However, Sir and Elf, it is totally possible, maybe not for you, or her, but for the next woman.Originally Posted by wood elf
Per example, I've stayed out of the discussion of men talking to women in a certain way, 'cause the women here
say, no way, no how, will that work on a real woman, but, in fact, it does. Maybe not on all women, but that's like
the kissing of a neck doesn't bring out the same reaction in ALL women.But, if you ask these same women that
it worked on, if that would work, they'd laugh and say, "hell no!" If you understand what I'm trying to say here.
So, as someone always says, I think it was Friendly1, the mileage may vary, annnd, it does.
Never argue with ignorant people! They pull you down to THEIR level, and then they BEAT YOU with experience. Who said that!? I don't know, but tis gold I tell'ya!!
I met my fiance over the
internet, so I never got to smell him, of course. He doesn't wear cologne and doesn't need to. I think a lot has
to do with his diet (no pork nor beef and mostly fruits and vegetables). It was a year before I ever got to see
what he looked like. So if smell and looks did not play a role in our relationship wonder what did? That's okay,
you don't need to answer cause I already know the answer.
Well, I meant thoseI met my
fiance over the internet, so I never got to smell him, of course. He doesn't wear cologne and doesn't need to. I
think a lot has to do with his diet (no pork nor beef and mostly fruits and vegetables). It was a year before I ever
got to see what he looked like. So if smell and looks did not play a role in our relationship wonder what did?
That's okay, you don't need to answer cause I already know the answer.
situations where you encounter someone that isn't otherwise interesting but you feel a compelling sexual magnetism
toward them, that if they wanted to sleep with you, it would be hard or even painful to resist, even if you were
deeply emotionally involved with another partner.
I definitely agree thatHowever, Sir
and Elf, it is totally possible, maybe not for you, or her, but for the next woman.
Per example, I've stayed
out of the discussion of men talking to women in a certain way, 'cause the women here say, no way, no how, will
that work on a real woman, but, in fact, it does. Maybe not on all women, but that's like the kissing of a neck
doesn't bring out the same reaction in ALL women.
would work, they'd laugh and say, "hell no!" If you understand what I'm trying to say here.
always says, I think it was Friendly1, the mileage may vary, annnd, it does.
certain women are much more sexually responsive to stimuli than others, which is a genetic factor. A lot of us
who've used pheromones have ran into them.
Good points all around. Not all of
us experience it often, or even realize it, though, that smell can override all those factors. I however, experience
it all the time, and I can't identify one single thing that a female can do to compare with that overpowering
sensation.
Still curious...
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
One of the most recent studies to sensibly support the observations/conclusions of Sir
Louis (and others) comes from Rachel Herz, who also concluded from other works that a partner's natural body odor
is the most important factor with regards to a woman's selection of a mate. This more recent study goes much
further with regards to the biology that supports her
findings.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...br /> 4670575
Re: Psychology/biology? Again, there is no direct biological link from visual input (or any
other non-olfactory sensory input) to hormonal changes in the brain. If you ignore this direct link to hormonal
changes, you can argue for a variety of other approaches to the study of how the social environment influences
mammalian sexual behavior, including human sexual behavior. This ignorance explains why many people and most
psychologists have (for centuries) ignored the influence of pheromones on human sexual behavior, and why, even
today, many psychologists fail to understand the relative impact of odor on sexual behavior as compared with other
sensory input.
JVK
For those who don't know: my 2001
Neuroendocrinology Letters "pheromone" paper is an invited review (of that field) and won an award for integrating
neuroendocrinology and ethology.
The URL above links to a 1995 paper published
in:
Journal of National Chung Cheng University Sec. II: Social Sciences
It is often difficult to compare
disparate stands, but rarely as comical.
JVK
Again, JVK's paper is a literature review about
pheromones and their effect on hormones, not about the psychology of emotion and cognition.
It may have won
an award, but it was in a different field. This is indeed "comical."
Ethology is the "zoological study of
animal behavior" (from an ethology site), in case readers didn't know. I am assuming people know what
neuroendocrinology is.
But the point was the topic of JVK's paper. If people want to learn about the relation
of emotions and cognition in general; and their effect on human behavior, they have to look elsewhere. JVK portrayed
his paper as "the most relevant review of research" in this field, after making a contentious and unsupported
claim about emotions versus thoughts in influencing human behavior in general. That was a claim about basic
psychology.This paper was from an APA conference (American Psychological Association), happened to be handy on
the web, presented an original empirical study, and is to the point.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 04-11-2005 at 01:33 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
JVK,
Thanks for your
comment but that still did not answer the question of how Sir Louis came to his conclusions. I strongly suspect that
he is using the wag system and really has no clue what he is talking about, right or wrong.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Charmed,
I think the answer lies in the 1,000 bottle minimum. Maybe we'll have to do a mass-mailing to every
female in our e-mail address book? Or buy 1,000 bottles and become distributors?
I didn't bother responding to your question because it is obvious you didn't actually read what
I wrote, or tried to understand both sides of the dialogue, for that matter. Instead of throwing an insult, you
could actually research the topic and see why that conclusion is valid. It is more obvious to some people than to
others on a personal level, I guess.
(Wag system?)
Actually I read it quite
thoroughly, that's why I asked you where you got your conclusions. I am interested in learning more, if you have
some source other than your opinion as a layman, please share it.
Do you find offense in my comment after you
started throwing insults at others in the first place then couldn't show the courtesy of answering an honest
question? That's not my problem, deal with it.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
In the animal world, sexual
behavior is determined by reducible factors, humans have much more complex social/sexual behavior, and these
heavily influence who we have meaningful relationships with, however, these 'lower-level' behaviors and
triggers are still primary motivators in our lives, though some of us may be aware of this much more than others.
Even in the absence of research and evidence, it would be very surprising that these don't play a primary role in
our modern interactions. In any case, it is continuing to be backed up by evidence, as Kohl routinely points out.
IDo you find offense in my comment after you started throwing insults at others in the first place then
couldn't show the courtesy of answering an honest question? That's not my problem, deal with it.
answered it, I hope it clears up what I meant. You now can answer a burning question of mine, who did I insult?
You really didn't answer the
question. You said:
"Because of the way they look? No. Their personality? No. That person's social status? No.
Their family history? No. What else could cause such a sudden lack of self-control, replaced by a horomonal,
imperitive need?"
I asked:
"How did you determine it wasn't any one of those reasons you listed?"
The argument
you cite is one half of a debate that has been running for two or three years that I know of. I have followed up
innumerable links and references from each of them. The biology crowd makes one set of arguments, the psych crowd
makes another set of arguments. After hours of reading both I have yet to read, see or hear anything that is
conclusive enough to accept such a sweeping statement as yours. The only expert source you have mentioned so far has
been your personal experience and that is exceedingly weak from anybody. So, I ask you again, other than your
opinion, do you have references or other sources you can cite or is that your opinion only? Are you a layman or are
you a professional in one of the fields these two gentlemen are discussing?
No, you probably don't consider
your blah blah blah following your quote of DrSmellThis insulting. Maybe it wasn't, only rude. Why did you delete
it? I don't honestly remember your other comment, the one I deleted but it was insulting or I wouldn't have
deleted it.
Just so you understand why I asked in the first place. Both JVKohl and DST are pros in their field.
I don't honestly know Mr. Kohl's education but his writing is well recieved within his discipline and sometimes
outside it. DST has a Ph.D in psychology and many years experience as a therapist and researcher. Both of them have
earned respect and neither should be derided by childish pot shots like "Blah, blah, blah" especially by an
amature.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
I don't recall
saying psychologists often hurt children when I commented on the 9 y/o girl that was killed by psychologists who
believed that "rebirthing therapy" would be beneficial--based upon psychobabble spouted by psychologist: Arthur
Janov--whose book "The Biology of Love" I reviewed for the Journal of Sex Research. Here's the URL for the
review.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...38/ai_84866962
What I hate to see is anyone else subjecting their child to a potentially deadly treatment
proposed by some moronic psychologist who thinks he knows what ridiculous methods will help the child. That's why I
wrote such a scathing book review. I am able to speak with authority because it was my standing in sexuality
research that led to being asked to author a review of the book. Get it? Author/authority, not "air of
authority."
If you were a physician, you make obvious the fact that you would not respond as have other
physicians (psychiatrists) who have banded together to expose "experts" like Arthur (I want my mommy!) Janov, author
of "The Primal Scream" and 11 other books. At least two of his followers are now in prison. I can only hope that no
other murderous treatments are required to sound the "wake-up" call for others.
I agree that this is unfortunate. First, because you remain anonymous by using a moniker,
so there is no way for most folks to determine whether you are qualified to offer your opinions. Second, you are
confused.
Actually, I simply try to respond appropriately to your ongoing
escalation of issues that have no place on this Forum. The unconscious affect of pheromones on hormones influences
sexual behavior. You constantly confuse the basis for the discussion of human pheromones with aspects of psychology
that have minimal bearing on human sexuality.
You could better represent yourself as an
anonymous person who may or may not be a professional in some area of
expertise.
JVK
Debate between whom? Nobody has been debating the issue except researchers, there is noThe argument you cite
is one half of a debate that has been running for two or three years that I know of. I have followed up innumerable
links and references from each of them. The biology crowd makes one set of arguments, the psych crowd makes another
set of arguments.
"sides" either except in your imagination. The debates on these forums are loose, qualitative affairs, trying to
establish consistency with certain products that contain compounds that have a potential positive social benefit.
If you truly did, then it would seem obvious which has beenAfter hours of reading both I have yet to read, see or hear anything that is conclusive enough
to accept such a sweeping statement as yours.
based on sound assumption, logic and increasingly evidence and which is not.
How do you know DST has a Ph.D? What accredited university did he publish his dissertation at?The only expert
source you have mentioned so far has been your personal experience and that is exceedingly weak from anybody. So, I
ask you again, other than your opinion, do you have references or other sources you can cite or is that your opinion
only? Are you a layman or are you a professional in one of the fields these two gentlemen are discussing?
No, you
probably don't consider your blah blah blah following your quote of DrSmellThis insulting. Maybe it wasn't, only
rude.
Just so you understand why I asked in the first place. Both JVKohl and DST are pros in their field.
I don't honestly know Mr. Kohl's education but his writing is well recieved within his discipline and sometimes
outside it. DST has a Ph.D in psychology and many years experience as a therapist and researcher. Both of them have
earned respect and neither should be derided by childish pot shots like "Blah, blah, blah" especially by an
amature.
If I had a dollar for every crank Ph.D out there using their credentials to justify nonsense, I could probably
buy a new workstation. I am not even an "amatuer" (odd choice of words), just someone with a high school level
education who paid a bit more attention in class about the scientific method and can recognize the better of two
arguments. But my comments here stem from personal observations and questions:
- Instant attraction to
strangers I did not find appealing, one of whom was a heavyset woman in an elevator, who was in a light sweat.
Why?
- I work around many attractive women yet some of them (who are athletic) seemingly repel me, wheres others
don't. Again, I could clearly tell the source is olfaction. Why?
- In all of these situations smell overrides
other factors and triggers a sexual reponse distinct and more powerful than other stimuli.
I should point
out another female poster in this thread affirmed the same thing. The truth is we are still more like animals than
we are aware. As for being rude to DST, it is quite rude making straw-man arguments and then goading someone else
with endless rhetoric. To his credit, he has one of the most well thought-out and interesting products on this site,
but his responses to Kohl are laughable, and at times appear as simple antagonization. My sincerest apologies if
"Blah blah blah blah" caused any suffering, despite how apt it undoubtedly was. I'll end this post with a question
though, if it hasn't been touched on. Could appearence simply function as a way to draw someone closer until they
can get a whiff of you?
Last edited by Sir Louis; 05-09-2005 at 06:57 AM.
Well said, Sir Louis.
I'm posting a few exerpts from this thread to demonstrate the
antagonism.
---------------------------------------------------------
jvkohl
Once the conscious odor
association is made there is no way to predict the response, since any response will be based upon thought
processes. Unconscious affect is a more powerful influence on behavior than are thought processes.
DrSmellThis:
The body of research in psychology indicates quite the opposite is true… you should be much
more careful before attempting sweeping generalizations about human psychology (unless identified as just opinions);
and at least consult relevant research in the field.
jvkohl: I don't need to consult it; I wrote it
DrSmellThis
JVK's pheromone paper... does not even remotely represent a kind of survey or review of that
field.
jvkohl … my 2001 Neuroendocrinology Letters "pheromone" paper is an invited review (of that field
[pheromones]) and won an award for integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology.
DrSmellThis
Again, JVK's
paper is a literature review about pheromones and their effect on hormones, not about the psychology of emotion and
cognition. It may have won an award, but it was in a different field.
------------------------------------------------------------
This discourse and the summary of my review by
DrSmellThis clearly illustrates our differences. I post authoritative biologically based opinions, which he counters
with comparatively anonymous and condescending rhetoric. In this manner, he has attempted to change the focus from
pheromones and their unconscious affect on human sexual behavior to emotion and cognition using lengthy and vague
ramblings about psychology.
As Sir Louis noted early in this thread DrSmellThis appears to have a strong
need to invalidate my work. Many other psychologists have entered earnest debates with me, without trying to
belittle me or my work. The difference between DrSmellThis and others seems to be that he wants to establish himself
as an authority on the topic of human pheromones. I have a limited amount of time for such foolishness, and have
reached my limit, for now.
JVK
I refer to the ongoing argument
between you and DST, I thought that was obvious.
If you truly did, then it would seem obvious which has been
based on sound assumption, logic and increasingly evidence and which is not.
I happen to know who he is in
the real world. Take my word or not, it doesn't matter.
You can judge the merits
of their debate based on your high school education as oppossed to having researched both subjects? My biggest issue
with both their arguments is they are seemingly unwilling to bend an inch either way. I do not doubt the instant
attraction and have made comments on the forum several times about it but I do doubt it controls our actions to the
degree sugggested.
Of course appearance could do that. You mention the one woman, why do you also ignore the
other who met her husband over the internet? Haven't seen a scratch and sniff web site yet, have you? I'll have to
ask her to be more specific but I believe my girlfriend had already decided about me before getting close to me.
There is a huge body of information out there and many crackpots, both with and without Ph.D's. Personally Mr.
Kohls' product has done very little for me despite having used two bottles of it in careful tests. It works for
many others, though. Go out and do some studying, then come back with some real arguments rather than hyperbole and
uneducated judgments.
As for the rest, both get pretty silly with their arguments and personal attacks. I've
had to edit or move several threads because they went so far afield. It does not give you any reason to start with
the same thing.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
I hope you don't mind me
stepping in here:
I've commented before on love at first sight versus growing affection in the absence of
visual input. What some people still fail to realize is that pheromones elicit unconsious affect and cause hormonal
changes from the day we are born. These changes rewire the brain throughout life. Before puberty our sexual response
cycle has been conditioned by olfactory input; we have unknowingly developed preferences for characteristics that we
find appealing based on experiences with the natural body odor of other people (again, from the day we are born).
The example I continue to use is a comparison with the development of food preferences, based upon the chemical
appeal of the food (not the visual appeal).
I don't know why people find it so hard to make the connection
to olfactory conditioning of hormones involved in mate choice, when there is so much evidence that says olfactory
input conditions what we find visual appealing both in food and in mate choice. In human studies, this has been
shown to occur for genetically determined characteristics associated with tissue type. People choose for olfactory
indicators of tissue type; those that bloodhounds sniff out when trained for tracking scent signatures. We cannot
discriminate among these differences using visual input; only olfactory input, which means our choices for these
genetically determined characteristics are not based on visual input.
Of course, we can consciously over-ride
unconscious affect. But we do so at risk of making choices that make happiness in a relationship very difficult to
achieve.
Finally, the difference between food preferences and mate preferences is that mate preferences are
usually different in males and females. You cannot, biologically, get to a sex difference in choice without first
having a sex difference in the processing of input, and a sex difference in the result of the processing (e.g.,
hormonal change.) That's why mammalian mate choice, including human mate choice, cannot biologically be based on
visual input. If there is a sex difference in the way males and females process visual input from the social
environment, no one has found it. If this difference is ever found, it must also be directly linked to sex
differences in hormonal changes before linking the difference, biologically, to behavior. On the other hand,
psychologically, you can link just about anything to anything.
JVK
Thanks, I appreciate the
feedback. The only point I will dispute, mostly because of my lack of training in either field, is the implied value
of psycology in understanding why humans make the choices they make. Completely eliminating observations made under
stringent testing protocols because they conflict with another discipline or belief is bad science.
In the
several years I've been reading your work I have learned many things either from you or the resources you quote and
will probably learn quite a bit more. At the same time, I have learned as much from the sources and arguments from
DST. You've both been a great benefit to me. My point here is in keeping an open mind, our knowledge is not so
great as to be able to eliminate other possible sources of information. Nor does it give me the right to ridicule
either of you or your professional fields, you have both worked hard for your professional standing. The thing I
most hate about the discussions between you two is how they always digress into stupid personal insults towards each
other.
I hope to see many more interesting, informative and constructive discussions from both you and DST but
do hope they can be kept more professional.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
DST "argues" with Kohl. Actually it
looks more like a Chiuwawa nipping at someone else's ankles, but you are an admin, and I really need to watch what
I write, don't I?
Somehow I guessed you were friends early on. Must be a non-reducible clairvoyant impressionI happen to know who he is in the real world. Take my word or not, it
doesn't matter.
I had. Free will and all that.
Oh, I'm really a neurologist and a biochemist by the way. I was
kidding about the high school education bit. I'm also a member of the Knights Templar, look at my username. But
seriously, I'll let someone else question DST about the validity of the credentials he claims, (preferably
everytime he starts humping a real sex researcher's leg, who does have credentials, published research, and bothers
to sign his own bloody name to boot).
You are unwilling to accept DST is talking nonsense because you areMy biggest issue with both their arguments is
they are seemingly unwilling to bend an inch either way.
Your biggest issue is you think DST represents
the opinion of actual psychologists.
friends with him. The odd fact alone he chooses to remain anonymous should bring into question if he is a
legitimate psychologist.
So I ask again, what university did he graduate from? What was his
dissertation? Still curious.
Because that has nothing toOf course appearance could do that. You mention the one
woman, why do you also ignore the other who met her husband over the internet?
do with the cause of purely sexual attraction among strangers in our daily lives. The way someone looks or acts
assumes reproductive fitness. I would guess this functions as a way to draw them closer.
I haven't noticed anything spectacular using it either. I do notice that it does makePersonally Mr. Kohls' product has done very little for me despite having used two bottles of it in
careful tests.
people friendlier in a way that cologne doesn't, which is crucial in business dealings, and justifies the cost.
Kohl is the only one here making supportableIt works for many others, though. Go out and do some studying, then come back with some
real arguments rather than hyperbole and uneducated judgments.
or rational arguments, period. I was just trying to make it clear as opposed to DST's rubbish, smell being primary
is observable in some situations in our daily lives, if we bother to look. As for education, you continue to not
realize this research falls with sociobiology, not psychology. Who do you think is more likely to understand the
question, a biologist, or Dr.Phil?
You idiotically assign a "side" to this as if it was a religious
debate, and pretend DST is a psychologist (he could be), and represents the study of psychology. The truth is he is
arguing for the sake of arguing, and writing a mountain of rhetorical declarations, signifying nothing. A proper
debate between professionals doesn't look like what DST writes. In reality, therapy techniques could stand to
benefit in countless ways by understanding the sociobiological mechanisms behind human sexual behavior more clearly.
I'm sure Freud would have agreed.
Last edited by Sir Louis; 04-12-2005 at 01:45 PM.
Louis
I couldn't care
less if you are rude to me. To put it bluntly, you aren't significant enough for me to care what you think of me.
If you hope that your sarcasm is going to irritate me, you are going to have to try harder. Oh, the word is
mod-er-at-or, like it says under my name on the left. For those with problems with big words mod will
do.
For one so (allegedly) well educated you seem singularly weak in reading comprehension. I
have not said either was wrong or right and have no intention of doing so. As I have said, I don't have the
education in either area to make those judgments. It is also not my place to make those
judgments.
Congratulations on your education, if it's true, in any case. (Not an accusation just
applying your own standards.) I’m proud of you. Now give yourself a nice pat on the head. Yes, as a matter of fact,
I am being sarcastic. How perceptive of you to notice. It’s called responding in kind, do you need that
defined?
How does your education qualify you to judge the merits
of psychology? I do not recall that he ever claimed to be a sex researcher but I may have missed that. Could you let
me know where you saw it?
Why should he give his real name in a
forum where the convention is to use a handle? Does he not have the same right and expectation of privacy as any of
the rest of us? I don’t see you attacking any other poster, some of whom have made some pretty outrageous claims,
for concealing their identity. Do you have some type of problem with his field that you must try to denigrate
professionals in that field in order to bolster your own ego? Have you bothered to read his body of work on the
forum or follow up the references he provides supporting his opinion? Or are you making your decisions based on a
single debate and your own personal bias?
It is awfully generous
of you to allow somebody else the privilege of making their own decisions. Not especially surprising that you came
to those conclusions in view of the discipline you claim. I've known few biologists who accept psychology; really a
rather common case of tunnel vision. Your attitude is pretty classic.
Louis
Bluntly put pure crap and hyperbole in a vain effort to reinforce your point of view
through misdirection. Sad that one of your (claimed) education resorts to such things. A long time before we became
friends and even before I joined this forum I learned to pay careful attention to both sides of any debate and
suspend judgment. You are free and welcome to question his credentials but your suspicious and narrow minded
attitude makes me wonder about your own educational claims. Just for fun, try doing a search and see how many times
I have argued with DST.
True enough if it really works for you. Since your observations are purely
subjective and as a (alleged) scientist you surely understand the flaws there, I rather think it best to consider
your comments in that light.
I refer you back to my questions and comments above.
Louis
Name calling now? I’m so disappointed in you. Do I need to define
debate for you or do you have a dictionary? Do you mind if I ask you a question in the sincere hope that you answer
it? How do you feel about a person who uses factual misrepresentation to support their side of a discussion? If I
could demonstrate several cases of it, how would that affect your point of view?
I do not claim expertise in any of the matters those two debate and I don’t in any
way misrepresent my knowledge or the facts, something I have seen a lot of in this thread. Then you have the
temerity to act as if I do not believe DST credentials. I’ve noticed that dishonest people also do that a lot, try
to drag others down to their level. All I am saying is that your sarcasm from the very start has been unwarranted
and inappropriate. The scientific professionals I know and have known throughout my life would not resort to such
tactics. If science has declined so from the days of my involvement in it, I am deeply saddened.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Doc Mobley, Phd. here,
just wanted to say, "Doc, JVK, Sir L, Bel ... I appreciate all you guys and your disagreements.
Would
love to give all you guys a hug!
Stay the course!
Never argue with ignorant people! They pull you down to THEIR level, and then they BEAT YOU with experience. Who said that!? I don't know, but tis gold I tell'ya!!
But I'm not a scientist, I'm a knight.All I am saying is that
your sarcasm from the very start has been unwarranted and inappropriate. The scientific professionals I know and
have known throughout my life would not resort to such tactics. If science has declined so from the days of my
involvement in it, I am deeply saddened.
He claims to be a psychologist. I have a suspicion that he isn't because he demonstrates aWhy should he give his real name in a forum where the convention is to use a handle? Does he not have the
same right and expectation of privacy as any of the rest of us? I don’t see you attacking any other
poster...
cosmic lack of professionalism:
A) He uses an anonymous handle yet claims to be a legitimate Ph.D.
B) He antagonizes and makes baseless assertions.
C) He attempts to invalidate a legitimate
researcher's work in a seperate discipline using concepts that don't apply and no explanation whatsoever.
No, I don't believe he is a legitimate psychologist. Where is his dissertation
published? It's a simple question.
Still curious.
Admin...
Last edited by Sir Louis; 05-09-2005 at 06:58 AM.
Your educational claims imply that you
He claims to be a psychologist. I have a suspician that he isn't because he demonstrates a cosmic lack of
professionalism:
A) He uses an anonymous handle yet claims to be a legitimate Ph.D.
B) He antagonizes and
makes baseless assertions.
C) He attempts to invalidate a legitimate researcher's work in a seperate
discipline using concepts that don't apply and no explanation whatsoever.
No, I don't
believe he is a legitimate psychologist. Where is his dissertation published? It's a simple question.
Still curious.
Admin...
are also a scientist or do I misunderstand?
I honestly do not have the right to answer where his desertation
was published. He, like you, me and every other person on this forum, has a reasonable right and expectation of
privacy. Ethically, I do not even believe I have the right to ask any personal information like that. You'll notice
I asked for credentials, not when or where you achieved them or even what part of the world you live in. Please
understand that is the way it has to be on a forum such as this. You can believe what you wish, I cannot change that
and don't care to try but please show me some respect by not inferring I am a liar.
I do not wish to start
another debate with you or anybody else. However, I am going to point out that neither of them has been above
reproach in how they handled this debate or a large number of others in the past. I've been watching them for a
while now and have seen many things I wouldn't do myself.
Mod...I don't have admin rights.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
And you, me and every other person on this forum
has a right to question a claim.
At least I hope.
Where a dissertation is published isn't personalEthically, I do not even believe I
have the right to ask any personal information like that.
information, it can be publically searched and obtained, and is absolutely appropriate to ask, especially in
internet forums, which are by nature, anonymous. My "qualifications" aren't in question because I am not claiming
to be a psychologist, or a research scientist for that matter, or trying to invalidate or criticise work
published by a psychologist or research scientist. DST routinely does, with apparently no understanding that
sociobiology and psychology are closely linked disciplines that complement each other. If you notice, I did
not respond to either DST or Kohl's posts adding to or refuting anything specific.
I don't believe you
are a liar at all. I do believe you are good friends with him though, which is why you're falling over
yourself trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and rationalizing his behavior to an embarassing degree. I
apologise if I was rude, but there is a principle involved here.
I give everybody the benefit of
the doubt, including you and JVKohl. There would have been no problem between us if you had been civil in the first
place.
DST's desertation is private as far as this forum is concerned because handles were created to assure
the ability to remain anonymous if one so chooses. Telling you where to find his desertation would also reveal his
full name, wouldn't it? I will not violate that expectation of privacy to satisfy your whim. If DST chooses to do
so that his decision exclusively. There are principles involved in what I do as well and I am not going to
compromise them for you or anybody else.
Possibly you did not understand my reference to your credentials. It
was a convienant example, no more. Your credentials are only of minor importance in determining how to take your
remarks. Now that I know a little about them, I would have expected a more professional approach from you.
You
can believe what you like about my reasons for my actions, what you believe is not important to me. I understand the
reasons for my actions and that's all that really matters, not yours or anybody else's opinion. Since you don't
know me I can only think that you are doing the same as any other human and making assumptions based on the way you
think. That's normal but can lead to gross underestimations also.
Friends? Yes. Good friends? If you say so, it
depends on your definition. Those who know me know they can count on me to be fair and try to help anybody who asks.
I have several friends on this forum and I have banned a few of them. I make every effort to disassociate my
personal friendships from my decisions as a moderator. It may not be much fun for me sometimes but it is what I
agreed to do when I signed on.
Shall we agree to disagree?
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
No problem, thread closed.Shall we agree to
disagree?
Agreed. It is also bad science to favor observations (e.g., what we think we
know) over biological facts (what we know).
What professional standing does DrSmellThis have? How is it relevant to the
Pheromone Forum?
I dissagree. DrSmellThis typically
just annoys me.
It is difficult to
keep discussions more professional, when DST remains an anonymous "professional." He has frequently belittled my
opinions and my published works, yet will not come forward with any information that allows comparison with the
basis of his opinions/published works.
JVK
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks