Posted the last post
before I saw you two last replies.
I myself quote a whole lot... but quoting doesn't explain your point as well as
your own explenations might.
I remain saying what I just said above: relax a bit... take it easy
Well I've written a long reply, but decided not to post it after all
JVkohl, take it easy. We're all individuals and as far as I know we're not against you, and we appritiate
your cotribute to the forums.
You want to threaten to quit giving your opinions - feel free it's your own choice
(I'd rather you won't but I'll fight for your right to do so).
But by all means - let everybody else say
theirs'. Nobody's here to hurt you
Misunderstandings do happen - but they can be fixed by a simple, polite
explenation. You did such explaning yourself on this thread for example, by saying "Yes". No need to get
offended
Posted the last post
before I saw you two last replies.
I myself quote a whole lot... but quoting doesn't explain your point as well as
your own explenations might.
I remain saying what I just said above: relax a bit... take it easy
Minimally, there is one person here who has done his best to contribute a
series of defamatory statements about me both in this forum and in another similar forum. For
example:
---------------------------------Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
Excerpts from my response:
I
will stand by my introduction [on the other forum] and thank others for welcoming me.... More recently, I posted
that I received an award for the author(s) of the best social science article, chapter, or book published during the
previous year....
You can verify my Clinical Laboratory Scientist credentials via links from my introduction:
either to the National Credentialing Agency for Laboratory Personnel, or to the American Society for Clinical
Laboratory Science, You can verify my use of "Researcher" by examining the membership requirements for the Society
for Neuroscience. "All applicants... must be sponsored by two regular or emeritus members of the Society and must
submit a curriculum vitae and bibliography with the application form." Sponsors attest that applicants have made a
significant contribution to the field (e.g., via research).
I helped to design several research studies. A
student researcher and I presented the most recent research results in April 2007 at the Association for
Chemoreception Sciences annual meeting.
Discussions would be easier for me if defamatory comments about my
credentials and expertise were either not anonymously made, or not made at
all.
------------------------------------------------
I've haven't heard anything from DrSmellThis since
I refuted each one of his defamatory comments, with evidence that is available to anyone who wants to look at it. I
chose to quote Meehl, rather than use my own words, to exemplify that training in research or statistics like social
scientists receive may be meaningless here, despite their emphasis by DrSmellThis. The award I received for "the
best social science article... published during the previous year" is an example of what happens when you don't
allow others either to direct you, or to deter you from research you think is important. Academics are often
directed and detered by their professors and by other academics, which brings me back to Meehl's comment about shoe
sales.
James V. Kohl
author/creator: The Scent of Eros
With all that said JVK,
and with all due respect... You are generalizing what you claim to be HIS opinion on you (or agenda... i.e. "wanting
to hurt you")... on everybody else on the forum. you come from a starting premise that we are ALL here to hurt you.
Or you at least seem to doubt each one of us before you trust. Instead of coming up with such a mean rude attitude,
you could simply come with the starting assumption that most of us DIDN'T come here to hurt you. Doing otherwise,
would be (and is) disrespectful to us as mear human beings.
Just take it easy man.
This will be my
last comment on this. So feel free to leash out if you feel the need for it :\
With
Bubba's support, DrSmellThis sufficiently managed to force me out of this forum for a while, because my responses
were limited by the moderators, at Bruce's suggestion. With enough support from participants like you (there was
some support at the time), I might not have dropped out at all. At the point that most of my posts were censured by
the moderators, Forum members were only getting half the picture. I'm surprised that I've been able to tell the
rest of the story in this thread. It takes very little for a few vocal participants to gain control of what is
allowed to be seen on any Forum. My comments are not meant to implicate the majority of Forum members, who come here
for information and to compare notes.
I apologize for being
either mean, or rude; that was not my intent.
I will. Thanks.
James V. Kohl
author/creator: The Scent of Eros
IMHO The Man JVK is an individual who is plain and simply who and what he is, I
personally dont doubt his credability especially now that i have been brought to focus on the Gentleman in the last
few weeks,
He has his own unique and individual style as a human product of his science and all factors
considered he is contributing to the forum and imparting wisdom and reports as well as his own opinions and
studies,
and i am thankful that he is hanging around and just being who he is and thats all anyone can really
do.
Maby we
have had enough of disecting and scrutenising the poor guy.
I recon we all should reconsile our
differences and move on whilst life is short and sweet.
I for one will try and not be sutch a shit
stirrer, And seeing as i am one of the least amoungst yous all will save my venom for any spammers that creep on to
the forum BLAM BLAM to our real Enemies
I AM. Out of my mind .... .... ....
I
agree with you Terry, and I try to follow the same guidelines of good behavior. I have no differences with anyone
here. Certainly not with JVK, who is the only manufacturer who posts here, and creator of a product which has much
respect from me and many others.
I've not been a party to whatever "conflict" that may be occurring, and I'm
not trying to stir anything, I'm just genuinely curious about JVK's comments, and perceptions of his treatment on
this forum since I wasn't around during the time in question.
I follow his posts with deference to his training,
knowledge and experience.
Cheers mate,
Greg
To JVK, my question was meant purely as an honest question
because I'm curious. I don't know any of the background of your difficulties in the past vis a vis this forum,
hence my curiosity. As for the current "conflict", I'm not interested. I completely understand your
disinclination to engage opinion where scientific matters are concerned. And, BTW, thanks for such a great
product.
Most sincerely,
Greg
I discussed the
censured posts with one of the moderators and with Bruce in January 2007, and decided to post only to the "Pheromone
Research" section.
It is better designed for scientific purposes, like mine. No need to rehash this here.
It's the Love-Scent Forum; not my forum.
I have a popular domain where I can post whatever I like, but it's
harder for me to update regularly. So, my posts to the "Pheromone Research" section are a matter of convenience, and
they have helped me to avoid additional conflict here.
DrSmellThis made some defamatory comments on another
Forum, and linked back to the Love-Scent thread for support of his defamatory comments. He led me to look at posts
that had gone from "Pheromone Research" to more general discussion, which brought me here. I'm not planning on any
more debate, which is why I posted the comments DrSmellThis made and my response to them. I don't have time to
debate either the "soft" science approach, or discuss the "soft" science comments with anonymous posters. I try to
make time to discuss my "hard" science approach with anyone, anonymous or not, who wants to learn more about it.
James V. Kohl
author: The Scent of Eros and The Mind's Eyes
creator: The Scent of Eros
pheromone-enhanced products
Well said! My
style is best suited for discussing facts, and usually this is with other "hard" scientists. Some have an ego that
limits discussion of their opinions; most do not. But no researcher I know has an ego that limits their discussion
of "hard" scientific facts, as I have recently been asked to do in conjunction with an award. (Award notice
below):
---
James V. Kohl has been selected to receive the Ira and Harriet Reiss Theory Award for 2007 from
the Foundation for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (FSSS). The award is given annually for the best social science
article, chapter, or book published in the previous year in which theoretical explanations of human sexual attitudes
and behaviors are developed. Kohl's review: "The Mind's Eyes: Human Pheromones, Neuroscience, and Male Sexual
Preferences" was published in the Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 18(4): 313-369, and concurrently
published as a book chapter in the "Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality." In conjunction with the award,
Kohl is an invited plenary session speaker at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of
Sexuality (SSSS) in November, 2007, which will be held in Indianapolis, Indiana.
---
Some of you know about
the award I received for my 2001 invited review that linked neuroscience and ethology. This latest award crosses
from neuroscientific ("hard") science into social ("soft") science, and helps to extend my sphere of influence to
the soft sciences. Nevertheless, I have never pretended to understand much about the soft sciences.
James V.
Kohl
author/creator: The Scent of Eros
Thanks. However, DrSmellThis and Archtypical Hybrid (HEC) are among other
manufacturers who have posted here, which may help to explain some of our differences.
Thanks again. I
responded to your post because it was made out of curiousity, and not meant to cause conflict.
James V.
Kohl
author/creator: The Scent of Eros
Thanks for replying JVK, I think I'm beginning to understand your
predicament. Science, business and politics make strange bedfellows.
Opinion is the playground of both the
knowledgeable and the ignorant. Sometimes its hard to tell which is which. An objective view requires a lot of due
diligence.
I follow your posts from a place of scientific ignorance, and admit it freely, but I do read
extensively to learn and understand.
In your field there is a fine line between biological and social function.
You're examining the science of pheromonal effect and, sure, there is a huge social aspect. But is seems to me
that scientific discovery is more than observation of behavior, which is all that social scientists can claim,
imprtant as it is. Its good to see that you're crossing over.
I do hope that you'll keep posting here. If I
ever reach the point of sufficient understanding I might even ask a relevant question!
Greg
A few things JVK (most important is saved for last)...
(My emphasize...)
1)
Well said.
And I thank you for putting it clearly and politely this time
around. I think I may finally understand what you ment when saying you quit that style of posing on this
forum. If I understand correctly, you mearly ment to respect the forum and it's owners\moderators in your own way.
That I can definitely encourage.
Just FYI: I did notice there was some information censured on
that specific thread, the moment I saw this post
and realized that replys #48 & #61 are not even present at the thread anymore
Yet, I
realized it is the forum-moderator's\owner's right to decide to sometimes censure a thread, and did not (& still
don't) have any intention of arguing nor disreguarding their choise\right.
And I am happy you made the same
decision (as you seem to have made).
and about "I'm not planning on any more debate" - I understand
where you come from on this and am actually very glad to see you're taking the same mature stand as Bruce adviced.
I hope you've decided that by your own free will, and I see the intelligence in that decision.
Much better
attitude than before - and honestly much better put. I thank you for that
2)
I respect your
style - as long as you respect other's styles too (Hope I have the right grammer hehe ).
With these last few
posts - You seem to have made a great progress in terms of showing your respect for the styles of others (IMO -
including Bruce... which is nice ). I hope I'm not the only one who sees that; and amongst the ones I hope
who see that too - is also yourself
3)
Personaly, I see this as (and hope it is) an acknowledgement of the " " " " "authority" " " " of those
two individual personas mentioned in this quote above [notice that the gross word "authority" is only used
here for me lacking a better word I do not intent to mock anyone by using it]. JVK
clearly made a stand to prevent discrediting their obviously present scientific background on the field.
This again
is an improvement which I welcome with open arms. Bruce, I think there's a very positive breakthrough here and we
should welcome it as long as we have that oportunity (hope you're reading, rather than me just talking to
the air hehe ).
...
4)
I think my emphasiz here makes my little additional point clear.
5)
For me personally, this is the most important part of my reply, which is why i saved it for
last.
...
Sincerely JVK - I'm satisfied. That is all I
asked for. I thank you for taking the time & effort to come down to my point; and for simply mentioning that you had
no intent of being rude. I have the best of hope and I believe that you will probably pay better attention from now
on, to the fact that the readers on this forums are each his\her own individuals, and that you'll show more
specified attention when reguarding specific people (I'm not saying your attention was never specifed though -
don't get me wrong ).
6)
I think we can be assured that the freedom given in these forums has been of great
service on this specific thread. And I personally would like to thank the moderators who have probably dealt with
some though questions during this long thread.
I wouldn't like to be in that position lol - yet I think you made a
great job here (from my humble perspective, that is).
P.S.
I would actually like to see Bubba
being active in the forums; But in no way am I condoning or welcoming further confrontation with such face to face
street fights (If I may call them so... maybe I may not ).
I think misunderstandings can be solved with
mutual effort. So if there ever would be another such misunderstanding - all it takes is for both sides to wanna get
along with each other and hear each other out rather than try to prove their own side up until the final-round
With that said, I do think that Bubba was intersting and it even might be possible for him to get
along qith all of us (including JVK).
But then again - that's only my inoccent opinion
Moderators -
feel free to delete my P.S. message if you see fit. I won't take it personaly
Greg,
Relevant or not, I will try to
answer all questions. I'm happy that you understand what "crossing over" entails. I've had more than 10 years of
intermittent debate with a prominent ethologist who finally made clear to me that his version of scientific
discovery started with the observation of behavior--and so mine must also start with observation of behavior. Forget
mammalian models of behavior; forget neuroscience, forget everything that ethologists don't examine (or
understand)--and examine only the behavior to find its cause. Then, also predict null hypothesis refutation (i.e.,
that you can prove the behavior is not caused by something else).
Since the behavior is observed visually,
most people think that the cause should/must be a visual cue. Thus, we have a generation of researchers in different
disciplines who follow early ethologists teachings from the 50's and who also fail to recognize the importance of
unseen olfactory/pheromonal cues, which are the biological basis for mammalian sexual behavior. These same
researchers fail to make the connection between human pheromones and proof of their effect on hormones and their
affect on human sexual behavior.
Your comment cuts to the core of my conflict with those who think that
observing behavior is sufficient to explain it.
-------------for example-----------
Smell this; if you
like it; it explains why you approach the person who's wearing it, and it has something to do with your life's
narrative.
-----------------------------------
It's nice to see that you understand why such comments
(above) might goad me to respond in a manner that many might think inappropriate. Neuroscientists would laugh most
ethologists out of the auditorium. Minimally, I would argue that ethologists might have missed something, and have
thereby applied a non-sensical approach to any interpretation of data they think is relevant to the study of human
sexuality.
Your relevant comment is more important to me than most relevant questions at this
point.
Thank you,
James V. Kohl
author/creator: The Scent of Eros
You're welcome. I've learned the difference between intending to be rude and the perception
of being rude. It's the perception that counts, not the intent.
I'm less innocent. As I
mentioned in my response to Greg, I've gone round and round for years with people who want to tell me how science
should/must be done. If I had ever followed their dictates, I could not have made any scientific progress in the
study of human pheromones. Bubba reminded me of those who hinder progress, but also challenge the methods of people
making the progress, only to dissappear into their anonymity.
James V. Kohl
As I recall, he said he was a sensory scientist
working a few fields away from olfaction. I was reminded of how perspectives can be skewed by not being involved in
olfactory/pheromonal research when I received a reprint today.
Rapid Neuroendocrine Responses to Auditory
Courtship Signals
Donna L. Maney, Christopher T. Goode, Jessica I. Lake, Henry S. Lange, and Sara O'Brien
Endocrinology. published 6 September 2007, 10.1210/en.2007-0879
http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/con...n.2007-0879v1? ct=ct
The neuroendocrine
response that is reported to occur with auditory courtship signals is the same that occurs in response to
olfactory/pheromonal input in mammals, including humans. Yet. because they are studying auditory signals in birds,
there is no reason to look for the involvement of pheromones, and no explanation for why the same response occurs
with exposure to auditory signals. I've seen the same type of thing reported by many people who study avian
species, and who are as yet unaware that even birds produce and respond to pheromones.
For example: Francesco
Bonadonna, Eve Miguel, Vladimir Grosbois, Pierre Jouventin, Jean-Marie Bessiere, 2007. Individual odor recognition
in birds: an endogenous olfactory signature on petrels' feathers? Jour. Chemical Ecology. In Press.
If a
researcher is not aware of what's happening outside his/her discipline, or even with other species, they are
limited to explanations that fit some species (e.g., songbirds), but that are not a consistent fit across species.
So, their research continues to provide no explanation for the response they observe. It's a best guess scenario.
that leads to more and more research, but not meaningful results--at least if you expect them to have meaning to
human sexual behavior. That's one reason PE Meehl was adamant that these researchers simply stop what they are
doing, which is contrasted by Fenyman's encouragment (noted by Bubba) to continue doing the same thing.
One
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. If Bubba had been
any more specific, I might have been able to comment on problems he might be having with progress to explanations of
his findings. Instead, he was vague enough to criticize my approach, without providing a means to compare our
approaches. His criticisms of my attitude might best have been met with criticisms of his model--if he has a model,
which we may never know. If so, I must consider the entire debate a waste of my time, which is why I should never
enter debate with anonymous posters. Discussion is fine, debate is pointless unless there is some means to compare
the insane nature of some research.
James V. Kohl
author/creator: The Scent of Eros
lol.
What a nice referal idesign
Well, I see your point JVK. But he wasn't trying to
debate.. although he WAS debating. I think he was just trying to make you see his point whether or not it's
valid.
By simply acknowledging he has a point and you understand what it is, you might have been able to
evade the so called waste of your time and the clearly stormy means used in that debate.
What I am saying is
that attitude may sometimes change the result of our actions even if the action remains the same. And that was
somewhat integrated in Bubba's main point... which is why I still have some respect for what he was trying to
do.
I agree that he gave you no means of explaning yourself and took you around the boosh (in a brilliant manner if
I might add - you gotta respect his smarts even when used like that); but he didn't seem to be aware of the need
for a debate to be mutual in terms of comparison. I don't think he was reaching for a debate... I think he was
simply reaching for you to show you respect the forum users and for you to pay more attension than what he thought
you were paying, to being subjective.
But then again, this is only an hypothesis... and there's no actual
reason to keep grinding this issue is there?
Yeah I'm probably just grinding water here...
Which
means we both are wasting time with this haha
Well... Bottom line, I see where you're coming from, and
I think in a way things are better now
He quoted Richard Feynman and
others jumped on his scientific bandwagon. I could have quoted PE Meehl or historical reviews from Marler to
contrast his "soft" science quote. Debate is best when we keep it about our own opinions and scientific debate is
best when we keep it about our own works. That's what fails when other researchers prefer Forum anonymity; they're
not debating their own opinions or research. They are debating only what they've been taught to believe, and
supporting their debate by referencing their teachers. Since I am unlikely to teach them anything (no mention that
they've read my works, or even know what I'm talking about), any of my comments can readily be considered appeals
to authority, and therein lies the problem. When my responsive appeals to authority (e.g., my own) are chastised,
it's my ego that's called to question--even by Bruce, with his vague comment about religious and scientific
dogma.
So we start with Fenyman's dogma, briefly presented by the anonymous Bubba, and get to my
ego/attitude on this Forum.
When another researcher resorts to tactical maneuvers to avoid mutual
comparative debate, I lose respect for whatever intelligence might be perceived by others. It's the same to me as
when a researcher begins debate, but ends it at the first sign of trouble by directing me to speak with his/her
professor (e.g., an appeal to authority). In other words, they might just as well tell you that they don't know
enough to continue the debate. I've worked with undergraduates who wouldn't dream of doing this, and post-docs who
routinely resort to it. "Wait a minute, let me get my professor." I've also worked with distiguished post-docs who
aren't afraid to say: "I don't have a clue" or "I think we've reached an impasse."
How could he know whether or not I was being subjective without reading
my work? I don't expect most people to read it, but Bubba indicated he was a sensory scientist who was thus
qualified to comment on my work (without first reading it?) Instead, he appealed to his own authority to comment on
my forum posts, which are based on my work.
My respect for forum users is best shown by the fact that I
continue to post here. Why would I bother if I don't respect them? When I temporarily lost respect for forum users
because a minority of participants attacked me with the administrator's support, I dropped out--all the while
wondering whether it might be worth dropping back in from time to time.
I don't think we are grinding the issue, and there is a good reason to discuss it, since
others might also better see where I'm coming from. Next time (there will be a next time, I'm sure), maybe others
will see what's happening as it unfolds. Thanks for your help in this regard.
James V. Kohl
The Scent of
Eros
This is a very old subject and
has nothing whatsoever to do with pheromones. JVK is going to continue to believe as he chooses to believe and
others will do the same. I personally got very tired of acting as a referree in a long series of pointless personal
attacks between two primary antagonists.
Whatever, they can have their little war, but it is not pheromone
related and is being moved to open discussion.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Different philosophical approaches to science are very old, but also have a huge impact
on what we learn about pheromones; who we learn it from; and the significance of what we learn. For example, and in
your own words on 2/16/07:
Since you were taught to
believe, like Bubba, in a "soft" science philosophical approach consistent with his quote from Fenyman, you're
going to be somewhat biased by a different philosophical approach than mine, which is based on a "hard" science
philosophical approach (e.g., Meehl and Marler) that may seem critical of Bubba (and perhaps of you). It is not
critical, it's just different!
My point, exactly. Philosophical approaches to
science are as unlikely to change as any other belief system. But learning more helps with change. What I'm trying
to learn more about, and help to teach others, is that philosophical approaches should not be the main criteria used
either to interpret what is being said, or to judge the merits of research.
By applauding Bubba's scientific integrity, I think you did more than than referee the
discussion. What do you think?
The philosophy of science (among warring
factions) is very much pheromone-related. It is important to study design, significance of findings, and trust in
the interpretation of results--among other aspects of pheromone research (i.e., the section of this Forum that might
be best suited for my posts).
James V. Kohl
The Scent of Eros
JVK,
You know enough of my
background and scientific education to know better than that bullshit. I am not going to get into a childish
argument with you. You can either drop it or I can close the thread. Take your pick.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Whoa, cease hostilities. It
seems there are animosities that existed before my time here. But I for one am learning from the relevant parts.
Greg
I think either way this
topic has reached the end of the disscussion (which is why I stoped posting here... there's nothing more to post...
we've talked about what was relevant and I see nothing to add here anyway).
So it all really doesn't matter in
terms of stopping the thread. It's a finished thread anyway so let's just leave it at that
Bah... I don't
like hostilities
Last edited by tenaciousBLADE; 09-11-2007 at 11:25 PM. Reason: spelling
There is a very long history
and it does not need to be dredged up and chewed over time and again.
TenaciousBlade and Idesign, I appreciate
your efforts at calming things down. Sorry I felt it was necessary to step in.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
NP
Bel, sorry I was rude.
Seems a very contentious, though fascinating subject and after searching I agree that
its been done to death.
After doing all that reading here and elsewhere I'm pretty excited about what the
research might come up with. But I'll think at least twice before posting about it!
Thanks JVK and TB
for a lively discussion.
Greg
After you think twice, will you
please be sure to post it anyway? Anything we can learn is usually worthwhile. It is when it starts to be a series
of personal attacks that it starts getting old.
Where were you rude? Maybe I'm slow or just a bit too thick
skinned (headed?) to notice?
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks