Phero effectiveness on women - a article - useful

[Whitehall]

\"Beauty is everywhere, but not everyone sees it.\"

[FerroMone]

Sure does, \"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder\".

[DrSmellThis]

OK, I\'ve been too lazy to do a literature review when I\'m not getting paid, and am otherwise busy. But a few remarks in response to Dr. Kohl are nonetheless due, lest someone think I ran away. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Causality in Psychology
Of course the effect of pheromones on behavior -- in particular sexual behavior -- has been grossly underestimated. Mainstream folks are just starting to admit they exist for humans, and the research is still in its infancy. I would expect a neuroendocrinologist to trumpet hormonal causes of behavior. However, for me to believe they cause all sexual behavior would intellectually irresponsible, given the findings of psychology. These have consistently indicated multiple deterministic (external) and non-deterministic (e.g., intentions, goals) causes of human behavior. Pheromones are only one deterministic cause, among scads of other well docmented effects (e.g., classical conditioning effects).

The higher order the behavior, the more difficult it is to statistically account for it (for the variation) by reference to deterministic causes. Huge historical meta-analyses of experimental research (the only kind that can strongly suggest causality) in psychology have concluded that, at it\'s very best, deterministic science has only accounted for 1/3 of the variation in any complex human behavior (I believe Cohen was an author), when you add all the known deterministic causes (biology plus environmenal) of such a behavior together! So where does the other 2/3 come from? Experimental studies on volition (sometimes called \"free will\") typically show about 2/3 of behaviors of interest to be accounted for by agentic causes. (e.g., intentions. Look up some of the studies of George Howard, American Psychologist, early 1990\'s). The current state of the art in psychology suggests that people are meaning seeking creatures. They choose. They create their life stories mostly as they intend.

Models
It\'s hugely easier to devise plausible biological models of primitive behaviors (e.g., simple reflexes) than it is to devise them for higher-order behaviors. The trouble is, humans are way more interested in the higher-order behaviors that constitute daily living. It was really easy, for example, to make a model for what happens when somebody pulls their finger from a hot stove. It\'s just a reflex, after all; it happens all in the arm and spinal cord, and doesn\'t require us to talk about anything in the brain. Though still primitive, smell is a bit more complex, and vision is on another level of complexity. A fair amount of cerebral cortex involvement is required to perceive completely anything we see.

But folks like Dr. Kohl have identified plausible pathways for how airborne chemicals trigger the olfactory areas of the brain, the limbic system (which influences our emotions), and the endocrine system (which influences our behavior to some extent.) They are to be congratulated.

But identifying pathways for more complex process is hugely more difficult. Vision begins with, not 3-4 chemicals, but countless godzillions of patterns, hues, textures, motions, etc.; as well as the historically-embedded intentions of a person who chooses to look at one thing in one way, and not the other. For something the eye encodes to be completely perceived, lots of higher cognitive processing already has to have happened.

Is it any wonder THERE IS NO visual MODEL? That is not a fault of visual researchers. We should be fair to them. If they can show reliable effects of visual \"beauty\" on multiple hormones that influence behavior, but can\'t yet trace the exact pathways, so what? That\'s some complex stuff, compared to smell. Moreover, not having settled on a model for an effect cannot reasonably be taken to indicate that the effect does not occur. You can\'t really get away with saying \"there simply is no direct connection\", as if talking about a lack of real effect in the natural world, when all you\'ve got is a lack of a theoretical connection. These are separate issues.

Showing a likely biological pathway assists us in identifying something as somewhat of a causal influence, theoretically, speaks nothing to the effect size or its significance (statistically or in the field).

Moreover, a non-experimental study cannot demonstrate causality in psychology. And inasmuch as experiments can, experimental research suggests people are largely the causes of their own behavior, and that partial causes from nature are many and varied. The burden of proof is not so much on me, to show that visual beauty influences sexual behavior, as much as it is on Dr. Kohl, to show that the historical consesnsus of scientific findings in psychology does not apply to olfaction.

To show that something is a nessary condition for something else to occur does not show that it is sufficient to determine its occurance. So showing that a kid who can\'t smell doesn\'t learn to feel sexual feelings does not help one\'s attempt to argue for some olfactory basis of complex human sexual behavior. To move towards doing that, we would have to start off with an experiment where we randomly assign people to to groups, some of which receive pheromones, and some of which don\'t; and see how much of the variation in their laboratory sexual behaviors can be explained statistically by being assigned to the pheromone group.

Other brain injuries can cause such problems too (as discussed in the case studies of Merleau-Ponty in his Phenomenology of Perception).

Without dragging anyone through the details, the attentive reader can notice that my suggestions, per se, weren\'t really addressed by the reply. I tend not to put my tail between my legs and run off, before l I\'ve been first smacked by the newspaper.

For instance the olfactory aversion therapy example is not about pheromones at all, much less my thought experiment, but is about painful punishments administered via noxious substances llke ammonia. I still maintain I could take the pheromone profile of an unnactractive woman (\"the wrong profile\") and condition men to get turned on to it by it by pairing it repeatedly with live lap dancers followed by gratuitious sex. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Whitehall]

Excellent exposition, DrSmellThis!

Part of the problem is that the subjects are as smart as the investigators; applying Godel\'s Theorem, no logical system can explain itself. I would apply that as saying no brain can explain itself.

The mass and volume of the human brain devoted to vision is much larger than that for smell. One would expect smell to be the easier to decipher based on weight alone. Add our primitive knowledge of the limbic system (emotions) and answers will have to await the continued pile-up of knowledge.

As for ugly women,

\"There are no ugly women; only lazy ones\"
- Helena Rubinstein

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Ok ill chuck up an idea (not necessarily my viewpoint but one thing that may get people talking and fill in some gaps.)

It would appear that certain parts of brain work together to accomplish behaviours and goals.

Ok it has been proven that by myself i have female friends who use pheromones and when they are around i know and can sense that they have them on now sometimes i will tend to follow them around but because i know why i can control the behaviour and appear not to react to pheromones unless they are used in higher amounts its a constant battle between the subconscious and consciousness because when they are used in higher amounts its almost like being on a drug for sexual behaviour.

So when a woman senses a strong pheromone signature she looks around to see where it comes from then the other parts of the brain kick in ie sight to see where it is (relate to NLP information for this) the ears listen to see what the target says - the mouth may or may not try to talk to the \"sexually attractive thing in front of her\" ie the mouth and tongue (audio) depending on her previous experience and behaviour with men if men have always made the move she will sit back and wait based on her memories on how to sexual behave around men or if she is a mover and always has been she will try to make the move

If she is in a relationship based on her willingness to cheat she will either run away or try to show no interest to fiend off the sexual beast to another. She may giggle with nervousness knowing that she is with another.

Ok someone pick up my idea here other people react to strong pheromones based on how they have behaved and interacted with others in the past in the sexual area.

[Irish]

Here\'s an opinion with no science behind it, but see if it makes any sense…

I think we have hardwired ideas of visual beauty. Across all cultures and age groups there is a near-universal appreciation of the beautiful visual spectacles of nature - without any olfactory reference. I also think these concepts apply as well to human beauty, since any pre-pubescent child can pick out a \'pretty woman\' or \'handsome man\', long before they have any sexual drives of their own.

What I think may happen is that when we undergo puberty and complete our final sexualization, that our existing hardwired visual ideas of beauty become intertwined with our emerging ideas of sexual attractiveness (probably pheromonally driven, I grant you). Since classical human beauty and genetic symmetry/superiority seem to be related, the attractive scent of these beautiful/superior individuals will begin to reinforce and condition (in a sexual context) any pre-existing visual concepts of beauty.

[CptKipling]

The introduction of consciousness, and more specifically, culture, has added many layers of complexity to the explanation of the human perception of beauty.

Corriebright mentioned the ability to \"ignore\" the pheromone induced reactions to people, which is an example of higher thought processes overriding primitive ones, which I believe to be possible in almost all circumstances. To make a very rough comparison; sometimes when talking to a very beautiful woman or whilst in the middle of some really good sex, it is possible to \"zone out\" and sort of let auto-pilot take over. This I think is a mix between a visual perception and a pheromonal reaction, either as a result of conditioning (actually, I can remember my very first encounter with \"woman juice\" [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif[/img] , and yes, I did \"zone out\" to some degree, which raises some questions with any conditioning theories) or otherwise. A similar state of mind is achieved when high or drunk, (bear in mind this is only a personal experience) and i can sometimes regain complete rational thought, unfortunately this is only limited to thought, and can not be said for my senses and motor skills, and normally ends up in me being sick. Pheromonal perception of beauty can only be taken as partially valid, because how many times have you seen a beautiful woman at a distance? Of course, some of these occasions could be put down to olfactory-visual conditioning, but this does not explain why higher thought processes validate the \"opinion\" of the lower ones.

There is some hard wiring of beauty in pre-pubescent children, but this is also partially driven by the opinion of others, i.e. to the popular beauty which can be see in most pop and film stars. When puberty arrives, individual perception of beauty becomes more specific and varied between individuals, but still has roots in some common visual areas, such as the phi. ratio, WTH ratio, big eyes (pupils), symmetry etc.. These things i suspect are a result of pheromonal conditioning towards beautiful individuals, but the more specific preferences can be attributed to an individuals experiences and personal history.

What must also be remembered is that beauty is often influenced by social conditioning, which is brought about by civilisation. This also explains younger women’s behaviour around alphas, they see others around him, and although they may not find him attractive, they are convinced that they have to have him because other women think he is worth it. Strangely, I have not noticed the same behaviour in men, at least to the extent that women show it. This also has some parallels in the reasons women cheat.

This is from a post by Irish, quoting some David Boss material, which gives some explanations as to why women cheat:

1.resource accrual - she may get \'gifts\' from an alpha lover.
2.mate expulsion/switching - a way to deliberately ditch a boring nice guy when she\'s ready.
3.fertility backup - in case stable partner has deficient fertility.
4.status enhancement - temporary liaison may improve status if alpha has status.
5.honing mating skills - increase her skills at attraction and seduction by seeking an alpha.
6.self esteem improvement - self explanatory.
7.mate assessment/preference clarification - gives her comparisons among lovers.
8.sexual gratification – obvious.

In my opinion, 4, 6, and 8 are the most important. A male perceived by females to be beautiful, or attractive, will give a woman (even one in relationship) an enticing target to prove her worth as a woman to other females, and also the better males, and also improving her own self worth. Among younger people, this female who got this guy will be perceived to be more attractive, giving her access to more and better men.

I kind of went off on a bit of a tangent at the end, so apologies for that.

[Watcher]

Well being one of those alphas now (i was fat 2 years ago and now have worked myself into a muscular athletic state and i will by running comparasions to the way used to be say that this is true but being aware of this and having that goal in mind when i started working out i can play some very interesting games with this and also not just be led around by sexual flirtations it makes me a harder target and i make women work harder to get into my \"inner circle\" it confuses them stupid all i expect and when they figure it out they get in but i dont say anything is that they have to try harder than normal and actually make some of the moves and keep making them. This forum is very benefical hang around and learn folks.
It is also useful for me to make things harder because i get what i want from other females/males to get my attention. Although if they arent direct with me and are just hanging around for nothing i will soon take care of it.

Cannon fodder for discussion folks.

[DrSmellThis]

Way to chime in, guys! This is an interesting thread.

[CptKipling]

Bump

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I was with a guy for two years who I met this way: I was at a club, sitting with friends, and I FELT eyes on me...turned my head and found myself looking straight into his eyes, he was in a crowd of people but my eyes went straight to him, and I felt electrified/scared/aroused. I have no explanation for that. He walked straight over and said \"Would you mind if I sat down?\" and my pulse was fluttering and I said \"If you like\" trying to be cool, knowing my defenses were shot already. He smelled good to me all the time, cologne, no cologne, shower/no shower. Could it have been pheromones?

[CptKipling]

That does sound like that guy got a hit yeah, but it depends on how far away you both were when you \"felt his eyes on you\".

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Oh. He was behind me, actually, about 10 feet away. So it couldn\'t have been pheromones. Never mind! (Emily Latella)

[CptKipling]

Its not completely unreasonable at that distance, but not very likely.

[CptKipling]

ahem- bump

What happened to all the theorising over beauty, that was really interesting.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Yeah, hey! where do those descriptions come from -- newbie, phero dude, journeyman, etc.? are they ranks? if so, how do you earn them?

[EXIT63]

It has to do with the number of posts. And Baby, you\'re on your way to the top.

[jvkohl]

Some of you make it more difficult than others for me to avoid lengthy diatribes. On one hand you are to be congratulated for the intelligent manner in which you approach debate. On the other hand, it might be best to read more of the heavyweight neuroscientific pubs: like Neuroendocrinology Letters and Hormones and Behavior. These articles may seem, at first, to gloss over the visual versus olfactory conflict, but this is only possible for me to do with the knowledge that none of the behavioral development specialists at a very prestigious conference on the biological basis of sexuality and sexual orientation remained unconvinced of human olfactory prowess with regard to all aspects of human sexuality. No one even tried to argue for visual input. Of course the lack of argument for vision is expected. 1) there is no mammalian model for visual primacy 2) there is no sexual dimorphism in the visual system 3) visual perception involves very ineffective conscious processing; we simply cannot discern the critical information required for species survival from visual--or any other non-olfactory sensory input. Thus, there is no link from any non-olfactory sensory input to behavior, and therefore since olfactory input has the power to condition responses attributed to other sensory input: olfaction rules. I am not saying that visual input isn\'t important to arousal/attraction, whatever. I\'m saying that in and of itself vision can have no determining effect on behavior because there is no direct link from vision to hormones, thus there is no link to hormonally determined behavior--and yes, all behavior is determined by hormones--whether or not we choose to act on hormonal drives.

If there were a direct pathway from visual input to hormones this would favor visual input; if the visual system of males and females were sexually dimorphic, this would favor visual input; if there were a mammalian model for the primacy of visual over olfactory input, this would favor visual input. Doesn\'t it strike anyone else as being very odd that psychologists have placed stock in measures of attraction based on visually appealing features, with absolutely no biological basis for such measures?

DrSmellThis wrote:
Is it any wonder THERE IS NO visual MODEL? That is not a fault of visual researchers. We should be fair to them. If they
can show reliable effects of visual \"beauty\" on multiple hormones that influence behavior, but can\'t yet trace the exact
pathways, so what? That\'s some complex stuff, compared to smell. Moreover, not having settled on a model for an effect
cannot reasonably be taken to indicate that the effect does not occur. You can\'t really get away with saying \"there simply is
no direct connection\", as if talking about a lack of real effect in the natural world, when all you\'ve got is a lack of a theoretical
connection. These are separate issues.

The issue is not the lack of a theoretical connection. It is partially the lack of any reason to suspect a theoretical connection (again, there is no mammalian model--so how do we arrive at such a very different \"visual\" origin for sexual behavior in humans). It\'s as if the visualists are baking a cake from scratch, but have no ingredients. In contrast, the olfactory connection is not theoretical: the effect is on gonadotropin releasing hormone (the biological core of mammalian reproductive sexual behavior). And there is no doubt that this effect is manifest in hormonal changes directly linked to sexual behavior. All the while \"affective reactions\" occur throughout the limbic system, the emotional core of the brain. Other factors that have been tossed about during past debates include the overwhelming amount of processing power required for the brain to generate a response to visual input--as compared to a complete lack of cortical processing when it comes to olfaction. Using such differences in brain power to make a case for vision seems counterintuitive for any mammal where species survival is required. Thinking about how you\'re going to survive is useless if you can\'t smell the fire approaching that will kill you, or process the chemical input from a potential mate that indicates the likelihood of successful reproduction.

Sorry if I have failed to address any direct or indirect questions in the past or in this post. I do not want anyone to think that I am avoiding such questions. However, I have written--at length--on this topic, both in journals and in a newly available second edition of my book. To attempt to reproduce the basis of my strong assertions with minimal text is impossible. However, as I have indicated in the past, if you have any direct questions--those that can be answered in a sentence or two--I will do my best to quickly respond. Just title your post Question for JVK--or something like that so I can scan the forum without taking all evening to find questions. I nearly missed the ongoing discussion in this thread, simply because it has become such a lengthy thread. Nice to see such interest, but hard for me to keep up with everyone. Honestly though, some of you are much better at conveying your thoughts than many of the top researchers.

[jvkohl]

Most of this can be found in various links from my website: with one exception. The article on homosexual orientation is not yet available as a .pdf. But it will be sometime soon, and I will provide a link to it from my site.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Break it down for me, I\'m dense. Are you saying that whether you find someone sexually attractive or not is a function of smell rather than sight, because smell sets off hormones whereas sight does not?

[jvkohl]

Whitehall wrote: \"THERE IS NO MODEL\" only speaks to the formal level of current scientific understanding, a social invention, not to the underlying pheomonena.\"

I disagree, it speaks to scientific understanding of the biology of behavior; a dearth of knowledge that requires no social invention. Biological facts are (until proven otherwise) facts. Yes, I know that facts can change--but so many facts would require change to invalidate the olfactory model, that change is unlikely.

\" Your hypothesis of complete and sole dependence on pheromones for sexual stimulation - directly
and indirectly through conditioning - is counterintuitive. You\'ve put yourself in the position of proving a negative - good luck! \"

Others have this idea also: that I am saying complete and sole dependence on pheromones. What I am saying is pheromones condition the response to other sensory input. Thus they do not influence us in a vacuum, but in all social circumstances. However, if these social circumstances included no other sensory input, the driving force of chemical communication would somehow pull us through--the species would still survive. I think that\'s a bit different that saying \"complete and sole dependence.\"

\" I\'d predict that the result of your thesis will be someone looking for an inbreed and hardwired visual model of sexual attractiveness. I bet they will eventually find it too while teaching us more about pheromones too.\"

The above is a very unlikely scenario for reasons I have detailed in other posts. You can bet that others have tried to find a visual model; I\'ve been antagonistic about this for many years now, and there are at least a few other researchers who would like to \"put me in my place.\" The fact that no one has even begun to propose a visual model speaks for itself-especially when so many researchers present papers on visual aspects of attraction

[jvkohl]

Simply put: YES!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

That\'s so radical I can\'t even really grasp it.

May I ask you questions? (I\'ll certainly take \"no\" for an answer; maybe it\'s tedious to have to talk down) - but - if that is true, how then would we explain the effect of pornography on arousal?

[Watcher]

In response to fulltiltredhead the smell or sense of pheromones comes first and then this triggers the brain into kicking the visual system in to compare this to previous visual representations of sexually attractive males with the same phero sig. Its a chain reaction sight is just one aspect. Response is based on previous experiences with various individuals with the brain using association as a general baseline.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Watcher, you can\'t smell pictures.Also I am confused because, among other things, it seems beauty/sexuality are being sort of equated and they\'re not the same thing at all. You can be sexy as hell and not be aesthetically all that pleasing, which would back up Dr. Kohl - haven\'t we all experienced that?

[Watcher]

Yep you can smell the scracth and sniff pictures lol. Im totally confused by it (i know they do work however maybe its a combination of sight and smell that influence our response to someone sexy.)

www.ecorp.com.au

[**DONOTDELETE**]

He\'s just saying smell is processed before sight and so determines the way in which sight is processed? So whoever smells right then will tend to look right to us as well, if other factors also fall into line.Actually, that makes perfect sense for me, it explains some things I could previously only attribute to esp or throw my hands up and say it\'s a mystery.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I dunno. I\'m seeing a case being built for \"I want him to smell like Daddy...\"But it could very well explain why you can know within seconds of meeting someone whether you\'ll get along long term or not, which I have previously attributed to intuition, having nothing else to explain it. It could be you know because your nose is processing information in a part of your brain that isn\'t directly talking to you. That certainly makes more sense than \"intuition.\" It would explain the phenonmenon of love at first sight. (more powerful than just \"wow, he/she\'s good looking\" - i\'m talking about when your gut is engaged at first glance) Maybe it\'s really at first smell.

[Watcher]

Listen to fulltiltredhead shes got my garbed response and turned it into an intuitive response that everyone else can understand. Love at first site is exactly as above. There are a few theories ill explain that are going around.

a) women look for men that are close matches for their father in terms of pheromone - DNA signature pheromones signal what our DNA sequence is like. As far as the different ratios etc.

b) women look for diversity something different to thier fathers/family line. Im not sure which one is true maybe others will fill in the gaps.

But the thing about processing is true but the brain makes a final decision with many factors involved.

www.pshollow.freeservers.com/custom.html
www.ecorp.com.au

[jvkohl]

Okay, now you\'re tuned into the concept. Quit thinking about what you see: visual erotica et al. Realize that thought processes are not involved in the biology of behavior. Sure, you can think about your response and alter it, but such thoughts occur long after your response has been biologically hardwired. Pheromones are the social envrionmental stimuli that hardwire genetically predisposed responses. The effect, via hormones, begins at birth. By the time you\'re thinking about adult attraction, you\'re many years past the first several thousand opportunities you have to imprint (subconsciously) on another person\'s pheromones: dad, mom, brother, sister, all other relatives, all other strangers--everyone has a chemical signature that you process in whatever context you are exposed, and your limbic system (i.e., the emotional core of the brain) remembers the context and holds the imprint. As I recall, Martha McClintock was a co-author on a study that reported women prefer the scent of their fathers--so the media take was: guys should smell like her dad to get in her pants. Wrong! The context of the study clearly showed that such a preference (for the smell of one\'s father) might be manifest when a woman is in the infertile phase of her cycle, but when she\'s ovulating she chooses the smell of genetic diversity---just like other animals, who prefer the scent of the next when infertile, but go for genetic diversity when they\'re most likely to conceive. Go with the mammalian model; you can\'t go wrong. Go with some psychologists lame perspective on the hows and whys of attraction and you\'ll continue to be as confused as most people are. Most don\'t have a clue about why they behave in a different manner at different times and due to different stimuli. Any good biologist could evaluate the hormones and tell you exactly why you were behaving that way at that time. But, we don\'t need to measure your hormone levels to tell you that your behavior is as hormonally driven as the behavior of any mammalian male or female--and that mammalian pheromones are responsible for the behavior. In the second edition of Scent of Eros, we add some info on the theory Desmond Morris has promoted for the development of the pendulous human female breasts. True to the form of evolutionary psychologists, he proposes a bizarre development due to some need to mimic the fleshy buttocks (to provide additional visual stimuli geared to ensure mating behavior.) That\'s insane. The pendulous human female breasts are modified apocrine (scent producing) glands. Hair traps scent. The lack of hairy chested women provided all the reason required for women to better develop a method for scent distribution (which, of course, is the most effective means to signal different hormonal states). So, here we have the contrast between biology and psychology. Mammalian biology makes clear what psychology can only theorize about--and the psche theory is horrid to start with. But, since your teachers never told you anything about pheromones, many of you are still wondering about how much impact pheromones have. If you were any other mammal (or if you can put yourself in the position of any other mammal) there would be no question about the importance of visual input compared to olfactory input. Only humans question such biological facts, largely because we think we are different than other mammals. Biology is biology, regardless of the species, and species survival depends on pheromones--not visual input. I can\'t condense this concept much further. In fact, it\'s still best to look at the NEL article, get the full picture, and attempt to incorporate it into great discussions like this one. http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm