As I recall, he said he was a sensory scientistOriginally Posted by tenaciousBLADE
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
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks