Close

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 5
Results 121 to 147 of 147
  1. #121
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    7209

    Default Re: There you go again...

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    Drchaos: Nice post and welcome. It\'s nice to read posts from someone who understands statistics and research methodology. I do like your \"body as weighted average\" idea. I agree with your idea that biologists have helped explain an unexpectedly large chunk of human behavior too, but disagree strongly that psychology has not. Much of what we take for common sense when talking about ourselves and each other comes originally from psychology (Freud alone would account for a ton). Moreover, meta-studies show psychology can account for approximately 1/3 of human behavior (Cohen, et al), without allowing for free will. When \"free will\" (Doing something because you intend to, based on it\'s meaning for you, when you could have chosen otherwise) is added into the picture, which has only recently become possible methodologically, that proportion goes astronomically higher(like 95%), according to many studies in the past 15 years (Howard, et al). A caveat: I suspect that 95% number would turn out to be a bit lower where the \"complexities\" (and there are some!) of sexual relationships are concerned, mainly due to the newness of the fields of study (e.g., pheromonology, gender studies, phenomenology) likely to produce such explanatory power.

    [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]I wonder if there is an evoloutionary advantage to being clueless about the opposite sex? To keep us from usurping nature too much?

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    Still, when the influence of hormones rules, behavior is animalistic. So, the question is at what point does conscious choice enter the picture. DrSmellThis indicated that sexual behavior has its onset with puberty, which is very misleading. Males and females are born with genetically predisposed characteristics of their adult sexual behavior.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
    Well, having a genetic predisposition to exhibit a certain trait or way of experiencing things is different from having that trait or experience.

    Conscious choice is always part of the picture, as all humans are conscious when they are awake. The salient quantitative question is, \"What relative weights are given to various sources of motivation by consciousness?\", not, \"When does consciousness enters the picture?\" Such weights, as they are, are neither constant nor predetermined. The weights themselves are emotional meanings that only approach full significance in the context of the person\'s life story. \"Pre-motivations\" that originate preconsciously in the body still develop a conscious \"shell\" and are processed (albeit somewhat in disguise) by the intending consciousness (the will). Hence, in a post above I articulated a narrative theory of human sexual relationships (after JVK asked for a theory). Scores of students have told me they found such a narrative way of thinking helpful for understanding their own relationships, and integrating this understanding, after they wrote \"relationship autobiographies\" as a tool to help them better do so.

    In everyday terms, for instance, I might acknowledge my body wants me to seduce someone (Here I might be recognizing the mentally detectable shell, skin, or veneer of an originally preconscious bodily impulse), but not do so, as the dearly held \"heroic\" theme of my life story requires I not, due to some other higher-weighted sub-meaning that this seduction might have for me. The life theme helps organize all my motivations and assign weights to them. Some of that weight is given by biology, but can still be modified.

    And no, DST did not say \"sexual behavior has its onset with puberty\", nor would any psychologist. Again jvk in effect demands a free psychology class, via his uninhibited public misrepresentations. I\'m going to have to stop reinforcing this maladjustive behavior by providing the lesson. But for others\' benefit, here goes:

    The whole idea and original theory of early childhood sexuality came from Sigmund Freud, an early psychiatrist. Yes, most of our adult brain cells are present at mature birth, but relatively many arent (recent findings), and relatively very few adult neural connections are (also recent findings). Genitosexual awareness is very stripped down (no pun intended [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])during infancy. The earliest close approximation of adult genitosexual experience, but still a quite impoverished approximation, happens at age 4-6, on the average, during the \"genital stage\". Incidentally After 6 and before puberty comes the \"latency period\", during which sexual awareness receeds somewhat in favor of more purely social and industrious considerations. (\'Ooh, girls...yuck!\') Psychologically, the experience of sexual attraction/romance/sexual relationship is not fully/essentially what it is, generally speaking, at least until adolescent hormonal changes exert their huge effect on neuro cognitive development. That is the largest qualitative change in the psyche. However, Erickson found that the sense of intimacy mostly develops after the sense of identity, on the average, which itself develops in the teen years (approx 14-16). So strictly speaking, adult sexual attraction, per se cannot be paired with pheromones until then, about age 16 and after. I\'m not that strict, however, and will vote for adolescence as a nice middle ground. These stages are not absolute in order or age-limits. But they are generally supported by the research.

    So the same pheromone exposure \"means\" (yes, the effect is partly preconscious) something somewhat different to one exposed at puberty versus at infancy. Obviously, pheromones and hormones affect \"sexual\" (in the stripped down biological sense of male versus female, along with orientation-tendency) development from conception onward. But human sexual development occurs gradually, not instantly with birth. Limiting discussion to changes in LH or another hormone in response to pheromonal stimuli could be fine, but only if you want to talk just about biology (also physiology, anatomy or biochemistry), and are uninterested in actual human behavior or experience (i.e., what psychology studies). But if you want to talk scientifically about human experience and actions, you would be wise to study the psychology of it. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    ...psychological approach where virtually anything goes. No need for hormones, or sexual dimorphism at all with a psychological approach. Just tell people that human sexual behavior is very complex or that it can only be understood by examining subjective reports (case studies). Forget biology, entirely, and you\'re free to invent whatever theory you wish.


    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    Actually all those things are important to psychologists, who study the big picture of psychology, inclusive of biological information (Look at the fields of neuropsychology, biopsychology, developmental psychology, geriatric psychology, medical psychology, evolutionary psychology, and psychiatry, for example; and look at my everyday example, above.) as it helps constitute the psyche. Single case studies are in fact rare in universities and professional psychology journals, which document mostly tightly controlled experimental, quasi-experimental, and correlational studies.

    I thought JVK said he was leaving the discussion? He continues to make bigoted, false statements about psychologists, even though he has admitted to knowing almost nothing about psychology: \"I know mostly what I read in some 70\'s self help books\". This is very unprofessional. Which self help book says psychologists disregard biology? Was it written by Oprah or Jerry? I would request he try not to speak further about psychology or psychologists, but he is free to spread arrogant disinformation about whatever he wants.

    Freedom is a two way street, however.

  2. #122
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: visual cues

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    The apparent evidence suggesting that visual pathways are important in human attractiveness sorting is obvious from the success of the romantic leads in films.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    Due to a lifetime of conditioning by pheromones. Visual input alone cannot elicit hormonal change.

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />

    I happen to buy some of JVK\'s hypothesis---generally mammalian biology has been more successful in explaining significant amounts of human behavior than psychology.

    This requires a number of things:

    1) humans who are visually more attractive made more and better pheros. This has to be demonstrated experimentally.


    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    It has through studies of scent and symmetry, scent and genetic diversity, and ovulatory scent cues versus other menstrual cycle-related cues.

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    The obvious place to start is female waist to hip ratio which has a very strong and obvious cross-cultual preference. Basically, can it be unambiguously shown that fat chix make worse pheros?

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    No, but fat tissue converts sex steroid hormones, which means that fat chicks produce a somewhat different pheromone signature. Some men prefer fat chicks, most likely because of this variation in scent and its association with sexually rewarding experiences, which are less likely for some men who pursue only \"model\" figures.

    \"Visual input as a proxy for pheromones\" is simply saying that the visual response is conditioned to pheromones. But it may say this in a way more people can understand. You seem to have a good grasp of the topic, but it would be nice if you would read my academic papers, which detail the studies that already have been done.

  3. #123
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: There you go again...

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    GREAT, some dildo who has \"cruised the forum for a month now\" and has established NO credability insults someone WITH credability as his FIRST post.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    Thank you for sharing your feelings. I was simply going to call this idiot an idiot, but thought that might be a bit harsh.

  4. #124
    Phero Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    364
    Rep Power
    6651

    Default Re: There you go again...

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    But would any primate copulate without the motivation provided by gonadal hormones? Indeed, how would any primate experience the desire to copulate in the absence of gonadal hormone motivation? One of us needs to read the article again.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
    To quote the paper:
    \"Even though his T was suppressed for almost 8 weeks, this male continued to mount and ejaculate at frequencies not significantly different from his pre-treatment levels.\"

    High ranking primates are not limited to hormonally-prompted motivation to copulate. The whole point of the paper is such differences between higher primates and the rest of the mammals.


    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    However, the origin of the sexual response is still hormonal. Kim could not possibly dissagree with this developmental approach. I can\'t imagine how he would explain consciously determined sexual behavior in the absence of hormonal change

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    To quote the paper:
    \"Thus the ability to get an erection to sexual stimuli is not under hormonal control in humans\".
    The context is evident throughout the paper: an experimental context that reveals the extent of primate sexual response independent of hormonally prompted desire. The paper shows the difference between higher primates and other mammals in this regard.


    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    The title sufficiently advises to take the information in context. He is talking about hormonally mediated physical changes that either allow copulation or do not.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
    No. He is talking about the ability of higher primates to copulate independently or even in the absence of hormonally-prompted motivation, the \"...separation of mating ability from hormonally modulated mating interest.\" This is the stated scope of the paper; the context is simply experimental testing of this premise, the conclusions are conservative and superbly supported by his experimentation. The use of the word \'context\' in the title refers to the situational and/or group rank \'context\' affecting or replacing hormonally driven desire. The paper is exciting because it exposes a fundamental difference in hormonally-driven behavior between primates and other mammals.

    I do agree one of us needs to re(read) the paper.

  5. #125
    Moderator Mtnjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SAN DIEGO
    Posts
    2,481
    Rep Power
    6877

    Default Re: There you go again...

    \"Quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GREAT, some dildo who has \"cruised the forum for a month now\" and has established NO credability insults someone WITH credability as his FIRST post.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Thank you for sharing your feelings. I was simply going to call this idiot an idiot, but thought that might be a bit harsh.\"

    Well, I have never been considered \"politicaly correct\", always considered it dishonest! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

  6. #126
    Phero Guru Sagacious1420's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,537
    Rep Power
    6261

    Default Re: There you go again...

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />

    GREAT, some dildo who has \"cruised the forum for a month now\" and has established NO credability insults someone WITH credability as his FIRST post.


    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    Oh man...that\'s just great! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] It has taken me over 500 posts to establish that I have no credibility! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] I\'m jealous! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

  7. #127
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: There you go again...

    Forum members: This lengthy post provides a good example of biological debate regarding the mammalian model I use to explain human sexuality. Note, Irish focusses on issues that I can respond to, rather than throw in psychological aspects that merely serve to obscure the biological facts. I am happy to spend time debating biology, but completely disinterested in further debate with DrSmellThis over his psychological approach. I am pleased that Irish allowed the opportunity for this exchange, because it shows how a subtle difference in debate/discussion style can effectively limit the exchange (as DrSmellThis has done).


    JVK previously
    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    how would any primate experience the desire to copulate in the absence of gonadal hormone motivation?

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    Irish </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />

    To quote the paper:
    \"Even though his T was suppressed for almost 8 weeks, this male continued to mount and ejaculate at frequencies not significantly different from his pre-treatment levels.\"

    High ranking primates are not limited to hormonally-prompted motivation to copulate. The whole point of the paper is such differences between higher primates and the rest of the mammals.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    JVK previously
    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    However, the origin of the sexual response is still hormonal. Kim could not possibly dissagree with this developmental approach. I can\'t imagine how he would explain consciously determined sexual behavior in the absence of hormonal change

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    Irish </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />

    To quote the paper:
    \"Thus the ability to get an erection to sexual stimuli is not under hormonal control in humans\". The context is evident throughout the paper: an experimental context that reveals the extent of primate sexual response independent of hormonally prompted desire. The paper shows the difference between higher primates and other mammals in this regard.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    JVK
    Not under hormonal control is not the same as independent of hormonally prompted desire.

    JVK previously
    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    The title sufficiently advises to take the information in context. He is talking about hormonally mediated physical changes that either allow copulation or do not.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    Irish </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />

    No. He is talking about the ability of higher primates to copulate independently or even in the absence of hormonally-prompted motivation, the \"...separation of mating ability from hormonally modulated mating interest.\" This is the stated scope of the paper; the context is simply experimental testing of this premise, the conclusions are conservative and superbly supported by his experimentation. The use of the word \'context\' in the title refers to the situational and/or group rank \'context\' affecting or replacing hormonally driven desire. The paper is exciting because it exposes a fundamental difference in hormonally-driven behavior between primates and other mammals.


    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    JVK
    I think I see why we are interpreting things differently. From page 354, paragraph 2 of the conclusion: \"Hormonally modulated systems of sexual motivation coordinate the occurrence of sexual activity with fertility, but primates have evolved the capacity to engage in sex at any time, whether or not one is experiencing increased sexual desire.\"

    From this part of the conclusion, you might interpret that hormones are not required for motivation. Look again. Kim says that they are not required for the _increased_ sexual desire that is typical of other mammals, and which is invariably coordinated with fertility as well as the physical ability to copulate (in all but some other primates). Other direct quotes from the paper support my interpretation:
    \"...gonadal hormones primarily influence the motivation to copulate.\"
    \"...the female\'s hormonal condition affected the occurrence of sexual behavior..\"
    \"...hormonally modulated sexual motivation is a mechanism that increases the likelihood that sexual behavior will occur.\"
    Kim also discusses the importance of hormonal motivation during developmental staging (which I incorporate into a conditioning paradigm).
    \"...pubertal increases in testosterone (T)...\"
    \"...significantly higher rate of mounting...\"
    He also alludes to \"...evidence that very low levels of T are sufficient to initiate adult copulation...\"
    \"...the transition to adult male heterosexual mating appears to require specific sexual experience that is typically triggered by the increased sexual motivation produced by pubertal androgens.\"

    Some additional information may assist us in resolving this issue:
    Kim Wallen on July 5, 2001 wrote to Sexnet:
    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    The unique characteristic of primates, including humans, is that arousal and the capacity to engage in sex is not under hormonal control. We can have sex any time any where and become aroused at any time. This means that cultural and social factors become great regulators of arousal, which is one reason we aren\'t engaging in sex during faculty meetings (at least not here at Emory). Sexual desire, on the other hand is very much influenced by hormones and provides a markedly different drive pattern for males and females. This does result in markedly different patterns of male and female sexuality. However, the final pattern of sex is a combination of differences in drive, but also differences in context, safety, and the markedly different consequences of sex for males and females.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    I understand why our interpretation of this paper varies somewhat drastically, but stand on my past comments regarding the need for hormonal change to proceed behavioral change. This is the change that occurs as part of the olfactory conditiong of the hormone response paired with visual, and other sensory, input. If this conditioning does not occur, there is no sexual desire, and there can be no consciously driven sexual behavior. Simply put, hormonal changes are responsible for increased motivation. That\'s why pheoromones work; they elicit the hormonal changes, whether or not one is consciously aware this is happening.

    I have participated in numerous group discussions with Kim as well as discussed these issues in personal correspondence with him. I\'m sure that our biologically based positions on mammalian, including human, sexual behavior are the same, or limited to minimal differences. That\'s because we\'re both using biological facts to support our positions. It is a biological fact that conditioning occurs, for example, and that once our sexual response cycle is conditioned, a hormone response that cannot be measured will elicit behavioral change. But the hormone change must occur--even if only in a fraction of the GnRH molecule that acts as a neurotransmitter, which leads to an ever more complex aspect of mammalian reproductive sexual behavior. Kim does not discuss in this paper the issue of minimal hormonal change, but he definitely (and repeatedly) asserts that a hormonal change is required for motivation.

  8. #128
    Moderator Mtnjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SAN DIEGO
    Posts
    2,481
    Rep Power
    6877

    Default Re: There you go again...

    \"Oh man...that\'s just great! It has taken me over 500 posts to establish that I have no credibility! I\'m jealous!\"

    But at least it\'s well established! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
    [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

  9. #129
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    7209

    Default Re: There you go again...

    A Glimmer of truth peeks through. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

    Wow. I didn\'t know one kind of knowledge obscures another! Those pesky psychological considerations ruin everything, don\'t they? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Since when is this a biology only forum? If you can\'t hang get out!

    [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]Certainly there is no place for psychology in a discussion of human attraction, sexual relationships! Right?! I will cover my ears and hum!

    Notice, folks, JVK calls psychological information \"aspects\" and biological information \"facts\"!!! What a transparent joke!

    I\'m sorry you can only respond to biology talk and cannot respond to any psychology, jvk. You don\'t debate psychologists or human scientists, and you shouldn\'t. You should be asking them questions instead. I read your papers to learn. Why do you refuse to learn?

    Why didn\'t you, in the first place, just say that you don\'t know enough to respond, but \'gee that\'s interesting, I\'ll have to learn more about it\'?!!

    \'I only find biology relevant because I don\'t listen to psychology, and don\'t care to learn about it even if I did.\' OK. But rather than admit to this, which would not have been so bad at all, he just tries to make anyone with a perspective he can\'t understand look silly next to his expertise; throwing up smokescreens.

    This post makes it clear you could give a rat about honest intellectual, and scientific debate. I busted my ass to make genuine replies, wasting an enourmous amount of time. So did others! I think you owe everyone an apology for disingenuous debate and wasting our valuable time.

    I like your summary of pheromone research for what it is -- that was a service -- but for putting it in context, folks, you are well advised to do that on your own.

  10. #130
    Phero Guru Sagacious1420's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,537
    Rep Power
    6261

    Default Re: There you go again...

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    \"Oh man...that\'s just great! It has taken me over 500 posts to establish that I have no credibility! I\'m jealous!\"

    But at least it\'s well established! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
    [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    At least I\'ve got that goin\' for me! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

  11. #131
    Phero Dude
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    435
    Rep Power
    6311

    Default Re: There you go again...

    JVK &amp; DST I\'ve always appreciated your posts...they get a bit technical at times (for me at least) but I always read through them &amp; glean what I can from them. STOP BUTTING HEADS! theres room for the both of you on here...This is like the scientific version of the \"Hatfields &amp; McCoy\'s\" [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

  12. #132
    Bad Motha Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,004
    Rep Power
    6533

    Default Re: There you go again...

    Yeah, c\'mon guys, a little anger management: \"I\'M a kitten, YOU\'RE a kitten...\" [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

    Seriously: What Metro said. Appreciate all the information offered here and am just glad you guys are posting as much as you are. Thanks. But...\"Serenity Now!\" (Or \"Hoochie Mama!\" Whichever affirmation you prefer...) [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]


    Holmes

  13. #133
    Banned User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Good Old Europe
    Posts
    3,840
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: There you go again...

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    JVK &amp; DST I\'ve always appreciated your posts...they get a bit technical at times (for me at least) but I always read through them &amp; glean what I can from them. STOP BUTTING HEADS!

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    No, please don\'t stop now! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

  14. #134
    Phero Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    364
    Rep Power
    6651

    Default Re: There you go again...

    Wallen, K. (2001) Sex and context: Hormones and primate sexual motivation. Find at:
    http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~kim/

    The article in question is straightforward and requires no special expertise to understand – curious parties are encouraged to read for themselves. Here’s why this line of research is interesting to phero users:

    * We wear applied pheros to get a sexual response of some kind from the opposite sex ... that’s our usual goal

    * Pheros affect hormone levels and areas of the brain associated with sex and hormones – most everyone accepts this and good research supports it. Pheros change hormone levels.

    * To understand what kind of behavioral response that hormone change will cause is the million dollar question. What happens sexually when hormone levels change?

    * The type of research that shows how humans react sexually to hormonal changes, what they might or might not do (and what they might do anyway even without a hormone shift) helps us understand what type of effect pheros might have on our targets.

    A lot of phero research has been done on lower mammals like rats. The above article helps us understand that only part of those findings with lower mammals is applicable to humans, since primates have a less automatic sexual response to sex hormone shifts than lower mammals.

    And primates (including humans) can have a sexual response even without the requisite hormonal shift seen in lower mammals! This points out that there are multiple doors to the prize, and should probably encourage us to attack on multiple fronts (unconscious effects such as pheros, mental/emotional, conscious sensory effects, etc.). The human sexual response is (surprise!) more complicated than the rat model, and the better one understands that the more effectively one can bring various ‘weapons’ to bear on a human \'target\'.

    Scientific research is a great tool for understanding the world around us – but it should always be interpreted with a critical eye. In a new field like phero research it is important to integrate emerging findings into a larger context, to avoid the tendency to make unsupported claims or lapse into guru-ism. You don’t have to be a scientist to understand the gist of scientific research, and I always encourage everyone to subject other’s interpretations to a good old-fashioned ‘sanity check’, the common sense standard.

    If you want a good laugh read a 50-year-old science book. And the scientific knowledge we hold dear today will be equally funny 50 years from now. That’s not to say we never truly understand anything scientifically. But science is a process, an attempt to come ever closer to ‘truth’ through accepted techniques. And it’s fun to watch science break into new areas, esp. concerning human behavior, and even apply some of that knowledge in your own life.

  15. #135
    Bodhi Satva CptKipling's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,142
    Rep Power
    7041

    Default Re: There you go again...

    I\'m leaning towards Irish\'s point of view. To quote myself:
    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    Primates posses the most complex visual processing system ever evolved, this is clear. They are also one of the few orders of species to \"re-evolve\" colour vision, probably due to there fruit feeding lineage (as the ripening of fruit is signaled by colour). They also developed stereoscopic vision as a result of the reduction of nasal structures, which allowed the eyes to converge at the front of the head.

    As vision became more developed, it had an increasing role to play in social aspects of life. Many modern primates display swollen coloured patches of skin to signal sexual receptiveness.

    However, dispite reduction of the nasal organs, the areas of the brain which process the scent signals has increased in proportion to the other areas of the brain.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    This in itself shows that we are very different from \"regular\" mammals. Our brain structures are much more complex, including visual processing areas. This might tell us that it is not strictly correct to rely completely on an entirely mammalian model.

  16. #136
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    7209

    Default Re: DST\'s Rule of Thirds

    I\'m leaning toward Irish\'s view as well. Excellent posts, guys.

    If I might now suggest a psychological perspective,[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] humans are \"raw sensory data-light\", and \"data processing-heavy\". Metaphorically, most of our vision happens \"with our eyes closed\", and olfaction \"with our noses plugged\".

    This is why schizophrenia and other psychotic brain disorders are such a problem for humans, and not non-primates: If you have a \'small\' problem with the activity in your brain\'s vision (back of head) or hearing centers (above ears -- temporal lobe), you can have full-blown visual or audio hallucinations that are extremely difficult to differentiate from real sights and sounds. Your brain\'s perception \'headquarters\' ( [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )are often \'just fine\' with making decisions about what is real based mostly on internal, processor-generated information, since the raw data is just the tip of the perceptual iceberg anyway.

    So I have seen that folks experiencing hallucinations can help themselves a bit by training themselves to be more \'raw data focused\'. For example, they can be aware one can\'t walk around the back to see the other side of a visual hallucination; or determine accurately which place the unreal \'sound\' is coming from -- our sensory processing centers aren\'t fully \'3-D enabled\'. You need the raw information for that. At least, 4 years\' clinical experience with 200 schizophrenics suggests as much.

    Similarly, not only doesn\'t unconscious hormonal response determine sexual response (it only influences it), it doesn\'t even determine olfactory response, per se. Much of this response relies on conscious processing, as every perfumer and forum member who uses a cover scent knows.

    As regards the bigger picture [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img], if one would like a starting point-estimation for the upper limit of one\'s potential influence on a subject of attraction, one could use a 1/3, 2/3 model, based on Cohen\'s and Howard\'s work, which shows deterministic, (non-free will) influences max out at about 1/3, leaving the rest for free will.

    So use all your multiple external influences on your targets (music, dim lights, pheros, cologne, subliminal tapes, etc) to get the 1/3 flowing in your direction. But at some point, you have to involve someone\'s intentions (free will), which is 2/3. That means knowing your target\'s goals, hopes, interests, and fantasises (all part of intentionality); and demonstrating you fit in with these (kinda like how internet dating services work). Moreover, that means picking targets that share your intentions for living! This strategy stands a better chance of getting you to the top. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

    Aristotle believed friendship and other lasting relationships were based on shared life-goals (telos), and perhaps he was 2/3 right, then! But even though \'1/3 is only 1/3\', that deterministic 1/3 is \'basic\', \'fundamental\', \'first in line\', primary, or \'primal\'. The initial, prerequisite third is necessary (but not sufficient!)for the rest (which is still roughly twice as important!) to have a chance, and that if the initial third is missing, the rest generally won\'t come into play.

    This is what we can learn from the mammalian model. Yet this is also why the concept of \'primacy\', whether applied to vision, olfaction, or another faculty, can be misleading as used in biological discussions of attraction by certain people. The mammalian stuff can get you on the mountain, but you still have two-thirds of the way to climb. On the other hand, it is hard to climb to the top of the mountain before you get on the bottom third! The bottom of the mountain is not \'more important\' than the rest, it just generally has to come first, as a precondition.

    Now in humans, things are probably not that cast in stone. The top 2/3 can, stangely enough, get you on the mountain, as internet chat rooms demonstrate!

    But the problem remains: If the bottom 1/3 is missing, expect a rapid and hard desent. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img][img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img][img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

    See, isn\'t integrating biology with psychology fun?! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

  17. #137
    Bad Motha Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,004
    Rep Power
    6533

    Default Re: DST\'s Rule of Thirds

    DST,

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    So use all your multiple external influences on your targets (music, dim lights, pheros, cologne, subliminal tapes, etc) to get the 1/3 flowing in your direction. But at some point, you have to involve someone\'s intentions (free will), which is 2/3. That means knowing your target\'s goals, hopes, interests, and fantasises (all part of intentionality); and demonstrating you fit in with these (kinda like how internet dating services work). Moreover, that means picking targets that share your intentions for living! This strategy stands a better chance of getting you to the top. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

    Aristotle believed friendship and other lasting relationships were based on shared life-goals (telos), and perhaps he was 2/3 right, then! But even though \'1/3 is only 1/3\', that deterministic 1/3 is \'basic\', \'fundamental\', \'first in line\', primary, or \'primal\'. The initial, prerequisite third is necessary (but not sufficient!)for the rest (which is still roughly twice as important!) to have a chance, and that if the initial third is missing, the rest generally won\'t come into play.


    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    ...all of which then pointing to the notion of \"opposites attract\" as being invalid...no? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]


    Holmes

  18. #138
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    7209

    Default Re: DST\'s Rule of Thirds

    Good question.

    It can\'t be opposites throughout, especially in terms of fundamental intentions, or else one won\'t get to the top of the mountain.

    Yet overall, to cooperate toward a shared goal, each must bring something to the table others don\'t have, but need.

    So a combination of same/opposite works best.

  19. #139
    Bad Motha Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,004
    Rep Power
    6533

    Default Re: DST\'s Rule of Thirds

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    It can\'t be opposites throughout, especially in terms of fundamental intentions, or else one won\'t get to the top of the mountain.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    Hmmm. In other words, conflicts in fundamentals like ambition, enthusiasm, passion, etc. (i.e. goals and dreams and the desire to achieve them--and the basic philosophies and outlooks which drive these fundamentals--will override pretty much any deterministic influence, no matter how strong or craftily \"utilized\" (as in the case of pheromones, etc...)? Makes sense.

    (Excellent posts, DST. Thanks.)


    Holmes

  20. #140
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: There you go again...

    Irish wrote:
    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    The context is evident throughout the paper: an experimental context that reveals the extent of primate sexual response independent of hormonally prompted desire

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    I responded with a lengthy explanation of why I\'m certain Wallen says the hormone response is required: for motivation (i.e., hormonally prompted desire).

    Irish
    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    The article in question is straightforward and requires no special expertise to understand – curious parties are encouraged to read for themselves.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    I think the article does require some insight to understand. You and I understood it very differently. In my opinion, one review article may not clearly state a position. If you know a bit about the studies being reviewed, you should be better able to interpret an individual paper, especially a review.

    My direct question to Irish is:
    Do you still think that Wallen is saying the primate sexual response occurs independent of hormonally prompted desire? You seemed adamant about this; did you misinterpret, or did I? I don\'t mean to dwell on this point, but I spent a lot of time rereading and attempting to detail my position to you. Simply put, I clarified my position with several examples from the paper, as well as input from Wallen. Does any of this make a difference to you, since you so boldly challenged my interpretation?

    Irish
    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    What happens sexually when hormone levels change?

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    A change in sexual behavior occurs in response to a change in a level of any hormone that impact the GnRH neuronal system, unless we consciously override the behavior that is destined to change. If this answer makes me guilty of guru-ism than so be it; it\'s a biological fact.

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    A lot of phero research has been done on lower mammals like rats. The above article helps us understand that only part of those findings with lower mammals is applicable to humans, since primates have a less automatic sexual response to sex hormone shifts than lower mammals.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    A lot of pheromone research has also been done on higher mammals, including primates -- even humans -- and is accompanied by data on hormonal changes and even some data on the neuroanatomical structures that are involved in both the hormonal and behavioral change. Guess what folks, the hormone response is the same, as measure in LH levels, or in testosterone levels (for example in response to estrogenic copulins--primate vaginal secretions). That ups the ante a bit from using rodent models. Some people are very reluctant to look at the background info that is available. Human pheromones were discussed a lot in 1971, proved to exist in 1998, and since then the LH response has been shown to occur, yes, in humans. This is the crux of the issue. If the hormone response is the same, how is it that our behavioral response varies? Or course it can vary with conscious override, but when? I used the example of oral-genital sex, an extremely intimate act. If conscious override does not occur with oral-genital sex, when does it occur--in any particular developmental stage; during any particular part of courtship behavior; before we get to intercourse; is the conscious override different in men than in women? Or do pheromones condition our behavior so that we really have no idea of why we\'re doing what we\'re doing when we\'re \"doing it.\"

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />

    The human sexual response is (surprise!) more complicated than the rat model, and the better one understands that the more effectively one can bring various ‘weapons’ to bear on a human \'target\'.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    I may be paranoid, but I think that this is a dig. So much discussion results, and then someone brings us back to the fact that the human sexual response is complicated. Well, obviously, or we wouldn\'t be discussing our differences in trying to explain the human sexual response.

    The human sexual response is hormonally driven just like it is in every other species of mammal. That\'s why we are now able to bring to bear a mammalian model in an explanation of the human sexual response. Sure, we can always keep in mind that no one can explain consciousness or how it influences us, or even when. But that sort of thinking hasn\'t gotten us very far in explanations of mammalian sexual behavior. Can we really expect it to help in understanding/explaining human sexual behavior?

    Of course we\'re more complicated than rats, but the hormone response is the same. If we were talking about serotonin reuptake inhibitors (responsible for determining serotonin levels, which have been linked to behaviors) someone would already be well on their way to developing a drug for human use, to attempt to regulate/control/adjust a behavior.

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    Scientific research is a great tool for understanding the world around us – but it should always be interpreted with a critical eye. In a new field like phero research it is important to integrate emerging findings into a larger context, to avoid the tendency to make unsupported claims or lapse into guru-ism. You don’t have to be a scientist to understand the gist of scientific research, and I always encourage everyone to subject other’s interpretations to a good old-fashioned ‘sanity check’, the common sense standard.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    In doing this, please keep in mind that the common sense standard, until recently, said that there is no such thing as human pheromones. So much for common sense, in my book. And since 1995, my book has been cited in many college textbooks written about human sexuality.

    We still are influenced by what we see in the media, and are taught in school. If the media makes fun of human pheromone research, as it often does; and teachers continue to believe that pheromones play a minimal role, if any, in human sexuality, where does that leave you with your common sense? Hanging right out there with: Human sexuality is too difficult to explain, right? Rodent models, and other mammalian models just don\'t do it, right? Get it? Most of us have been handed a lot of \"BS\" as we grew up, and it\'s hard to wade through it as adults. But we should at least be more aware of the BS we are handed as adults--regardless of who or where it comes from.


  21. #141
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    7209

    Default Re: DST\'s Rule of Thirds

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    It can\'t be opposites throughout, especially in terms of fundamental intentions, or else one won\'t get to the top of the mountain.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    Hmmm. In other words, conflicts in fundamentals like ambition, enthusiasm, passion, etc. (i.e. goals and dreams and the desire to achieve them--and the basic philosophies and outlooks which drive these fundamentals--will override pretty much any deterministic influence, no matter how strong or craftily \"utilized\" (as in the case of pheromones, etc...)? Makes sense.

    (Excellent posts, DST. Thanks.)


    Holmes

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
    Almost. A deterministic influence can torpedo it.

  22. #142
    Phero Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    364
    Rep Power
    6651

    Default Re: DST\'s Rule of Thirds

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    As regards the bigger picture , if one would like a starting point-estimation for the upper limit of one\'s potential influence on a subject of attraction, one could use a 1/3, 2/3 model, based on Cohen\'s and Howard\'s work, which shows deterministic, (non-free will) influences max out at about 1/3, leaving the rest for free will.
    ....But even though \'1/3 is only 1/3\', that deterministic 1/3 is \'basic\', \'fundamental\', \'first in line\', primary, or \'primal\'. The initial, prerequisite third is necessary (but not sufficient!)for the rest (which is still roughly twice as important!) to have a chance, and that if the initial third is missing, the rest generally won\'t come into play.


    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
    Thanks, this is the kind of thinking that can help us understand what we should expect from phero use, and more importantly what we should not expect. Any other insights and research along those lines you would like to share would be helpful and appreciated.

    Becoming interested in pheros is a double-edged sword. At first there is the lure of a possible ‘love potion’, that might make up for life’s romantic failures and awkwardness. And then if you take a serious look at it you joyfully discover there actually is strong emerging evidence for the real physiological importance of pheros. But then….one must come back to an understanding of what that physiological influence might mean in terms of real-life human behavior. That deeper understanding is surely a life’s work and more, but I think even a casual curious ‘student’ can learn enough general truths to put the whole thing into a reasonable perspective.

    Personally I became interested in pheros when I saw some apparent results from trying them out on a whim. That led me to look into the science behind it, which is very heartening – pheros are clearly active in humans, and there is much to learn about phero influence across the animal kingdom. But it’s easy to become blinded by that light, and forget why I was interested in pheros in the first place.

    So I turn to many disciplines to try to understand what these hormonal and neurological phero effects might mean in behavioral terms. If I know pheros do this or that to a woman’s brain, well then what does that mean she will DO in response (if anything!)? What’s really going on here, and how important is it in the bigger scheme of human interaction? Of course I can’t master behavioral sciences nor do I wish to try, but I do want to understand from the experts the broad extent of various influences. And anything I learn about human behavior in general is fascinating in its own right.

    So there’s lots for me to learn from many experts. The fun part for me is to gain more understanding of myself and my fellow humans, and hopefully apply these new understandings in a practical and rewarding fashion .

    So much effort, just to get laid…

  23. #143
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    44
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: DST\'s Rule of Thirds

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    ...all of which then pointing to the notion of \"opposites attract\" as being invalid...no?


    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    This is a bit old now, but basic psychology tells us that people tend to like people that are similar to themselves. It\'s not universally true, but if you look around, it holds for the great majority of relationships.

    Where this is NOT the case, and where pheromones may have something to do with it, is in terms of genetics. The more different two individuals of the same species are, generally the stronger offspring they will produce. (This is yet another reason those white-hooded morons are completely off base about race mixing being bad, incidentally.) You can refer to it as the \"histocompatibility index\", I believe there are other names for it as well, but I don\'t know them. Plants employ methods to \"sniff out\" and reject pollen from neighbors that are too closely related to them, for example. In one study I read about recently, men were given fragrance-free toiletries and strict instructions on washing with them before bed, and then wore T-shirts to bed. Women allegedly preferred the smell of the shirts of the men whose immune systems differed from their own the most on some scale I hadn\'t heard of.. in fact, I might have read the abstract of that study on this site.

    So in psychology, like tends to attract like.

    In biology, it\'s better if opposites attract, so it\'s not surprising that mechanisms may have evolved to do so, such as pheromones, pollen differentiation, etc.

  24. #144
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    7209

    Default Re: DST\'s Rule of Thirds

    Interesting idea.

  25. #145
    Bodhi Satva CptKipling's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,142
    Rep Power
    7041

    Default Re: DST\'s Rule of Thirds

    </font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
    The more different two individuals of the same species are, generally the stronger offspring they will produce.

    <hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

    This is only (excuse the sweeping statement) true of MHC genes, in general, we want to breed with someone who has similar genes (because our overall goal is to pass on our DNA, so why mess up your DNA with some completely different code?), but as you may have guessed it\'s a lot more complex than that.

  26. #146
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    7209

    Default Re: DST\'s Rule of Thirds

    The kid is just alright.

  27. #147
    Enlightened One
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    4,678
    Rep Power
    6915

    Default Re: DST\'s Rule of Thirds

    IT comes down to if women are at that time of the month - they are 2.5x more likley to cheat on a husband and seek out alpha males with which to breed and the husband is usually a beta male who is there for support and is less likely statistically to be the father of the children. Of course women cant hide it anymore as DNA testing can catch them out but historically and genetically its more of a success for the genes to reprodcue with a powerful alpha male.

    So when they are on heat they prefer men that are genetically different
    The other 3 weeks of the month they will settle for the provider and supporter but is less likley to concieve unless he is on his toes during her period and manages to bonk her.

    Anone signals dominance and alpha male (cheat with)
    Arone signals support and less dominance (mr sucker supporter) of course the above applies more to alpha females than beta females who cant attract the alpha males as much so they are forced to settle for mr less attractive beta man.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •