the importance of the results. The results may have been quite conclusive when done in isolated conditions, but that doesn\'t take into account relative importance of the various influencing factors.

    Personally, I really suck with women. I mean, REALLY suck. Using pheromones hasn\'t stopped me from sucking so bad, it just helps me get closer before screwing things up. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] From the difference in women\'s behaviour I know for a fact that women think I\'m more attractive when I wear \'mones. But my sheer suckiness with women is still the overiding factor, by far. And that\'s just one of countless influences that determine what happens in the real world. Using the most perfectly balanced and powerful pheromone mix possible, would not change the fact that I suck with women.

    While I agree that visual input is not primary to our sexual behaviour, and that pheromones probably play a larger part (purely from my own experiences), I think that argument simplifies the issue far too much. The fact the people\'s results from pheromones vary to the degree that they do shows that, while significant, they\'re just not the dominant factor.

    So basically, I think you\'re both right. And both wrong.

    Does that help?


    Hungry

  14. #14
    Phero Enthusiast nonscents's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    349
    Rep Power
    7916

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    Hungry,

    I fully accept all of your (self-deprecating) real-world experience. You are absolutely correct. If you eliminate all other factors, \'mones can be decisive. But in the real world all other factors are not eliminated. \'Mones play a role. But it\'s usually not the decisive one.

    Hungry, you know what you need to do to improve your game. There is a theory that underlies your knowledge. And it is not a reductionist theory.

  15. #15
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    I appreciate the thoughtful responses.

    Actually, research in psychology (Cohen, Howard) suggests about 2/3 of our behavior is self-determined by choice, cognition, or free will. Roughly the other third is determined by natural or external causes of one kind or another. Here we are speaking of relatively immediate efficient causes of behavior.

    Narrative causality is far different, as I said. Showing, say, a single story line of logical, thematic cause is not deterministic; any more than saying the glint in my father\'s eye led me to post this. We\'re talking about a different kind of connection here.

    In missing this distinction, Nonscents missed my point; and mistook me for advocating some narrow, olfactory determinism.

    I cannot speak for JVK, however.

  16. #16
    Bodhi Satva CptKipling's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,142
    Rep Power
    8498

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    As correctly mentioned previously, it is best to explain this aspect of pheromone science in terms of evolutionary advantage (Re: Why we stink), as this is the only way to explain the relative smallness of the human VNO and yet the importance of smell (to generalise both of smell\'s subcategories, olfaction the vomeropherin pathways) in human\'s.

    I suspect that as our primate group became more advanced as thinkers (I\'m still referring to well before homosapiens, back when our ancestors were small and frail), our VNO\'s shrunk due to it\'s increasing irrelevance as an evolutionary (i.e. reproductive) advantage. This shrinkage probably continued until a certain point, the point at which human\'s began to rely very heavily on group survival. To interact well in a group you need to be a very well adapted social animal. It is already thought that the majority of brain growth in early humans was because of the need to be able to interact and understand complex social dynamics of the group. It became a powerful evolutionary advantage to be a good social animal, because even if you weren’t the alpha, you survived and got the chance to pass on your genes, genes which coded for social traits, thus continuing the lineage.

    It is without a doubt that smell was very important at this stage, just look at other animals in group situations, scent is very important for social interaction. Looking at our own bodies, we see that we have retained hair (which is great for transmitting scent signatures) in our most smelly areas (pits and crotch).


    The two categories of smell are very important. The VNO pathway is simpler to explain, as it just (!!) involves hormonal responses to a vomeropherin stimuli. Olfaction is more complex, and probably became more important when our ancestors became more social and had a similar brain size to modern humans. Scents detected through olfaction are processed and linked to other stimuli (most commonly visual), resulting in a conditioned response. This Classical Conditioning is directly comparable to Pavlov\'s experiments with dogs, where salivation was induce by the ringing of a bell, which the dogs had been conditioned to associate with meal times. We are constantly exposed to this conditioning, if a man intimidates you, you will associate his smell with something to be affraid of, etc.

    Conditioning for reproductional stimuli must have become an advantage in our ancestors, perhaps due to a now limited VNO while social demands cried out for more definition and understanding of how our partners expressed their advantageous externally. The alpha would have had a distinct smell, physical activity being one contributing factor. \"Carers\" would have probably had another distinct smell, one which became associated with comfort.

  17. #17
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    42
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    I\'ve always thought conscious thought overrides any chemical attraction in humans. For dynamic behaviors and thought processes such as in humans, there are innumerable factors that determine who mates with whom. Besides the obvious social pressures of marriage and kids there are also influences by drugs and alcohol that could be the cause of conception in a small percentage of the population.

    I really enjoy this thread, I don\'t have much to contribute but I\'d like to see more theories on whether pheromones can affect behavior directly. I have the feeling that the success of the pheromones for some people is more a reflection of their strong belief that it will work, then the actually chemistry involved. When you are hoping to see something, you usually see it. It may not be as rare as you think it is, maybe you just don’t notice it on an everyday basis. A strong open-minded approach is needed at answer my question on whether it works or not. As the Dr said this forum is a place to exchange knowledge and I am hoping that some of the more experienced users will actually take a step back and evaluate their success, not just for mixture amounts or recipes but for how their attitude, expectations and behavior affected their results and observations.

  18. #18
    Phero Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    279
    Rep Power
    7618

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    What (in where) shall I read, so that I can understand half of what you guys are discussing? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I feel so ignorant. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

  19. #19
    Carpal Tunnel Whitehall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Silicon Valley, California
    Posts
    2,642
    Rep Power
    8399

    Default The Mystery of DIHL

    Perhaps the best mental model of a human DIHL reaction is to be found by asking, what really happens when a deer is caught in the headlights?

    Many animals will \"freeze up\" when an external stimulus triggers them. For a deer, a bright light at night causes their nervous system to freeze their muscles.

    How and why that happens is my next exploration since hypnosis was a dead end.

  20. #20
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default Re: Why we Stink

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    What (in where) shall I read, so that I can understand half of what you guys are discussing? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I feel so ignorant. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
    JVK\'s website and book (which you can get here) are a very good place to start.

  21. #21
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default Re: The Mystery of DIHL

    Whitehall: Some kind of VNO/olfactory receptor overstimulation, leading to increased dopamine production and over-activity in the anterior cingulate gyrus (the part of the brain that fixates focus, and is packed with serotonin receptors) would be a reasonable theory.

  22. #22
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    42
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Back to Theory

    Dr,
    I was just curious. What percentage do you think the pheromones actually have on the majority of \"hits\" in this forum? Is it around 80% pheromones 20% behavior or 20% pheromones and 80% behavior?

  23. #23
    Phero Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    279
    Rep Power
    7618

    Default Re: Back to Theory

    What is JVK\'s website? URL?

  24. #24
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default Re: Back to Theory

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    Dr,
    I was just curious. What percentage do you think the pheromones actually have on the majority of \"hits\" in this forum? Is it around 80% pheromones 20% behavior or 20% pheromones and 80% behavior?


    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
    Of course, I don\'t know, as there is no direct data on this, a question which might not even make sense; since each sexual encounter is due to a number of factors. Research suggests that 1/3 might be a reasonable estimate regarding total sexual activity; assuming encounters were randomly selected.

    Here, however, encounters are selected by posters as something like ideal examples of pheromonal events. So I\'m going to guess that more than a third, perhaps one half, of the amount of total sexual activity reported here is attributable to pheromone enhancement. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

  25. #25
    Phero Enthusiast nonscents's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    349
    Rep Power
    7916

    Default Re: Back to Theory

    DrST,

    I mistook your more odoriferous slogans for analysis. Clearly you do not posit a unicausal sociosexual explanatory model of pheromonal determinism. You, like me, advocate a less theoretically elegant multifactorial view.

    I agree that the next step is to determine the weight of pheromones in attraction compared to other factors. For example, someone could develop a metric for facial symmetry. Let\'s say it\'s a scale of 1-10. Then have women rate men\'s faces for attractiveness in a mone-free environment. Again, they use a scale of 1-10. Their ratings should correlate highly with the symmetry of the men\'s faces.

    If a women are then exposed to mones when asked to rate the faces for attractiveness the mones should increase the attractiveness of less symmetric faces. If a 6 becomes an 8, we have a quantitative measure of the impact of mones.

  26. #26
    Carpal Tunnel Whitehall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Silicon Valley, California
    Posts
    2,642
    Rep Power
    8399

    Default Re: The Mystery of DIHL

    So massive dopamine release works on an area loaded with serotoin receptors? That key doesn\'t fit that lock!

    Plus serotoin is anti-sexual and inhibitory for sexual arousal.

    How about NE? That might tie in stimulus and effect since NE is related to focus.

    Plus deers are responding to visual stimulus while our DIHL\'ing females are responding to VNO.

    Still, I\'ll trace down the circuits you propose - its a good place to start.

  27. #27
    Carpal Tunnel Whitehall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Silicon Valley, California
    Posts
    2,642
    Rep Power
    8399

    Default Altruism and Fallacious Thinking

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    Bruce\'s behavior transcends simplistic reductionist explanations.
    -- Nonscents

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    There is the problem of altruism; why do people run into burning buildings to save other people\'s children, for example? It is a pretty solid theory from sociobiology that our species has a gene that inspires self-sacrifice for others. It works to various degrees in various individuals but it\'s there. We evolved this as groups of humans have survival advantages over purely individualistic behaviors. We admire and respect such people as contributors to the whole. Bruce is one such person.

    The notion that one\'s self-interest can invalidate the content of one\'s arguments is an ancient logical fallacy. For scientific publications, a concern might justly arise over the presentation of \"facts\" that have yet to be independantly verified; note that\'s \"facts\" rather than arguments.

    For a rather good list of logical fallacies, see:

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

  28. #28
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default The Mystery of DIHL

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    So massive dopamine release works on an area loaded with serotoin receptors? That key doesn\'t fit that lock!

    Plus serotoin is anti-sexual and inhibitory for sexual arousal.

    How about NE? That might tie in stimulus and effect since NE is related to focus.

    Plus deers are responding to visual stimulus while our DIHL\'ing females are responding to VNO.

    Still, I\'ll trace down the circuits you propose - its a good place to start.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    My post was a little rushed and indeed confusing. Please allow me to elaborate on the above.

    Dopamine is a neurotransmitter of obsession (e.g., in love, helped by PEA), and the anterior gyrus is implicated in OCD; which like DIHL (and love) is a kind of locked focus.

    Receptors other than those for seratonin are there a plenty, I would think.

    Dopamine/seratonin are something like agonist/antagonist in that area, I am guessing. NE/adrenaline are probably in the cocktail as agonists, too, as DIHL is like \"fight or flight gone wrong\", due to the attention grabbing effect on the brain. It is interesting that my lover this past weekend remarked that the primary effect of the Edge was that \"It really got my attention.\" A chemical called androketyl and also organically-derived -rone have also been described by perfumers as attention getters. We men are real snake-charmers, aren\'t we?

    The gyrus sustains something like a minor trauma, an overactivity that results in something similar to inflamation, which registers as a kind of stuckedness in consciousness. I bet you could see it on a PET or SPECT scan.

  29. #29
    Bodhi Satva CptKipling's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,142
    Rep Power
    8498

    Default Re: Back to Theory

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    Dr,
    I was just curious. What percentage do you think the pheromones actually have on the majority of \"hits\" in this forum? Is it around 80% pheromones 20% behavior or 20% pheromones and 80% behavior?


    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    I dont think you can classify it like that, the way i see it is as follows:

    The pheros do create the reactions (not in all women of course), but the wearers behavoir determins the reaction he/she gets. Acting shy and reservered will leave you ignored in the corner. Be outgoing and you will see reactions, and yes these are better than without pheros. Following my recent experiences at school, I went without pheros for two days, but still kept the same attitude. What happened? There were reactions, but they were not as intense as the ones with pheros.

  30. #30
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    42
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Back to Theory


    I dont think you can classify it like that, the way i see it is as follows:

    The pheros do create the reactions (not in all women of course), but the wearers behavoir determins the reaction he/she gets. Acting shy and reservered will leave you ignored in the corner. Be outgoing and you will see reactions, and yes these are better than without pheros. Following my recent experiences at school, I went without pheros for two days, but still kept the same attitude. What happened? There were reactions, but they were not as intense as the ones with pheros.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    Thanks for the info. Sounds like an interesting test. You sound like a perfect canidate to try that double blind experiment we were talking about in the Just Curious thread. Its similar to the one you did, but over a longer time period and uses two bottles of cologne, one spiked one not, that are indistinguishable from each other.

Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. HIT STORIES OF THE POOR & DERANGED
    By MOBLEYC57 in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 09:39 AM
  2. The Best songs in the World.
    By seadove in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 461
    Last Post: 04-17-2006, 10:31 AM
  3. Coopied form the Net-- Back, Sack and Crack Waxing
    By Kari in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-10-2003, 11:19 AM
  4. "Indifference Theory Counter Method"
    By TBiRD in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-11-2003, 05:36 PM
  5. Pheromone theory: Indifference OD
    By tallmacky in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-29-2003, 04:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •