Possible Experiment for Pheromone Research

[Mungojerry]

dsssssssssssssssssssssssssss

[WorkingMann]

In some extend it makes

sence that it's possible but again I would say not..
Because these impressions is (claimed by many scientist that

have investigated the brain) bassed back into our forfarthers.. It's all something to do with the bahvior of

forfarthers.. The best way to select the best mate..
And when a man smells the couplins it will perhaps trigger

these ancient ways of behavior and therefor only remind him of what "the perfect woman is" and therefor will not

affect the impression.. It will only remind him of his "perfect woman" and make the picture hi's looking at more

ugly
I don't know but I can see both sides to happen..

[Mungojerry]

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[WorkingMann]

Im sorry but just stuff

I've read loong time ago.. And I never save links for that kinda stuff..
There's an "area" of women that's good

mating material (based on how the kids will turn out) and therefor if she withing this area (like this height to

this height etc.) the old genes tells out brain that she's good mating material (because she within the limits of

the "area") and that you should feel attraction..
But of course aren't you controlled 100% by these urges so your

own oppionion also affects the decistion but that's only what I've read loong time ago..
Wasn't on the net.. Was

in a magazine when I had an apointment for the dentist.. So I didn't get to the end but that was what I got from

the article..
Actually after i was treated I wanted to go and read it but forgot and took home..

[Mungojerry]

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

[WorkingMann]

Okay I don't know much

about it either but was just my thoughs and what I had read before.. But then they didn't know as much as

now..

[jvkohl]

The problem for

anyone who who suggests we have some kind of in-built visual prototype is lack of biological plausibility. It would

be extremely complicated to encode and would require lots of genes to do it. This is something that applies to many

areas of neuroscience.

Your last two posts indicate that you are among the few Forum members to grasp

what I've been saying. I appreciate your participation since you are conveying the information in less technical

terms. If you provide contact info in your profile, or reach me by other means, I would be happy to send you a

preprint of my forthcoming article. Bronzie--you, too!

The problem with any experimentation is that we cannot

control for the lifetime of exposure-related conditioning to pheromones that has occurred prior to the experiment.

It's like trying to predict whether or not someone likes brocolli, which might depend on whether or not they've

formed positive ingestive/taste-related chemical associations. However, the added dimension of sex differences in

the acuity and specificity of pheromone processing --with cyclical changes in women, and tissue type related

pheromones, on top of that--and you begin to see why researchers are not showing direct effects of pheromones on

behavior.

I recommend reading JVK's book as an introduction to the alternative

olfactory based theory and work on biologically plausible Neural Networks by Edmund Rolls.



http://www

.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Medicine/Neuroscience/?view=usa&ci=9780198524335)

Rolls' work

more recent work shows exactly how simple neural network structures can rapidly learn complex visual

tasks.

Izhikevich just published an article about how dopamine is involved in classical conditioning

(very complex)



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
Others are learning more about how pheromones can alter dopaminergic neuronal

pathways that feedback on our hormones and behavior.

James V. Kohl
co-author: Human Pheromones:

Integrating Neuroendocrinology and Ethology http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm

[Mungojerry]

jshsdafsdfddddddd

[jvkohl]

You can drop me

an email at mungojerry_WXYZ@yahoo.com - then i'll send you my proper

email address!

Done!

I take the point that a lifetime of conditioning

may make any results negligable, but given the strength of synthetic pheromones, and a general trend in responses to

them, I still think it is at least possible to skew preferences, if only slightly, after repeated lab

exposure.

Skew preferences, Yes! But these preferences are expected to be concentration dependent, so

the strength of synthetic pheromones could elicit either a positive or a negative response, and the response could

vary with adaptation to the stimulus strength with repeated exposure. Thus, the problem is in demonstrating what the

intitial preference is, and how much behavioral affect can be attributed to a particular compound in a particular

concentration, in a particular interactive situation that is difficult to establish in a "controlled"

study.

If your theory is correct then there must be some underlying trend in

pheromone preferences, or general patterns in attraction (e.g. WHR) would not be apparent.

The

underlying trend is the male/female difference in production, distribution, processing, and response. That why

visual perceived male/female differences (e.g., in WHR) have their biological basis in olfactory/pheromonal

conditioning of the response.

Unfortunately I couldn't get that link to work. Is

this the paper you are referring to?

http://vesicle.nsi.edu/users/izhikevich/publi

cations/dastdp.pdf
If it is then its pretty interesting. Things seems to have moved on since I last studied

the dynamics of LTP formally!

Yes, that's it; I edited the link in my post, so hopefully it will

now work. The dynamics of LTP are probably now included in the relatively new "Social Neuroscience" field of

research, which unfortunately appears to lack any input from olfactory researchers. Neuronal plasticity is the key

issue--as it must be--or we would not be seeing the dynamic developmental changes, and the changes that occur via

common interaction in our social environment.

Also, are you familiar with Roll's

work? I've always found his biologically plausible models of certain brain functions fascinating. One of the

critical points to them is that they show how simple, biologically plausible, neural configurations can self

organise to peform complex tasks, e.g. face recognition and prototype creation.

I can't recall

anything specific, but I've seen his work discussed on different listservers.

If you

factor in a pheromone reward system it gives a broad sketchings of how the brain can self organise to create a

protypically attractive man/woman, similarity to which can be used to determine whether a particular male or female

is attractive.

And, if you don't factor in a pheromone reward system, there's no way to do so. My

review details most, if not all, the factors involved: Nature/Nurture (e.g., Genetics/Social Environment),

Organization/Activation, Hormone effects/Behavioral affects, Conscious Choice/Unconscious affect,

Normalcy/Diversity, Evolution/Creation.

James V. Kohl
author: The Mind's Eyes: Human Pheromones,

Neuroscience and Male Sexual Preferences

[jvkohl]

That would be

great. You can drop me an email at mungojerry_WXYZ@yahoo.com - then i'll

send you my proper email address!

Tried that address three times and got three bounces. PM me or

reach me through my domain, please.

Thanks,

JVK

[bronzie]

jv, I cant find contact details

on your domain, where do I look?

[jvkohl]

jv, I cant find

contact details on your domain, where do I look?

"About James Kohl" 3/4 down the page

JVK