What I would like to know is, if
this is more of a warning system to warn of chosing wrongly, then why do millions of people make the wrong choice?
And I'm not really looking for anyone to answer,as I have my own theories. Just food for thought.
Evidence for the human VNO is highly questionable
BM Pause
Is the human skin a pheromone-producing organ?
J Cosmet Dermatol 1 Dec 2004
3(4): p. 223.
http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/medline/pmid;17166110
"It has been suggested
that humans might have a special organ within their nose that can transmit such chemosensory information. However,
the evidence for this organ is highly questionable. In any case, the main olfactory system is a highly diverse
system, capable of transmitting pheromonal information."
JVK
What I would like to know is, if
this is more of a warning system to warn of chosing wrongly, then why do millions of people make the wrong choice?
And I'm not really looking for anyone to answer,as I have my own theories. Just food for thought.
Originally Posted by jvkohl
The choice for fit offspring would be for
a physical factor only. The equally important mental and emotional wellbeing for that offspring, would be better
served by a stable, long-term relationship.
There is a theory that women
form pair bonds for a long term relationship with a homely nestmaking male whilst seeking to procreate outside that
pair-bond with an alpha type male in order to gain the best genetics.
Anyway - that digresses from
the topic but does suggest trying to be alpha male will get you laid more - all the girlies love a baddie!?
I
agree that evidence for a functional VNO is scant. I also consider a fully fuctional pheromonal system unlikely,
we have evolved beyond that. Variations in this..i.e variations in responsiveness to putative pheromones would be
expected if what we are seeing is the remnants of a pheromonal system that we no longer require.
If a VNO is used
in other species as the receptor for pheromonal communication why would nature be different in the case of
humans?
To avoid more
debate about any theory that anyone else might want to add to this discussion (pair-bonding; choice for reproductive
fitness; maternal/paternal investment strategies), I would like interested parties to examine a partial list of my
current memberships.
American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science
Society for Neuroscience
Society
for Behavioral Neuroendocrinology
Association for Chemoreception Sciences
Society for the Scientific Study of
Sexuality
International Society for Human Ethology
Mensa
I dropped my membership in the Human Behavior
and Evolution Society after several years; there was too little "hard" science.
"ratspeaker" helps to bring
"hard" science to the forefront of this discussion thread, albeit without the scientific jargon to which I have
become accustomed.
After discussion with colleagues
and members from the list of organizations above; discussion with friends, and in response to the Q+A that
invariable follows either my presentations or my publications, I have prepared the review that I've mentioned
several times on this Forum. It will be published soon in the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality and
concurrently as a book chapter. It explains--in great detail (53 pages)--why human nature is different, including
the nature of human pheromonal communication (e.g., without the VNO)--and both directly and indirectly answers
ratspeaker's question.
However, it has recently come to my attention that most Forum members don't care
whether, or if, human nature is different, and whether or not we have a VNO. Their presence here seems primarily
based on a response to marketing claims, and several have stated that they have little regard for the science. This
is apparent, as it was in my prior debates with the long-absent "DrSmellThis" who to this day remains anonymous to
you. It is ever more currently apparent in any attempt at debate with the anonymous Archetypical Hybrid (HEC) who
remains anonymous to you--and simply ignores any VNO (or other) controversy by telling you that JVK is
wrong.
As always, you have your choice. Believe anonymous individuals and their claims, or learn more about
human pheromonal communication. You can learn more by reading what I have written in book, journal, or newsletter
publication, or by visiting one of my websites. Or you can try to learn more from anonymous sources who make
unsupported claims.
Because "ratspeaker" and a few others have obviously examined the topic of human
pheromonal communication, and summarized a legitimate question about the human VNO, I will state
unequivocally:
A human VNO is not required for pheromones to elicit the hormone response that links our
social environment to the hormonal pathway linked to many variations in human (and other animal)
behavior.
The most likely reason that a human VNO is not required, is because our pheromone and
hormone-driven behavior involves more brain-power. Unlike other animals that respond to pheromones with
stereotypical behaviors, our responses are more idiosyncratic--because, unlike other animals, we usually "think"
before we respond.
It is our genetic programming combined with life's experiences that allow for the wealth
of diversity in our responses, but our animalistic nature that somewhat limits them to the comparable sterotypical
responses of other animals.
Researchers have detailed all, or nearly all, of the factors involved in these
sterotypical and idiosyncratic responses. Marketers would have you believe that you can elicit a stereotypical
response from another person simply by using their product/ingredients.
I'm spending too much time on
this Forum, when many of you can readily find answers to your questions without my presence
here.
JVK
Is the VNO equivalent to the
Jacobson's organ which is highly developed in certain snakes like the pit vipers and other
reptiles?
Thanks for that. I'm a little surprised you penned that response as you tend to stick toJVK writes, "The most
likely reason that a human VNO is not required, is because our pheromone and hormone-driven behavior involves more
brain-power. Unlike other animals that respond to pheromones with stereotypical behaviors, our responses are more
idiosyncratic--because, unlike other animals, we usually "think" before we respond.
It is our genetic
programming combined with life's experiences that allow for the wealth of diversity in our responses, but our
animalistic nature that somewhat limits them to the comparable sterotypical responses of other
animals."
straight physiological and biological facts. I suspect said discourse is about as close to scientific speculation as
I've read from you on this forum! I guess I should call it a theory as it's surrounded with supporting facts! The
"wealth of diversity in our responses" is something I've noticed and tried to clumsily express (I don't know jack
about VNO, so not that part). Many endusers of pheromone products expect their targets to react like insects or
lower animals and, of course, human behavior ain't so simple, and they're disappointed.
"I'm just a dirty hornytoad" -Gegogi
To some of us the point isn't
whether we care about the existence of the VNO but the refusal to be involved in a debate we know nothing about. In
my own case I am not going to judge the debate but am going to keep the debate on civil terms, a challenge I've had
you you, JVK, more than once. As I explained to you in other discussions, I'll happily discuss any area I am
knowledgable in but do not presume to claim knowledge in the biological sciences.
Some things I will point out.
One is that a person exercising their right to keep their identity confidential on a forum designed to provide for
that right in no way reduces the value of their argument or point of view. Nor is a person's argument strengthened
by making either direct or subtle pot shots at their opponents. The other is that memberships only prove memberships
and do not in any way prove the validity of a person's argument. I know very well how many points of view can come
out of any of those groups and how much dispute can be heard during their meetings. Reference to membership in
various organizations is much like the completely circular statement of "My point here is correct and I can prove it
by referencing something else I wrote". Verbosity in no way lessens the circularity of an argument. Nor does
attacking a person's claim to an NDA. If one really exists, and I do not know either way, it has to be strictly
adhered too, especially on a public forum where an unintended viewer could easily cause all sorts of trouble for the
author.
From a purely mechanical perspective, the statement is made that the VNO does not exist. But I do not
recall (could be memory loss problems too) that you have ever presented any alternative to the VNO with any
supporting evidence. Pheromones must be detected by some organ, whether it is the VNO or some other known or
hypothetical organ is an important point. It has to be detected somehow. Your argument against the VNO would be
strengthened far more by demonstration of the detecting organs than by what I consider petty and small minded
personal attacks. Please go back to the science instead of making pointless arguments about people excercising
rights to not show their identity on this forum.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
1) Belgareth, JVK has
repeatedly presented an alternative to the VNO: detection through the normal olfactory region of the nose.
Apparently, the neural pathways from this region to the necessary parts of the brain
To quote from his last review...
"The axons of the sensory cells enter the olfactory bulb. Sensory input is then projected via
the olfactory tract into the olfactory lobe of the brain. From here, olfactory input is projected via the thalamus
to the neocortex and to the limbic system. This pathway allows olfactory stimuli to be consciously detected and
interpreted, but also allows olfactory stimuli to directly influence the neuroendocrinology of
emotions."
Unlike VNO research, therefore, the necessary pathways for
pheromones to influence the feelings and behaviour of others are well documented. This would seem an entirely solid
alternative to the VNO.
However, I'm not personally saying the VNO is not functional. Lack of evidence of a
pathway at present is not unequivocal proof of non-functionality.
The functionality of the VNO in
animals is some reason for suspecting functionality. Furthermore, the apparent depolarisation effect some substances
appear to have on the VNO in humans suggest that the organ may, at least in part, be intact.
However, so far I
haven't seen good published evidence that VNO depolarisation in humans correlates with an emotional
or behavioural response, nor any evidence that a pathway exists linking the VNO to the necessary brain areas.
Ultimately I would conclude that we can't yet say for certain. However, we are comparing one pathway,
identified by JVK that would seem to have all the necessary and sufficient properties for pheromone detection, with
another that is almost complete speculation unless we rely on the word of people who don't/can't publish their
data.
I for one welcome it every time JVK posts an abstract/link that confirms the validity of his position. It
adds to my understanding of the subject and the understanding of everyone else on this board, if they bothered to
read it. I only wish people on the other side of the argument would do the same.
2) That the opponents of JVKs position do not point to published evidence is extremely
important and it is entirely valid for him to raise! I don’t really care so much if it is labelled “small minded”,
it is something that we have to consider. If, for example, I said pheromones were detected by the ear, but not
present any evidence for it [or say my evidence is secret] does not put my argument on an equal footing as the
argument that they are detected by the olfactory region of the nose.
3) Referencing qualifications is not the be all and end all. Ultimately in a high-knowledge
environment it is best to go purely on the logic and evidence, not any prior qualification. However, in a
low-information environment I’d rather trust someone with a large number of qualifications in this regard than my
local taxi driver. I also view it as valid to raise this point.
Finally, JVK is a huge asset to this forum and I do not view anything
he has stated as being out of line.
That's fine, you are entitled
to your point of view. I have had to stop several people from making unwarranted personal attacks far too many times
now. The rules of engagement are plain and will be enforced. Debate all you want but the moment it starts getting
personal I will step in, period. I welcome JVK's posts as well but have an obligation to the forum membership as a
whole and will not permit attacks on any member. I've stepped in on JVKs behalf before too.
Perhaps I am more
sensitive to the obligation to strictly adhere to non-disclosure than others. Having grown up around researchers in
the nucleur industry and now owning a business where I see doctors' and lawyers' client files in the normal course
of my work makes me much more understanding of the inability to share information due to legal ramifications. You
simply have to accept it and move on. In time it may come available or it may be disproven or it may never be shown.
I don't know and in this particular debate I am utterly unqualified to make judgements on the claims.
Perhaps
you are right in your choice on which argument to favor, I'm not favoring either. I am simply noting the
circularity of the argument. As I noted, I was not completely sure that JVK did not present an alternative. I left
that open with the comment about memory loss. Getting older and having way too many other things on my mind can do
that.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
JVK - I do not doubt you
credentials one iota. I have read with interest some of your publications along with many others by scientists who
claim equal kudos. The science is hard and lacks consensus even amongst the so called experts in the field. A
forum such as this needs the jargon stripped out. If simplified the science might appeal to more people on this
forum who may then make a more informed choice about the 'products' presented by the marketeers.
I stayed away
from this forum precisely because the interest in the science waned and the quality of the posts descended to the
level of "I put x drops of this and y drops of that on a, b and c body points and had a couple of chicks twiddle
their hair and twitch their legs" scenario. Sometimes even slightly skeptic remarks regarding the effects of these
concoctions would have the 'fans' posting avid descriptions of how 15 drops of superwonder mix had every chick in
the nightclub performing lordosis. I am not that fickle. I wish to ask the "hard" scientific questions of those
who profess to have done the science.
As I have indicated, it is very hard to measure the effects of these
putative pheromones as human pair bonding is far too complex for a controlled study to have real meaning. When you
start asking the "hard" questions - what is a hit? Are my expectations making me more aware of people’s reactions to
me? Can I be sure that this effect is down to my scent additives? Etc. - You find that it becomes much harder to
accept that anything you notice is significant enough to be a positive response in a scientific sense.
I agree
with the sentiment that most of the posters on this board seem more interested in "bouncing hope" off each other
than looking coldly at the science and being harshly objective about their results. They probably don't care if
the "VNO" exists or if pheromonal response can be elicited via the olfactory pathways. They just care about their
purchases working and eliciting the behavioral changes that the marketeers promise. Unfortunately, the changes
elicited have so far, at least those that have been measured in a credible manner, appear to be mild alterations in
mood. Hardly a spectacular demonstration of a fully functional human pheromonal system. Hence my assertion, which
is of course a personal opinion, that it is my belief that humans have been and are continuing to evolve away from
having and needing pheromonal communication. Thus the VNO would, accordingly be confined to the same status as our
appendix. A remnant of something we used to have. What remains is the fact that smell is a primitive (i.e.
ancient) sense that appeals to us in a primal, sensual way. That may be interesting, that may cause a physiological
reaction, it may even alter hormone levels; but, unless it’s a subconscious, autonomic response I don’t think it can
be called a pheromonal response.
With a bit more thought and a bit more interest in the real deal, sites such as
this can be invaluable to researchers in this field. A large pool of people willing to field test new chemicals and
note the real world responses. Evidence based science. It may not have the rigorous control of a laboratory, but
it allows for testing on a massive scale. The trouble is the haphazard state of pheromonal research and the
hijacking of it by people who see pheromones as a path to a quick buck. People who talk up products for sales rather
than give honest opinions. All these things damage the reputation of the science of human attraction and relegate
the subject to the dustbin of the snake oil sellers.
That is why I stop lurking and give this board a kick from
time to time. In the vain hope that my ramblings may stimulate debate and further our knowledge of this subject.
You do realize this is a forum
for consumers of LS products and not for scientists? Some of us may find the science mildly interesting. Most of us
don't give rat's ass about it just wanta have fun. Pheromones are merely a social accessory in the realm of a new
doo, gym membership or nice shirt. For most they are not a lifestyle, religion or even a serious hobby. I'll put it
another way: most of us wouldn't be inclined to discuss and debate the underlying science behind the fabric in a
new shirt. We may be interested in the social reaction to the shirt or how it makes one appear. Consumer discussions
of pheromones are exactly the same. Besides, there are only a handful of forum members with the background to
understand and participate in scientific debate.
We probably spend most of our time on discussions of
relationships, dating and what the ideal man is than "I put x drops of this and y drops of that on a, b and c body
points and had a couple of chicks twiddle their hair and twitch their legs." If all we discussed was science and
hard facts on this forum, it would be a loney and boring place indeed. We could all glaze over quickly and go
elsewhere. If you need to debate science, there are places designed for such ramblings.
I'd really like to see a mix
of both. There is no reason they cannot coexist here. The fact that some have no real interest in the science behind
it does not make them in any way less any more than a firm understanding and desire to discuss the details makes
them less important. Both aspects have their place here.
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 guess it would only be
right for me to state my opinion as well. I enjoy the scientific debate as it gives me an avenue to learn about
things that interest me without having to filter through all the scientific jargon. That being said I think the
debate should be contained to seperate threads and not be had in the middle of another thread. In other words a
thread like this is a perfect place for this debate or maybe a special forum category for the science only, but I
don't want to read it when I am trying to see if 2 dabs of this and a splash of that worked.
JVK,
I treasure
your knowledge and expierience and thank you for dedicating alot of your free time to this forum. Clearly you have
a leg to stand on as almost everyone agree's SOE works.
HEC + others,
I value your opinions, and listen to them
with an open mind. Thank you for providing intelectual debate so that none of us become complacent.
To all
scientists:
I think it's only fair as a scientist to listen to the other person's point of view as we all are
right until proven wrong. Please keep the debates to the appropriate place (s) as I really do enjoy reading them
and I am not qualified to make an educated opinion but love learning.
I agree, and also add that the operative word is "scientific."
The point I was trying to help make was that membership in several "scientific"
societies is one reason I have been exposed to many of the theories that occassionally pop up as new topics inviting
discussion. Membership in Mensa somewhat indicates that I might have the intellectual capacity to debate such
theories with other members of the "scientific" societies.
Whether it moves from the realm of speculation (e.g.,
opinion) to that of theory is determined by supporting facts. Supporting facts gleaned from discussion among members
of a scientific society count for little until the facts are documented (e.g., via publication of citable research).
In 1995 my book included scientific speculation based on citable research. By the time of its 2002 paperback
publication, the book encompassed all known aspects of pheromone theory, and my 2006 journal/book chapter
publication adds aspects that were not known--most of them until earlier this year.
The last
paragraph of my forthcoming article/book chapter addresses this diversity, after first dismissing the human VNO,
which has been used to get people to "buy into" the "lower animal" approach.
--------------------
"Unconscious
affects that are manifest in the development of human sexual preferences are, by their nature, a part of diversified
life that few people think about. What we think about human sexual preferences becomes less meaningful when we
realize that most of sexual behavior is not what we cognitively think it should be. Indeed, the largest contributor
to sexual preferences that are manifest in the sexual behavior of any species appears to be unconscious affect.
This also appears to be the basis for diversified life."
----------------------
Belgareth does an excellent (albeit, mostly thankless) job as a
moderator. It is especially important that people recognize their biases--as he does. My biases are clear to all, I
hope.
My bias says that both science and blatant marketing cannot coexist here. When I start a
"Pheromone Research" thread that ends up in "Pheromone Discussion" with resultant attacks on my scientific approach
by an anonymous "marketer" who I happen to already know is affiliated with product marketing--despite his claims to
the contrary--there's going to be a problem with coexistence. I must opt out of discussion/debate, or be subjected
to unsupported comments, like "you're wrong." The anonymous marketer need say no more--and doesn't tell us why
I'm wrong. If I respond, my response generally is interpreted as taking pot shots at the anonymous marketer and his
lack of scientific support. Same thing if I try to inject some science into threads where anonymous marketers are
"working their audience", after already taking their pot shots at me and pheromone research in general.
If
this Forum were not moderated by someone I respect (despite his biases) I would have dropped out of sight long ago.
Instead, we've already seen at least one of my antagonists: DrSmellThis (what was the name of his product?), drop
out of sight. I'm willing to be patient and see how long it takes for other antagonists/marketers to drop out. At
that point, I hope we all see how quickly this Forum returns to "normal," which includes the normalcy that separates
discussion of Pheromone Research from more general Pheromone Discussion.
JVK
drsmellthis never dropped out,
he just dropped in for awaile: personally, i never even thought he took anything serious, my opinon! lol:
hahahaha no kidding
its all good
JVK,
First, thank you for
understanding most of my position. Now, excuse me for a minute while I whine about the tribulations of being a
moderator.
This job has demonstrated to me the fact that you can't please all the people all the time. Hell,
you can't please most of the people any of the time. In trying to do this job to the best of my abilities I have
been in a position to rule against friends and rule in favor of some I thought were absolute jackasses. There were
even times when I had to ban friends. Bruce and I have bumped heads a few times as have me and a number of others
here. In the end I am going to do what I believe is right which is all too often not what I really want to do. That
I irritate some people is just something I get to accept as part of the privilage of volunteering to help out here
while still managing my own affairs seperately. Oh well, life stinks sometimes. That I upset people with my
decisions still bothers me but there are very few times that I would undo my actions if given the chance. However, I
always listen to any objection but listen much better to somebody that has the courtesy to contact me in private to
discuss something in a reasonable fashion.
The second is an explanation. The intent of the Pheromone Research
forum is to post research links. We are trying to discourage debate there. What has been done to try to prevent
that, and not perfectly I admit, is to copy a research post to pheromone discussion if people want to debate it.
That leaves the original post alone and uncorrupted.
Last edited by belgareth; 12-27-2006 at 05:42 AM.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
For what it's worth, I think you
are very fair. Stick to your principals and you will be fine. If you let it bother you too much it will be time to
hang it up, I officiate sporting contests. It is pretty much as you discribe but on a more personal level.
Don't worry, nothing I said was
intended to be a sleight against your ability to be a moderator. This board seems, as far as I can tell, a
well-managed and interesting place post. I've moderated some boards myself [albeit much smaller than this one] and
frequently chair heated meetings: both can be thankless tasks even though they are undoubtly neccessary.
I did,
however, disagree with some of the statements you made in your resposne to JVK and wished to provide some reasonable
counter-arguments for you to consider.
I understood what you meant, no problem.
I really meant what I said about you having the right to your opinion. It doesn't bother me.
You don't have
the history I have here and so your understanding is not the same as mine about individual personalities. I knew the
reasons for my actions and knew you didn't understand them. That's ok.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
The
problem that I encounter is when others do not "debate" the research, they merely make statements that discredit it
(and thus, sometimes, me.) Unlike the approach of "ratspeaker" who asks about other VNO research that shows
activation (or not), we have folks like DrSmellThis and Archetypical Hybrid (HEC) who merely toss aside the original
(research based) content, and proceed with what I consider to be marketing BS. Eventually, DrSmellThis came out with
a product, and only a minimal amount of time passed before Archetypical Hybrid (HEC)'s marketing attempt became
more clear to those who are still unfamiliar with his associates.
It seems fair that I respond with "pot
shots" at them, if they attempt to highjack my "Pheromone Research" or even my "Pheromone Discussion" posts,
regardless of where the discussion takes place. That being said, I very much respect your decisions as moderator,
and regret making your volunteer position more difficult.
JVK
The forked tongue's of snakes are used to deliver pheromones to their VNO via
tongue-flicking. "Jacobson's organ" as I recall, was the name originally associated with the possibility of a
functional human VNO. "Equivalency" is a huge issue given species differences in structure, function, and possible
function of either existent or non-existent structures. But, I have addressed species differences and similarities
in my forthcoming article.
JVK
are you insinuating that there is some connection
between these two personalities?
sorry, im just a bit confused
drsmellthis laughed his oily
product years ago...that i never bought for personal reasons
correction, drsmellthis
"launched" not laughed..sorry
No. I'm merely stating the obvious:
that both distinct (i.e., psychologist-like versus chemist-like) personalities had/have marketing interests. So do
I, of course--but I've never indicated otherwise, and my marketing interests only developed 9 years after my first
scientific presentation. In other words, not just because I figured I could make a buck from the research of
others.
JVK
EDIT: I wrote the below
before JVK made his last post. I assumed, as Bronzie also seemed to, that he was suggesting HEC and DrSmellThis were
the same.
Original post below.
****
I would be extremely surprised if HEC was DrSmellThis.
DrSmellThis,
as far as i can remember, advocated a hollistic approach to pheromones and perfumery, using essential oils, animal
musks, pheromone analogs as well as the isolated compounds we all know and love. His product [which I haven't
tested] appears to stand as testatment to that.
HEC has put forward what appears to be a single isolated
compound which his research [not available for public viewing - apparently due to an NDA] indicates activates the
VNO.
There is a startling difference between the two approaches
There is also a similarity. Neither of the two
approaches incorporates a biologically based mammalian model that links sensory input from our social environment to
unconscious affects on behavior via the required gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system pathway. For those of you who
want more information about this pathway see: Naftolin F. Understanding the bases of sex differences. Science. 1981
Mar 20;211(4488):1263-4--and several of the articles in the same issue.
I never expected DrSmellThis to
consider the required biological basis/pathway for his product claims, he was too much the psychologist.
Archetypical Hybrid (HEC), however, if he has any background in chemistry, should be able to tell us what part of my
explanation for how human pheromones work is wrong.
The sexual "chemistry" between any two people must begin
with 1) gene activation in 2) cells of hormone secreting 3) tissue. Instead, the anonymous (HEC) skips the
gene-cell-tissue steps (3 steps of 5) and indicates it begins in 4) an organ that researchers continue to say
doesn't exist: the human vomeronasal organ (VNO). And, even if the organ does exist (as HEC claims), there is no
evidence that it is connected to anything, including 5) an organ system that could link it to human
behavior.
That's probably more science than most of you want to learn about, but at least it's available in
the peer-reviewed journal articles that I have published.
JVK
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks