Re: There you go again...
Reply With Quote
Misc points are all I have time for at this moment:
*I\'m not interested in a strictly biological reduction of psychology (trying to cram the human mind in to a comfortable place they already \"know\"), but in a psychological psychology, that incorporates biology (and other disciplines) in a big-picture context. Trying to reduce all psychology to simplistic (e.g., simple hormonal paths) biology is silly, especially when one who tries to do so doesn\'t care to understand psychology in the first place. Most of being human and the psyche is about consciousness first and foremost -- arguably all of it. It is superficial and silly to say there is no cognitive mediation (no thinking, no meaning-formation and no processing)or that you don\'t care about it. Ok, then you won\'t know much about humans. Ignorance is free and everywhere found. Cognition is what the brain does. It is meaningless to say these are not important for your biology, because you constantly pretend to talk about psychology. Cognition is also not important for studying rocks, but we are studying people. If you want to talk only about biology, then make statements only about certain biochemical reactions, and simple physiological process, but don\'t pretend to be able to make sense when you are talking about whole people. You don\'t.
*You think my theory is not a theory because you don\'t know what a scientific theory is, nor what psychology is. Just because something isn\'t a biology theory just like the ones you know doesn\'t mean it isn\'t a plausible, well constructed theory. Mystical???! Narrative is quite often accepted as the best and most practical everyday model for the human mind from a big-picture standpoint; and has also proven to be the most useful model for counselors to help people in our current funding-restricted mental health environment, as it enables quick progress. Narrative can (and does)incorporate biology, but superficial biology cannot incorporate narrative, or the human mind. I have a \"peer-reviewed\" published series of studies I conducted which support the validity of narrative. There are many other such studies. Now, I don\'t mean to insult biologists, as there are many who do take a bigger approach. I don\'t even think you can speak for biologists, since you are not one.
*No funding for null-hypotheses?? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Most funded studies employ null hypotheses! Arguably, all good scientific research tests null hypotheses (although I think that too, is a bit extreme). Again -- you suffer from holes in general knowledge of scientific research.
*You probably would think the psychologists at your conference had nothing to say, as you seem to think no one in any discipline but your own (which I\'m not even sure what that discipline is) has anything to say.
*I read your award winning article (which is a lit review), and also saw no evidence there (or research reviewed) for the extremist position you take. For instance, the one you linked above only show that one scent can be conditioned to another. That is irrelevant to arguing about visual anything.
*Thanks for the very recent link above -- it is one of few new studies on human pheromones role in sexuality I haven\'t seen, as there ARE so few of them in this very new and immature field (compared to other fields of study).
*People are not the same as rats, and studying them cannot profitably be the same, lest one\'s position on humanity becomes as I have just described.
*You still insist I argue for visual primacy (I only said it was significant), [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] even though I have obviously never done so in any post! Others have here, but not me. You are acting as if you need to paint someone into some extreme position you know how to \"defeat\".
*There are \"no other\" plausible biology theories... So what?? There are also none in architecture or mechanical engineering. Most people don\'t turn first to biologists or architects for the most fundamental questions about the human psyche, behavior or experience, but to psychology. Psychologists (and other social scientists), accordingly, have done all the work in such areas. The responsible, professional conclusion is simply that more needs to be done.
*Still, all you can say is that \"there is no visual model.\" Who cares? As I have pointed out so many times, the phero field is immature, and the necessary research has not been done yet on humans. Now is not the time for arrogance about what \"one thing\" [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] causes physical attraction. Such arrogance is just masturbation to me. And new research on the bigger picture of attraction would not have to imitate biology studies on olfaction, as you state, as psychological/neuroscience has research methods and dependent measures (research methods term)of it\'s own.
*Give me a break. I bet quite a few forum members have seen most of the human sexuality pheromone research -- there is so little of it (although it has grown, thankfully). I\'ve been dissapointed several times searching the literature in vain for something new.
*Psychology is still one of the most popular majors. The other social sciences, such as social work, sociology, economoics, and anthropology are doing quite well too. Most biologists respect these fields. Dying??? There are a dozen social scientists on every street corner where I live. That is a bit grandiose and ignorant of you to say we are dying. Who are you to comment on the state of psychology or the other human sciences? A week ago you did not even vaguely know the definition of the word \"social science.\" If you knew anything about psychology, you would know that psychologists already incorporate biology, and are increasingly doing this whenever possible -- but they are incorporating and integrating it. There is no conflict between the biology and social science; unless you take a narrow, shallow, and disjoined view of one or the other.
*Basically, you seem on thin ice whenever you generalize to human nature, but are already convinced you know THE TRUTH. Therefore, why let in new information? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] In fact, dozens of fields of study are all BS and dying anyway, so we don\'t need to listen to them!
*Getting in a peer reviewed journal does not mean your conclusions are sound, or that you have correctly interpeted the research.
*Yes, some links are there, but that research still doesn\'t support your narrow, piecemeal, and superficial position. Please, give me a reference to even one article that supports your extreme position. I haven\'t seen one yet. Those referenced above, and in your \"flagship\" article surely don\'t cut it (your article does shows pheros have effects in humans, which I agree with and have praised you for -- clearly the research supports it.). If you are unwilling to provide it, then don\'t expect critical thinkers here to believe you. You don\'t need us anyway. You can always go back to preaching to your choir.
*By the way, darkness was not talking to me, he was talking to xvs. He wasn\'t saying you went over my points already at all (which you didn\'t). I also misunderstood that post.
*So you agree that you say there is no room for consciousness, thinking, awareness, cognition, or the mind in your biological world-view of human relationships and sexuality. Fine. That of course means that if such psychic things were in fact important you would have no way of knowing about them! It seems this is indeed what is happening. It seems sad that a member of Mensa would curse himself in such a way. But we\'ll all be dead soon, and a new generation of thinkers will take over.
Bookmarks