Close

Page 1 of 3 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 61
  1. #1
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    7015

    Default SOE/w for JVKohl

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    JvKohl, have

    you considered selling a version of SOE/w that was ONLY Jutte's exact copulin formula? No fragrance, no additives,

    it's just a vial of the Jutte formula? Perhaps you could sell the Jutte formula in a stronger concentration (albeit

    still the same Jutte formula). It seems that some women may need a stronger version of SOE/w, and others don't. It

    would widen your market.
    Also, women could use the concentrated Jutte formula SOE/w at the strength that best suits

    them (like EW), diluting if necessary or using full strength, and then cover it with a scent of their own

    choosing.
    Just an idea. I know I'd be willing to puchase such a version of SOE/w.
    You might call it "SOE/w

    Copulin Concentrate", or some such!

  2. #2
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Without the fragrance, Astrid's

    formula allows a conscious odor association to be readily made. 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.

    Astrid mentioned to me several years ago that

    she had heard someone in France had used the formula in a product (didn't say whether fragrance was added). I never

    heard any more about it.

    JVK



    Quote Originally Posted by InACharmedLife
    JvKohl,

    have you considered selling a version of SOE/w that was ONLY Jutte's exact copulin formula? No fragrance, no

    additives, it's just a vial of the Jutte formula? Perhaps you could sell the Jutte formula in a stronger

    concentration (albeit still the same Jutte formula). It seems that some women may need a stronger version of SOE/w,

    and others don't. It would widen your market.
    Also, women could use the concentrated Jutte formula SOE/w at the

    strength that best suits them (like EW), diluting if necessary or using full strength, and then cover it with a

    scent of their own choosing.
    Just an idea. I know I'd be willing to puchase such a version of SOE/w.
    You

    might call it "SOE/w Copulin Concentrate", or some such!

  3. #3
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    7015

    Default

    But Jutte didn't use

    fragrance in her formula, correct?
    I think some of us would like to be able to purchase Jutte's formula,

    unadulterated.
    That way we can cover it with our own preferred scents.

    Also, you didn't answer my question

    about selling a concentrated version of SOE/w. It seems logical that different women would want different strengths

    of copulins.

  4. #4
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InACharmedLife
    But Jutte

    didn't use fragrance in her formula, correct?
    Correct, she used a controlled setting and measured

    salivary testosterone. A woman wearing the copulin formula during everyday activities would be likely to wear too

    much--that would cause the conscious odor association. All strong odors are consciously perceived as

    aversive.

    Quote Originally Posted by InACharmedLife
    I think some of us would like to be able to purchase Jutte's formula,

    unadulterated.
    That way we can cover it with our own preferred scents.
    I don't think there would

    be enough market potential; 1000 bottles would be the minimum run.

    Quote Originally Posted by InACharmedLife
    Also, you didn't

    answer my question about selling a concentrated version of SOE/w. It seems logical that different women would want

    different strengths of copulins.
    Again, there is the marketing problem of having 1000 bottles of each

    product, so a concentrated version of SoE/w isn't very economical. The best bet has always been to create a product

    that the majority of people like.

    JVK

  5. #5
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    Without the

    fragrance, Astrid's formula allows a conscious odor association to be readily made. 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.
    Aside

    from the first sentence, I can't understand this apparently self contradictory paragraph.

    Conscious thought

    processes, about smells or anything else, don't suddenly and completely override unconscious tendencies, to where

    responses would be suddenly based only on them (as is implied in the second sentence). Both aspects would

    still be there as influences. Besides, conscious sexual or sexy smells are in fact arousing to humans, at

    appropriate concentrations.

    And neither does the apparently self-contradictory, overly broad statement that

    "unconscious affect is a more powerful influence on behavior than are thought processes" have any evidence

    supporting it. The body of research in psychology indicates quite the opposite is true (e.g., Cohen's meta

    analysis), as I've noted a number of times.

    Again, 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.

    Though I have no opinion on the original question in this thread, many have found EW to be a quite

    useful product, despite it being raw copulins. Though hardly aimed at a mainstream, mass-market, it sells

    suprisingly well for Bruce, from what I've heard. Most people figure out not to put too much on, and to wear an

    appropriate cover scent. I'd like to see some improvements made on that product, personally.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 04-07-2005 at 12:33 AM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  6. #6
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
    Conscious

    thought processes, about smells or anything else, don't suddenly and completely override unconscious tendencies, to

    where responses would be suddenly based only on them (as is implied in the second sentence).
    As I

    have written many times, even the scent of rose becomes aversive and is consciously avoided when sufficiently

    concentrated. Conscious avoidance will then suddenly and completely override unconscious tendencies.



    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
    And neither does the apparently self-contradictory, overly broad statement that

    "unconscious affect is a more powerful influence on behavior than are thought processes" have any evidence

    supporting it. The body of research in psychology indicates quite the opposite is true (e.g., Cohen's meta

    analysis), as I've noted a number of times.
    Do a google search on Primacy of affect. No evidence

    supporting it? This is basic biology, which is well accepted by psychiatrists if not by psychologists. For example

    see: Zajonc, R.B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. In Approaches to Emotion, K.R. Scherer and P. Ekman, eds.

    Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
    Again, 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.
    The most relevant review of research, cites Zajonc (above) and

    others. I don't need to consult it; I wrote it (with co-authors from Vienna). "Human Pheromones: Integrating

    Neuroendocrinology and Ethology" The full text is available for free:


    http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
    Though I have no

    opinion on the original question in this thread, many have found EW to be a quite useful product, despite it being

    raw copulins.
    In another thread, I discussed the inclusion of indole in EW, which is inconsistent with

    EW being called raw copulins, since indole is not part of the copulin formula.



    JVK

  7. #7
    Phero Pro NaughtieGirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Way too far North!
    Posts
    974
    Rep Power
    7074

    Default I'm with Charmed

    I'm almost

    afraid to but in here, you guys are so smart. But I have to agree with Charmed.

    I really think there is a niche

    in the market for products that are identical to those used in the trials/research. If they were effective for

    research, why wouldn't they work in real life? They would of course be accompanied by a disclaimer that people need

    to know what they're doing! Like the one that goes with EW (wasn't that the truth!)

    The profit margin could be

    whatever it needs to be to make it interesting for the manufacturer and people can either take it or leave it.

    Suggested dilution and/or cover-up directions to be shipped with product. I can think of a number of them that have

    been used in research and do not seem readily available for purchase.

  8. #8
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    7015

    Default

    The obvious discrepancy

    is that if Jutte's test subjects were exposed to a copulin formula not covered by an added fragrance, then the

    testosterone rise may indeed have been caused by a conscious response in the test subjects. Or, by a combination of

    conscious/subconscious response.

    The Jutte study didn't rule out conscious response at all! So, why should we

    do so, when employing copulins?
    If the test subjects were exposed to such a high concentration of copulin formula

    that the scent was aversive to them, the test subjects likely would have displayed different and negative reaction

    (and not a testosterone rise).

    To me, these are significant gaps between the Jutte study and the end commercial

    product. As a consumer, I want the EXACT same copulin formula used in the Jutte study, without additives, without

    tweaks, without improvements...just the same tested copulin formula.
    I wish it were available for purchase. I

    think it would sell better than any other product currently available.

  9. #9
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    60
    Rep Power
    7034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
    Aside from

    the first sentence, I can't understand this apparently self contradictory paragraph.
    [Rhetoric flushed]

    Time out. I read the last exchange between you and James Kohl, and it was painfully

    clear who was making sense, as I scanned the volume of replies you wrote incessantly challenging the man's good

    manner and patience. Reading this, the situation hasn't changed much either, so I ask politely, please stop

    instigating?

    I understand you have a strong need to invalidate the man's work, but please at least stay

    on the same playing field?

    What Kohl is trying to convey can be understood by any layman who had a

    high-school education and an open ear in Life Sciences. What his papers and his conclusions suggest makes perfect

    biological sense, and are most likely to be exploited in the near future by others in the same field.
    Last edited by Sir Louis; 04-09-2005 at 02:03 PM.

  10. #10
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    60
    Rep Power
    7034

    Default

    Conscious thought

    processes, about smells or anything else, don't suddenly and completely override unconscious tendencies, to where

    responses would be suddenly based only on them (as is implied in the second sentence). Both aspects would

    still be there as influences. Besides, conscious sexual or sexy smells are in fact arousing to humans, at

    appropriate concentrations.
    Yes, they in fact, do.

    For anyone reading this, just to explain this in a

    loose nonscientific way, can you picture someone you are attracted to, man or women - someone whom you'd sell your

    new car to have a one night stand with, emitting a smell, not necessarily a body odor, but something offensive, that

    could have the potential to turn you off like a light-switch, no matter how much their looks, personality or

    their social status affirm they are worth the sacrifice?

    Visual stimuli can't duplicate the electrifying

    sensation of getting a whiff of some perfectly average looking females that have passed by me, this suggests that

    smell is primary, since it can and has overriden visual appeal, so what he's describing isn't any stretch of

    logic, which, in a nutshell, is fitness denotes signature and signature denotes fitness. Both are in

    effect, co-morbid.

    The question is, can signature alone define fitness, and can this be cued repeatedly, and to

    what magnitude? This is why pheromones interested me in the first place, I was keenly aware how powerful human,

    specifically some female, scents were. Most of us are here with one thing in mind, an edge in social/business

    situations or more overt sexual encounters. If visual stimuli without any of those icky human factors appeals to you

    somehow, I suggest: http://www.realdoll.com

    Any takers?

    As a side

    note, I owe the man dearly for the word "vaginal barrel", which makes women laugh 100% of the time, unlike SOE/M.

    Last edited by belgareth; 04-10-2005 at 12:16 PM.

  11. #11
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Louis
    [DrSmellThis

    Rhetoric flushed]

    I understand you have a strong need to invalidate the man's work, but please at

    least stay on the same playing field?

    What Kohl is trying to convey can be understood by any layman who

    had a high-school education and an open ear in Life Sciences. What his papers and his conclusions suggest makes

    perfect biological sense, and are most likely to be exploited in the near future by others in the same

    field.
    Thanks, Sir Louis. I've rarely participated in the Women's Forum, and am sure that other

    participants are relatively unaware of the anonymous antagonism that is typical in posts by

    DrSmellThis.

    JVK

  12. #12
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    As

    I have written many times, even the scent of rose becomes aversive and is consciously avoided when sufficiently

    concentrated. Conscious avoidance will then suddenly and completely override unconscious tendencies.
    I

    understand your original position to imply that any conscious awareness of the copulins’ smell is enough to override

    the unconscious attraction tendency. I disagreed with that, and even think the conscious effect could enhance the

    unconscious one.


    Now you are referring to a situation wherein a conscious smell is further

    concentrated enough to be aversive. Aversive is aversive. But since there is no need for copulins to smell aversive

    in the appropriate concentration and context, they are two separate situations.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl

    Do a google search on Primacy of affect. No evidence supporting it? This is basic biology, which is well accepted by

    psychiatrists if not by psychologists. For example see: Zajonc, R.B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. In Approaches

    to Emotion, K.R. Scherer and P. Ekman, eds. Hillsdale, NJ:
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    Lawrence

    Erlbaum Associates.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    The most relevant review of research, cites Zajonc

    (above) and others. I don't need to consult it; I wrote it (with co-authors from
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    Vienna).
    Pheromones and

    the psychological study of the role of emotions and cognition in directing human

    behavior
    are intersecting, yet very different fields of study. JVK's pheromone paper is relevant to

    one aspect of the latter, but does not even remotely represent a kind of survey or review of that field. The nuanced

    and interwoven relationship between thoughts and feelings -- and between both and behavior – is clearly the province

    of psychology. Biologists now study some narrow,

    primitive aspects
    of it, and neurologists a bit more; but most of the research getting at the main

    question comes from psychology.


    Mr. Kohl misrepresents the “primacy of affect” in the

    above posts. It’s important to understand that “primacy of affect” isn't about "unconscious emotions being a

    greater influence on behavior than thought" at all. Primacy of affect theory merely suggests that emotions

    sometimes have an independent effect on behavior, and says nothing about their relative influence on

    our actions.


    These are two very different claims. The “primacy of affect” claim is very

    specific, and relatively modest. Still, even this position has turned out to be highly debatable, though not without

    merit for understanding how thoughts and feelings relate.


    JVK suggests "primacy of affect"

    is generally accepted. But in the very same 1984 issue of American Psychologist, vol.

    39,
    where we find the primacy of affect reintroduced to the public debate by Zajonc, we find the classic

    article by Richard Lazarus, "The Primacy of Cognition", which asserts that cognitive

    processing is instead primary to emotion:
    To experience an emotion, people must

    comprehend – whether in the form of a primitive evaluative perception or a highly differentiated symbolic process --

    that their well-being is implicated in the transaction.
    Lazarus
    contends that “emotion”

    is not mere physiological arousal, behavioral reflex, bodily sensation, or even preference; but depends on a

    situational appraisal – on cognition. He recasts the same evidence cited by Zajonc as supporting his own position.

    Since then other studies have cast doubt on affective primacy. “No support for the primacy of affect

    was found” in this recent study, for example:

    http://www.lib.ccu.edu.tw/indoor/jou

    rnal/jnccu/v6s2_6.htm


    There is a good amount of research apparently

    “supporting” this second position -- which is still not to be confused with JVK’s contention that unconscious

    feeling is a bigger influence on human behavior than thought. The research in psychology does not support JVK's

    claim; but suggests instead that about 2/3 of the variation in our behavior can be causally attributed to thought

    (for example, see the research of G. S. Howard, beginning with his article in the American Psychologist, 1986; or

    his book, Dare we Develop a Human Science?). Clinically, the fact that strict cognitive therapy has the best

    track record of any non pharmacological therapy with major depression (including emotion-oriented interventions)

    shows that even the most intense, intransigent emotional states can be made to conform to thought.




    On the other hand, the debate about primacy itself has been raging since the 1800's. (See

    Cannon-Bard and James-Lange in any intro to psych textbook. Wundt talked about it too in 1905.) Neither theoretical

    position is commonly accepted as fitting the facts well. The consensus since the mid 90's is rather that

    the whole primacy debate is wrongheaded, and reflects a fundamental

    misunderstanding of the degree to which feelings and thoughts are inseparable and contribute fundamentally to each

    other. (For example, see
    LeDoux, J.E. (1989); Cognitive-emotional interactions in the

    brain. Cognition and Emotion, 3, 267-289. On the web, see

    http://emotion.bme.duke.ed

    u/Emotion/EmoRes/Psych/CogExp/Integr.html
    )
    This holistic view is best supported

    by the current research.


    Lazarus, for his part, ultimately acknowledges “the indeterminacy

    of the issue of cognitive versus emotional primacy.” (American Psychologist, 1984, vol. 39, p. 124)




    Neither psychiatrists nor neurologists adhere to only one side of the multisided, raging debate.



    For a variety of perspectives, see these:

    http://psych.colorado.edu/~tito/sp04/

    4606/citations.html

    Even Zajonc acknowledges that,
    there is a unanimous

    voice that … under most circumstances cognitive factors contribute heavily to every aspect of the emotion process.

    They participate as sufficient conditions in the generation of emotion, they participate as necessary processes in

    the symbolization and labeling of the emotion, and they influence emotion expression. (In Izard, Kagan and Zajonc,

    1984; p. 6)
    The authors further acknowledge that it is not clear whether emotion and cognition represent two

    different systems at all; and that the one systems view generally subsumes emotion as a factor in information

    processing and cognition.


    If emotion and cognition are as closely interwoven as currently

    available research suggests; if the most entrenched emotions respond well in practice to cognitive interventions;

    and given the huge effect sizes (2/3 of behavioral variance for conscious volition versus a fraction of 1/3 for

    unconscious affect) observed in volition research, it would be dubious to claim that emotions affect what we do

    "more than" what we think, much less claim that about unconscious emotions alone. This also flies in the face

    of common sense; which tells us that if we consciously, deliberately decide to do something, on a mundane, every day

    basis, we'll typically do it.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    In another thread, I discussed the inclusion of

    indole in EW, which is inconsistent with EW being called raw copulins, since indole is not part of the copulin

    formula.
    Having one ingredient in a comprehensive raw copulin formula that isn't a copulin, but is still

    part of the feminine crotch smell, need not prevent us from talking about EW as a raw copulin formula, which is how

    Bruce and Phil Stone market it. If you smell copulins in nature, you’re going to be smelling indole too, and indole

    has long proven its value in perfuming and aromatherapy. Further, there is no reason to pit any one successful,

    effective L-S product against another.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 04-10-2005 at 08:18 AM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  13. #13
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    7015

    Default

    Yikes, just call me the

    can o' worms opener! Sorry, all!

    Anyway, back to my interest in starting this thread;

    JVK, would it be

    possible for you to accept pre-orders (pre-payments) on special order bottles of JUST Astrid Jutte's exact copulin

    formula? No additives, no fragrances, no formula changes.
    I would preorder a few bottles and I think other women

    here might do so, too.
    If we presented a large enough group pre-order, would it then be feasible for you to supply

    us with Jutte's unadulterated copulin formula?
    Thanks for considering this!

  14. #14
    Full Member culturalblonde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    183
    Rep Power
    7553

    Default

    I would be interested in

    ordering as well, since I am very sensitive to certain additives and fragrances. Thanks.

  15. #15
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    60
    Rep Power
    7034

    Default

    The authors further acknowledge that it is not clear whether emotion and

    cognition represent two different systems at all; and that the one systems view generally subsumes emotion as a

    factor in information processing and cognition.
    This isn't a complicated issue. Smell

    defines visual appeal, and vice versa. Because smell can override visual appeal, it is therefore primary in sexual

    attraction in humans. How do you argue against this when it can be observed so easily? I love his smile, voice,

    little things he does, the fact that he's a rock singer - these are sociological. If he was exuding a chemical

    which signaled poor reproductive fitness, she simply wouldn't be able to bring herself to have sex with him and

    wouldn't know why.


    Last edited by belgareth; 04-10-2005 at 04:00 PM.

  16. #16
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Louis



    This isn't a complicated issue. Smell defines visual appeal, and vice versa. Because smell can override visual

    appeal, it is therefore primary in sexual attraction in humans. How do you argue against this when it can be

    observed so easily? I love his smile, voice, little things he does, the fact that he's a rock singer - these are

    sociological. If he was exuding a chemical which signaled poor reproductive fitness, she simply wouldn't be able to

    bring herself to have sex with him and wouldn't know why.


    The relation between emotion and

    cognition as these affect behavior is most certainly a complicated issue, as 175 years of debate in psychology can

    attest.

    You are talking about a totally different issue, the relation between olfaction and vision in

    attraction. No one is debating this issue right now, or suggesting olfactory information can't override visual

    information sometimes. I can't recall anyone ever suggesting anything like this in the history of the forum.

    It

    is not clear that either sense (or another like hearing) couldn't furnish relatively more prominient information to

    our appraisals of someone's attractiveness, in any given moment and situation. This fact alone does not make either

    sense "primary", generally speaking; but it is important not to confuse this figure of speech with the scientific

    concept of "primacy", as applied to emotions or cognition.

    I agree that a bad olfactory experience can in some

    cases ruin the attraction someone feels for another, especially if two people don't know each other. No one in the

    forum has ever suggested otherwise, to my knowledge.

    At other times, a little "gaminess" or pungence in one's

    smell wouldn't torpedo one's chances whatsoever, depending on the pheromonal compatibility two people enjoy. I

    find a tiny bit of "stank" on a woman I'm otherwise very attracted to to be intoxicatingly sexy.
    Last edited by belgareth; 04-10-2005 at 04:00 PM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  17. #17
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Louis
    [Rhetoric

    flushed]

    Time out. I read the last exchange between you and James Kohl, and it was painfully clear who was

    making sense, as I scanned the volume of replies you wrote incessantly challenging the man's good manner and

    patience. Reading this, the situation hasn't changed much either, so I ask politely, please stop instigating?



    I understand you have a strong need to invalidate the man's work, but please at least stay on the same playing

    field?

    What Kohl is trying to convey can be understood by any layman who had a high-school education and an open

    ear in Life Sciences. What his papers and his conclusions suggest makes perfect biological sense, and are most

    likely to be exploited in the near future by others in the same field.
    Of course, I'm going to disagree

    about who is making sense.

    JVK typically enjoys respect here and elsewhere when talking about the biological

    aspects of pheromones. Thankfully, I can agree with most of that information, and even defer to JVK in most cases,

    since I don't have time to keep up with all that information. In the history of the forum, however, JVK has tended

    to say things that require correction when he "pontificates" about general psychology, which is not his field.



    Some of these statements in the past have had dangerous implications for our understanding of people and the field

    of psychology, such as statements implying that psychologists often hurt children as a matter of course in their

    counseling. You'd hate to see people not get their troubled kids help because of a statement like that, especially

    when such a statement is spoken with an "air of authority." So as long as I'm here, I'm going to say something

    about these kinds of things; just like if I were a physician, I'd respond if someone said smoking was not hazardous

    to your health.

    Computers is not my field, for instance. I'm sure Belgareth, who is a friend, wouldn't

    hesitate to correct me if I lectured about computers in a way that was misleading for everyone. Most adults learn to

    enjoy deferring to others who are the relative experts in their own field; and don't find expressing humility in

    this way to be unpleasant whatsoever.

    Since I'm the only psychologist around here, it unfortunately has fallen

    on me to protect readers from confusion about psychology. I'd prefer not to have to do this, especially since JVK

    typically becomes more arrogant in the face of any kind of negative feedback, constructive or otherwise. But you

    feel some responsibility to protect the integrity of your field as a professional, especially when there are already

    so many dangerous misconceptions about one's field in pop culture (like that schizophrenics are violent or have

    "split personalities")
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 04-10-2005 at 02:08 PM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  18. #18
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    60
    Rep Power
    7034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
    The

    relation between emotion and cognition as these affect behavior is most certainly a complicated issue, as 175 years

    of debate in psychology can attest.

    You are talking about a totally different issue, the relation between

    olfaction and vision in attraction. No one is debating this issue right now, or suggesting olfactory information

    can't override visual information sometimes. I can't recall anyone ever suggesting anything like this in the

    history of the forum.

    It is not clear that either sense (or another like hearing) couldn't furnish

    relatively more prominient information to our appraisals of someone's attractiveness, in any given moment and

    situation. This fact alone does not make either sense "primary", generally speaking; but it is important not to

    confuse this figure of speech with the scientific concept of "primacy", as applied to emotions or cognition.



    I agree that a bad olfactory experience can in some cases ruin the attraction someone feels for another,

    especially if two people don't know each other. No one in the forum has ever suggested otherwise, to my knowledge.



    At other times, a little "gaminess" or pungence in one's smell wouldn't torpedo one's chances

    whatsoever, depending on the pheromonal compatibility two people enjoy. I find a tiny bit of "stank" on a woman I'm

    otherwise very attracted to to be intoxicatingly sexy.
    To suggest that visual signaling or psychological

    (historical) factors predominate chemical or hormonal signaling makes no (socio)biological sense whatsoever, as this

    is observed in the animal world, and underpins animal behavior. Humans are animals, albeit intelligent with complex

    social behaviors. It's ephemeral, like saying something comes from nothing. To say that this isn't the the primary

    cause for effect in human interaction, and instead assign a vague explanation isn't sensible.

    There has

    to be a link between the two. I understand what you mean, I just don't (can't, sanely) agree with the premise.

    Quite honestly, I'm very curious why we do select a mate based on superficial reasons, rather than essential, as

    Kohl concludes. I should point out I am speaking from personal experience here, the territory not the map - I fully

    understand sexual and romantic interest for ephemeral reasons. I also understand that this can be instantly

    overridden by primitive signals, which are both concious and unconsciously detected - the priority of mating with

    this person comes to the forefront of your attention, regardless of other priorities.

  19. #19
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Um, who are you arguing with,

    and why did you plant your "psychology is ephemeral" statement in your quote of me? I didn't say that, obviously,

    and didn't say too many of the things you attribute to me. The reasons for why humans do what they do are many,

    varied and complex. Human psychology cannot be reduced to non-human, mammalian biology. We know better. Are you

    trolling?

    I'm sorry this thread has drifted so far off topic.

    ***
    I agree that a Jutte copulin mix could

    be a good product for the ladies, though there are probably any number of minor variations on the on the first

    formula that would cause a testosterone spike. I'm sure there were some arbitrary aspects to the way Jutte did it,

    just like there would be for anyone.

    Since JVK is not interested, maybe Bruce or Phil Stone would be open to

    that kind of thing in the future, like a "new, improved" EW.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  20. #20
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Sir Louis,

    I'm curious,

    you site personal experience which is subjective and use that as an argument. Statistically it has no validity and

    in general people are very poor at observing and interpreting their own reactions. Is that the only source of your

    argument? Or do you have some other objective basis for your remarks?

    I admit to having very little

    understanding of either field so don't pass judgment but read the material and look up many of the references

    cited. After 3 years of research I still don't have nearly enough knowledge to have a well reasoned opinion so I

    avoid remarking on it. I think I know how I react but understand that my observations have no real validity.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  21. #21
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    60
    Rep Power
    7034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
    Um, who are

    you arguing with, and why did you plant your "psychology is ephemeral" statement in your quote of me? I didn't say

    that, obviously, and didn't say too many of the things you attribute to me. The reasons for why humans do what they

    do are many, varied and complex. Human psychology cannot be reduced to non-human, mammalian biology. We know better.

    Are you trolling?
    That was a typo, my apologies for implying you wrote that.

    Human sexual behavior

    and human psychology I see as two distinct things, that interact. Human sexual behavior can certainly be reduced to

    mamalian biology, we are mammals. Our base purpose is to spread genetic material.

  22. #22
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    60
    Rep Power
    7034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    Sir Louis,



    I'm curious, you site personal experience which is subjective and use that as an argument. Statistically it has

    no validity and in general people are very poor at observing and interpreting their own reactions. Is that the only

    source of your argument? Or do you have some other objective basis for your remarks?

    I admit to having very

    little understanding of either field so don't pass judgment but read the material and look up many of the

    references cited. After 3 years of research I still don't have nearly enough knowledge to have a well reasoned

    opinion so I avoid remarking on it. I think I know how I react but understand that my observations have no real

    validity.
    It's funny, I do understand DST's reasoning, I asked someone I knew earlier today, "Does

    smell alone determine whether you'd sleep with someone or not?", her answer was a flat out "No!". It seemed like I

    had asked her a very retarded question. Olfaction may play a secondary role in meaningful human relationships, but

    it does play a prime factor with who we choose to have sex with, I think that is fairly certain to whoever really

    looks into the subject.

  23. #23
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    60
    Rep Power
    7034

    Default

    I'm sorry this

    thread has drifted so far off topic.
    We forgive you.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Louis
    Human sexual

    behavior can certainly be reduced to mamalian biology, we are mammals.
    This kind of "it's true by

    definition" argument is illogical. How do you know that all mammals are the same? Or that humans don't behave any

    differently than rats in their relationships? Or that nothing relevant or interesting goes on in the human cerebral

    cortex regarding sexuality? What makes you think that human sexuality is completly different from human psychology?

    I've never heard that. Last I checked human sexuality is taught in the psych department. It is also good to study

    the biology of sexuality, the endocrinology of it, the anthropology of it, the history of it, the neurology of it,

    the theology of it, and the politics of it. Can any of these fields really be completely reduced to the other?



    What is it they say about parachutes and minds?
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  25. #25
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Years ago, it could have even

    been while I was in college and we used stone tablets then, I read about this study. Randonly selected couples were

    asked to gaze into each other's eyes for a period of time, it may have been several times over a number of days.

    Then they were interviewed regarding their emotions towards that person. They developed emotional attachments in

    most cases. Many of the participants even developed relationships with their counterparts in the study.

    You can

    argue that they were close enough together to be effected by the other's pheromoones but what are the odds that a

    majority of rnadomly selected couples would be compatible pheromonally? Does that indicate that visual cues have a

    lot to do with attraction? It isn't conclusive and I've never seen anything else on it so wouldn't regard it as

    the final word. It does indicate that there is a strong visual component to attraction though.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  26. #26
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    60
    Rep Power
    7034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    Years ago, it

    could have even been while I was in college and we used stone tablets then, I read about this study. Randonly

    selected couples were asked to gaze into each other's eyes for a period of time, it may have been several times

    over a number of days. Then they were interviewed regarding their emotions towards that person. They developed

    emotional attachments in most cases. Many of the participants even developed relationships with their counterparts

    in the study.

    You can argue that they were close enough together to be effected by the other's pheromoones

    but what are the odds that a majority of rnadomly selected couples would be compatible pheromonally? Does that

    indicate that visual cues have a lot to do with attraction? It isn't conclusive and I've never seen anything else

    on it so wouldn't regard it as the final word. It does indicate that there is a strong visual component to

    attraction though.
    You meet someone you find fairly attractive, except you become very attached to them over

    time and this magnifies everything, including you wanting to be intimate with them. This is a central theme to most

    hit music you hear on the radio. I've read about monogamy in mammals. In human affairs, since two parents that stay

    together without tension is important to the survival of their children, this certainly makes sense and of course in

    social/sexual relations. On the other hand, how many people instantly break these intimate bonds temporarily (and

    regret it) because some male or female causes them to reevaluate their priorities. So what causes someone who loves

    his wife (or girlfriend of several years) and children dearly, and is an otherwise honest individual, to suddenly

    become a dog?

    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?
    Last edited by Sir Louis; 04-11-2005 at 08:07 AM.

  27. #27
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    How did you determine it

    wasn't any one of those reasons you listed?
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  28. #28
    King of the coupons!
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,963
    Rep Power
    8555

    Red face

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Louis
    So what causes

    someone who loves his wife (or girlfriend of several years) and children dearly, and is an otherwise honest

    individual, suddenly become a dog?

    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 suddenly lack of self-control, replaced by

    a horomonal, imperitive need?
    In Mobley's world ... there are millions of reasons why a man/woman cheats,

    but the only reason, I THINK/SAY, that anyone cheats is ........ because he/she WANTED to.

    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!!

  29. #29
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOBLEYC57
    In Mobley's

    world ... there are millions of reasons why a man/woman cheats, but the only reason, I THINK/SAY, that anyone cheats

    is ........ because he/she WANTED to.
    Exactly!
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  30. #30
    Full Member wood elf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    158
    Rep Power
    7041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Louis
    It's funny, I

    do understand DST's reasoning, I asked someone I knew earlier today, "Does smell alone determine whether you'd

    sleep with someone or not?", her answer was a flat out "No!". It seemed like I had asked her a very retarded

    question. Olfaction may play a secondary role in meaningful human relationships, but it does play a prime factor

    with who we choose to have sex with, I think that is fairly certain to whoever really looks into the

    subject.
    Smell alone can make me decide to not sleep with a man if it is not acceptable. The belief that I

    may be willing to sleep with a man is made before he is close enough to smell. Many other factors must come into

    play. Is he a real man or some phony putting on an act? Is he attractive. Does he seem like a gentleman? Does he

    have a nice smile and a real laugh? Is he mean spirited? Many more things but smell is one small piece. people in

    this country likes to wash away and conceal so much that is natural in a person's scent that it does not play the

    same role it may play in other places.

Page 1 of 3 1 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. natural copulins
    By InACharmedLife in forum Women's Forum
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 04-14-2005, 06:51 PM
  2. SOE/w
    By bjf in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-20-2004, 08:37 PM
  3. Some interesting results SOE/w etc.
    By Loops in forum Women's Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-03-2004, 09:36 AM
  4. AE/W & SOE/W...
    By bigdog in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-07-2004, 07:28 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
  •