Gosh, I hope some women reply
to this one!
Gosh, I hope some women reply
to this one!
Love at first site is nothing
more then a "bath" in favorable phermones(aka chemistry)Watch two people "fall" in love, I used to tend bar, You can
"see" the chemical fog. I am sure I will get blasted for this one, but drinking alchohl also helps your naturaul
phermone release. Alchohl will evaporate thru your pores as sweat carrying your natural and enhanced scent to
receptive females.
I would really like to hear
JVK's input on this one ... in my own experience, I have observed evidence which would point to both theories, the
visual cue and the olfactory cue, but I will never know this stuff on the level that he does, so I hope he sees this
and comments ...
Thanks for the insight Duckman.
Cuddle, I agree I want to hear JVK's input to. However, I am not sure you can seperate the visual from olfactory,
at least from his point of view, because of his take on visual conditioning based on smell. In the end, there would
not be a lot of difference between scent & sight.
Lucas J. West, from The CodedOriginally Posted by bjf
Personality:
Basically, the chemicals inside your body mold and shape who you are, how you act, what
you feel, what you're attracted to. It is these same chemicals that shape what you look like. (That's why Brad
Pitt also *smells* like a guy women want to f*ck. The same chemicals shaped his face and his pheromonal signature.)
However, we've been taught to only notice the physical part. The simple truth of the matter is that there is a
chemical counterpart to all of your physical features.
Well, it stands to reason that some of your
personality would end up showing in your face as well. (Who would've realized that your thoughts shape how you
look? It's absolutely a key understanding.) The chemicals that shape your personality are one and the same with the
ones that shape your face.
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
You can't reduce sight to
smell and still be rational. Olfaction plays a role.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
With co-authors from
Vienna, I reduced the visual sexual response cycle to a biologically based olfactory response. The review article
won an award for the best paper linking neuroendocrinology and ethology (i.e., animal behavior). What's irrational
is DrSmellThis implying that a peer-reveiwed journal article is not rational. The article is available to all at the
following URL.
http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm
Abstract:
The
effect of sensory input on hormones is essential to any explanation of mammalian behavior, including aspects of
physical attraction. The chemical signals we send have direct and developmental effects on hormone levels in other
people. Since we don't know either if, or how, visual cues might have direct and developmental effects on hormone
levels in other people, the biological basis for the development of visually perceived human physical attraction is
currently somewhat questionable. In contrast, the biological basis for the development of physical attraction based
on chemical signals is well detailed.
Well, now, that was an
unnecessarily inflammatory response to a non-controversial, obviously true statement.
Wow! Do you really have a
real published article? That won an award?? First time you've mentioned the award thing -- today!
News flash: So-called peer-reviewed articles that are totally full of BS are published
hundreds of times a day. Why do you think there is academic debate? Is there some law that idiots cannot write
articles? (BTW, I never said your lit review was no good, but nothing in it comes close to supporting such a
claim.) I repeat: It is absolutely irrational to believe all of sight can be reduced to smell. You're going to have
to do more than brag that you wrote an article to convince any thinking person otherwise. I can't believe you are
defending that position. I'd tell the same thing with confidence to whatever panel of experts you wanted to
assemble, but I don't believe anyone who really understands the neurology of perception and human psychology would
even entertain something so blindly, narrowly reductionistic. It's reductionistic in so many ways, it's
hard to keep track of them. I get hopelessly bogged down with multiple blatant reductionisms and leaps of logic just
trying to make it through that abstract with that bombastic conclusion in mind. Talk about over extending a
theory!
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 08-26-2004 at 03:22 AM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Hello,Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
I absolutely agree with DrSmellThis! Even if my opinion is not based on science it
is based on simple observation:
Didn't you ever saw a woman ( or person ) on a photo the first time and you
recognize something indistinct fascinating about her ( or him ), a certain charisma arousing any kinds of feelings
in you?!?! I think everybody has! And in those situations thre was defenitely no smell or pheromones of that
particular person in the air .
So IMHO every human beeing has a kind of evaluating system basing only on visual
information. I definitely don't know how it works, or how it correlates with smell and pheromones, but even if it
is affected by the lettest, it also works without them.
So it is certainly existing!
Regards
Ingo
JVK'sOriginally Posted by Ingo
position is erotic pictures are stimulating because of conditioning.
Well, actually I did not mean eroticOriginally Posted by bjf
stimulation, but that what you would call charisma. Things that are more than just sex or conditioning.
Of course
our sense of beauty and attractiveness is to a high extent conditioned but I don't believe its only that!
Regards
Ingo
That's his position, bjf, but there are many problems with it. Off the top of my head, a pairing of
stimuli doesn't prove conditioning; and conditioning wouldn't prove causality as regards the rich experience of
visual attraction. You could easily write a whole book on a one minute experience of real life visual attraction and
not exhaust the experience. Could we say all of those aspects are due and reducible to a couple chemical reactions
paired with some abstract visual dimension? Plus, the initial conditioning of something doesn't imply determination
of how something is later on when other processes and influences kick in. Something can be caused by one thing now
and other things later. Plus, there are no studies supporting the olfactory conditioning of visual attraction in
humans, much less some olfactory determination of visual attraction. Plus, humans do not experience anything like
mature sexual attraction as infants anyway, (Chodorow has a theory of sexual identification, but that is a
far cry) so it would be impossible for what ends up being adult sexual attraction to be paired with anything in
infancy, or even early childhood. These are just a few of the huge problems that arise with trying to say something
like that. Then there is the whole problem of playing psychologist, and the groundless prejudice that explanations
of human behavior have to be just like those of insect behavior to be valid, (They shouldn't be, and if they were
they'd likely be invalid) or that they have to be hormonal (another reductionism). Then there are the
misunderstandings of science -- that because the complex neurological, visual model hasn't been traced yet, there
can't be one -- that it should for some reason already have been traced -- that just because the simplistic pathway
of -mone to LH can be modeled -- we ought to have done it with neural networks by now as they influence
neurotransmiters and hormones, etc., etc. I get exhausted trying to keep track of the holes in the argument, much
less the leaky patches that create even more holes. None of this suggests that visual attraction is not partially
influenced by olfaction, of course, but who is to say olfaction isn't conditioned by vision in certain ways -- or
that all the senses don't condition each other? Then there is the hard wiring of attraction to eyes and certain
kinds of visual contours in newborns, the prominence of hard-wired visual attraction throughout the animal kingdom,
phi ratios (and other natural geomety) and their defining of beauty throughout nature, the role of memory and
imagination, (none of which can be accounted for by olfaction) etc. Whereas most scientists cheerfully acknowledge
the holes in their theories so they can ask for more grant money to fill them; none of these problems were
acknowledged or adequately addressed in past "debates" here in the forum. Then there are the logical
misunderstandings of the debate somehow being about "visual vs. olfactory primacy" when most people don't care
about that simplistic comparison (attraction rests in all the senses, including touch, kinesthetic, taste, and
hearing -- so multiply the problems by 6! to account for their interactions among all the senses); and the logical
fallacy that all attraction has to be sex-specific. Of course, when a theory is unfounded, there are limitless
numbers of problems that arise everywhere you look. It's like asking what's physically wrong with a dead guy.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 08-27-2004 at 07:16 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
<<Then there is the hard wiring of
attraction to eyes and certain kinds of visual contours in newborns, the prominence of hard-wired visual attraction
throughout the animal kingdom, the phi ratios and their defining of beauty throughout nature, etc., etc.,
etc.>>
Hardwiring of attraction to eyes? You mean how babies look at adults eyes?
Cats do the same
thing with humans. I once read on this forum it is because the pheromones from your body rise to your face when
dispersed in the air.
Whatever it is, it seems to be universal. Not sure about the visual contours thing
and how quickly humans/animals are attracted to symetry (immediate?), but you can't just assume those things are
hard-wired.
<<Plus, humans do not experience anything like mature sexual attraction as infants anyway,
(Chodorow has a theory of sexual identification, but that is a far cry) so it would be impossible for what ends up
being adult sexual attraction to be paired with anything in infancy, or even early childhood.>>
Would it
really be???
Anyway, good points brought up.
Yep -- newborns seek out other
human eyes (adult or no) as soon as they open their own. You are correct that we can't just assume hardwiring. You
look at the micro structure of the eye and patterned groups of neurons in and behind the eye to see how it's
hardwired. The attaction to eyes, for instance, has partly to do with light/dark contrasts and how (where) contrast
detectors in the eye are connected to the brain.
Something has to exist to be paired with another thing.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 08-26-2004 at 08:06 AM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
My apologies
to those offended by the fact that I took issue with the statement by DrSmellThis that: "You can't reduce sight to
smell and still be rational." To me, this was insulting.
In the past two weeks I've made much headway with
helping to explain the olfactory conditioning of the visual response cycle, as it is now being discussed on Ian's
Pitchford;s Yahoo group: evolutionary psychology. The thread is: Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high
reproductive potential in women. Those who want to know more about what I'm saying, instead of just taking to heart
an inaccurate interpretation by DrSmellThis, should read the article I mentioned, or minimally, follow the
evolutionary psychology thread. Maximally, look at the scientific evidence page of my website, if you want the big
picture.
JVK
Well, our forum owes quite a
bit to both of you, DST & JVK ...
I'll try to look at the scientific evidence, but I think it's going to
be above Bear's furry head
I think it's very useful to have opposing viewpoints, so long as mutual
respect is maintained ... who knows the two of you might collaborate someday and we might have a new super-product
... Scent of Pheros?
A good day to all ...
Thanks for your positive-spirited post, cuddlebear.
If my interpretation of his "theory" is "inaccurate",
it's because I can't read his mind. I'd absolutely love to see a cogent explanation of how olfaction is
responsible for all of visual attraction! Maybe I could find something to agree with and enlighten myself.
Unfortunately, JVK has not produced one. On what page of the paper he just linked is it?!? It's just not in there!
Look for yourself. Which of the papers linked on his site has it? None of them. I'll gladly admit if I am wrong.
But it is, um, "inappropriate" to say something is there when it isn't. If he is "too busy" to type something here,
why can't he cut and paste one he typed elsewhere? Or why can't he just write a really long post where he
summarizes the argument and evidence? I've written hundreds of them here. So he refers us elsewhere. Where?
To another internet discussion site! This might not be a "prestigious conference", (Definition: Any
conference JVK attends) but it is the largest pheromone enthusiast community in the world. What are we, chopped
liver? Or is something just fishy?
I'd love to agree with more things JVK said; if only he wouldn't make so
many "loose cannon", intellectually irresponsible, extreme statements, like that it is somehow insulting to say
ALL of sight cannot be reduced ONLY to smell. Give us a break, and show some respect! That is a hugely
ambitious, contentious and controversial thing to say, if it is to be taken seriously; one that flies in the
face of people's common sense. As far as I am concerned, if you come to the love-scent forum you have to pass
intellectual muster, just like you would in a professional setting; not just shoot from the hip! (For the most part
people do a great job here! ) I've been to many, many academic conferences, and I don't see why it should be
different here. If you come in here making outrageous claims, be ready to defend them, or don't make your
outrageous claims! Or, don't complain when nobody believes you. I've written pages of posts here
defending some controversial thing I said on scores of occasions.
In all fairness, we all make extreme, false
statements from time to time, myself included; but most of us eventually back off from them, instead of
clinging to them, pit-bull like, with hubris; like the former Iraqi Minister of Information. It doesn't hurt
that much to let go and allow our thinking to evolve. I've had to eat "humble pie" before here, and I will again
(maybe with my next post -- who knows?). If we reform our theories we still get to claim them as our own! That's
the nice thing about intellectual humility: "I'm wrong, and I'm right about that, dammit!"
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 08-27-2004 at 07:12 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
The above statement best represents why I choose not to debate anything with DrSmellThis.Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
Defend my claims? He just threw out everything I know about the development of human sexual behavior, with disregard
for everything written in the review article that was published in Neuroendocrinology Letters, my book, or anything
else I've published/presented. If you want to get an idea of where I've been, and where I'm coming from, you
don't necessarily need to read anything I've written (or look in another forum/group). Just do a search on human
pheromones, James V. Kohl, James Kohl, or Scent of Eros, and see what turns up. There are plenty of respected
researchers/institutions (e.g., Axel labs and Ludwig Bolzman Institute) who link their sites to ;
plenty of articles/interviews that mention me; plenty of just about every kind of support for my work that anyone
could want. Earlier this week, was the top site listed in a google search on human pheromones--and I
do no advertising for the site.
In contrast, I have not dealt with anything even remotely resembling the
antagonism of DrSmellThis for many years. Coming from someone who so obviously does not understand that adult
sexuality is genetically predisposed and developed from birth, this antagonism deserves no reply. Still, I might
tend to spend a minute or two from time to time in hopes that others might not be led too far down the wrong
path.
JVK
If you'll notice, I obviously
didn't say the fact of general sexual preference (i.e., homo vs. hetero -- what he is calling "sexuality",
which is imprecise language -- you'd rarely hear a pro mix up the two) wasn't genetically predisposed (Fetishes
and other finer points aren't determined until later.) Everyone but religious fundamentalists knows it is. What
psychologist would ever say something like you imagine I said? Apparently, you have decided not to honor my
request to "give me a break". But the complexities of mature adult sexual attraction are not there at birth,
and don't even start gelling until puberty, under various hormonal, cognitive, and social influences. They
are two different things. Have you ever heard of "latency age?" You would have to know something about developmental
psychology, but you have never had a course in developmental psychology, or human sexuality for that matter.
Um, what does how great you think you are have to do with anything? Google Schmoogle. Other people have
accomplishments here too. Throughout this thread you have dropped names and bragged instead of presenting a case.
Dude, nobody here said you didn't know anything about pheromones. You wrote a book on it. When I've had certain
questions about -mones in the past, I've asked you. But you seem to have no interest in recognizing when you've
crossed into territory in which you should have some humility, and openness to others opinions. Maybe you
won't debate here because I call you on some things you say, and you have a fragile ego. Could that be it? If I say
something that is incorrect, why can't you just call me on it? Maybe I shouldn't be debating with
you, because you are acting arrogant about things you have no training in whatsoever. Look. I have a PhD in
psychology. You haven't had more than one undergrad course in it, and you come in here lecturing me on
developmental psychology. You've had millions of chances to show respect, but haven't. Why shouldn't you get
corrected? You created that situation and won't own it. Without your escalation there would not be that level of
antagonism.
And don't tell us no one else has a hard time swallowing some of the things you say. You've told
me how psychologists often receive your stuff, for example, and how you don't respect that whole field (even though
you've never studied it).
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 08-27-2004 at 10:02 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
So, it was mentioned by Cuddlebear that he hoped for women's response, huh? Well
I'm new here, this is my first post, but I'll give you my perspective for what it's worth. I am not a chemist,
psychologist, human behavior scientist or any other such trained individual, but I have studied and help many women
in the area of hormonal balance. The chemical messengers in our body are amazingly powerful and affect our moods,
health, organ functions and even other people around us. I've already noticed very favorable repeated results with
"extreme friendliness" and "chatiness" from others the few times I've worn my recent first purchase TE.
It's my experience and belief that #1 OUR BODIES ARE AN UNFATHOMABLE COMPLEXITY OF CREATION, #2 THAT WE ARE
INFLUENCED BY A COMBINATION OF OLFACTORY, HORMONAL, CHEMICAL, VISUAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, EXPERIENCIAL AND SO MANY OTHER
FACTORS simultaneously, that I think it's really difficult to attribute anything to a single stimulus. I see
adding mones as enhancement, perhaps "ramping things up" in advance-before they would have taken the natural course
there if there were true attraction based on other factors. #3 Once a person opens their mouth and shows their
attitude, confidence, intelligence, humility, sense of humor, ability to listen, etc. the effect of the mones can
be overriden to a great degree if the communication is repulsive. Haven't you seen a beauty through the window (no
mone effect) and thought....then she opened her mouth on the way out of the store and she reminded you of a
disgusting truck driving Uncle you didn't like? I've been influenced by sight, smell, mones whatever and then the
guy said the most arrogant, unfeeling things about others that I was quickly "unattracted" to put it mildly! For
women, alot of it is mind and emotion. I'm not discounting the effect of the mones, they are a plus, an initiator,
but there's got to be something else there to keep it going I think. I applaud your interest, your diligence, your
pursuit and your passion, but as far as it relates to "figuring out how to get a woman" (if that's the target)...do
you think there will ever be a simplistic answer...humans are all so complex, especially the multi-faceted Eve
version that was fashioned from Adam. If people just want a short romp in the sheets, as risky, temporary and
unfulfilling as that is, then they probably don't care about much past the intial mone influence into relationships
anyway. I guess it all depends on what you're looking for...Good luck in your research, I know I'm having fun
doing my own experiments! P.S. Geez, so what's with all the hostility guys? WOW! (be kind, I'm a "newbie" and a
lady!)
This might sound strange in
this context, but, ahem, welcome Smiling PJ! I do appreciate your perspective.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Thanks for the welcome,
Dr.!
Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
Well, in my opinion, the thread went south as soon as you accused JVK of being inflammatory. He was defensive but
not inflammatory. You, on the other hand, have resorted to ridicule and sarcasm to support your criticism, and such
arguments usually signal a lack of substance.
After all, if you had something precise to say, you wouldn't feel
compelled to cloud it with hyperbole, would you?
In fact, your argument is not well presented at all. For
example, there is no scientific concept of adult sexual attraction. That phrase has no real meaning and is used in
various ways outside of the scientific community.
I HAVE found the phrase used in a number of FAQs and white
papers addressing pedophilia, and the phrase "adult sexual attraction" is closely associated with "sexual
orientation" -- the phrase "adult sexual attraction" thus addresses the objects of sexual desire of a given adult
(in other words, some adults are sexually attracted to children).
So, you need to provide a clear and precise
meaning for your use of "adult sexual attraction" that helps us understand what you are trying to say here.
Frankly, I cannot find much of what you say that directly addresses the issue raised in the paper.
I prefer not
to make extreme, false statements. I don't see that they serve any purpose, except to create a reputation for the
statement-maker of being unreliable, untrustworthy.
One technical paper won't convince me that all visual-based
attraction is the result of conditioning, but I see nothing in the paper's presentation which seems false or
seriously flawed. It is far from BS, since olfactory research has shown that we do associate memory with odors. It
is not much of a leap to suggest that we may associate pheromonal stimulation/compatibility with visual cues from
early childhood.
Babies have been determined to be pheromonically active. They identify their mother's
pheromonal signatures. I am sure that babies are well aware of my own (artificially) strong pheromone signature.
So, there is a lot of comparable literature on related subjects to lend credence to JVK's research in this
matter. It's not coming across simply like a revelation plucked out of the blue.
If you want to argue, then
please refrain from making further personal attacks. I see far too many of those in other fora. Love-Scent has
been refreshingly free of them for quite some time. I hope people here will strive to keep it so.
I'd be happy to try to
provide whatever clarification you think I need, though at this very second I'm pressed for time. "Sexual
attraction" is a recognizable phenomenon, (experience) I think, not a construct or well-defined concept. You
are correct that that would be hard to define and has not been so. But briefly, there doesn't have to be a coherent
construct of "adult sexual attraction" in order to say there are many various aspects loosely attributed to it as a
phenomenon, and that these aren't predetermined by pheromonal conditioning as far as we know. There are multi
causes to attraction, as far as we know, just like most other things in psychology. Think about the number of women
who swoon over Barry White's voice. Think about looking deeply into your lover's eyes and feeling uyou recognize
their soul, and how much the attraction grows at that moment. Love is a complex thing. Human sexuality and sexual
attraction is not just about which abstract category of beings (men, women, children) you are attracted to. I don't
think the literature in the social sciences tends to equate them at all. They might be flip flopped as a manner of
speaking in a paper where the context is well-defined beforehand.
I am open to any questions on substance of the
things I say, like the one you just asked. I like them. I try to have substance underneath what I say, so if
there's a hollow place I'd like to know.
What you are seeing, BTW is anger with a history, (there was a
context to "inflammatory") and I apologize for dragging you and others through it. It is what it is, for the moment.
I'm open to further criticisms. insights, or suggestions here.
One thing to keep in mind is that I'm not
saying that such conditioning doesn't happen at all. In fact I'm almost sure it does to some extent.But
determining everything is another matter. That flies in the face of what psychology knows so far (e.g, multi
causes of things like that have repeatedly and consistently been demonstrated in thousands of research studies)
And I never said his paper was BS. In fact I have praised it publically a few times here, "to JVK's face" as
well. I said it doesn't demonstrate complete olfactory conditioning of adult sexual attraction in all its
complexity, or visual attraction. There is really little in the paper about that.
Thanks for your response.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 08-29-2004 at 01:20 AM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
If you're going to challenge a peer-reviewed paper, then you MUST provide preciseOriginally Posted by DrSmellThis
definitions for your expressions, if they are not already established in the literature.
So, yes, there MUST be
a coherency in your assertions. Otherwise, you're just making unsupportable sweeping generalizations.
Psychology does categorize triggers or states in which attraction occurs. Psychology is also theThere are multi causes to attraction, as far as we know, just like most other things in
psychology.
only discipline I know of which allows multiple modes in a statistical analysis (in pure Statistics, you either have
only one mode or no mode). But Psychology is defined as the study of the behavior of animals. That is, the core
discipline is rooted in the analysis of external events, not the physiological mechanisms which produce those
events.
Physiological psychology and evolutionary psychology are as close as you're going to get to unlocking
the secrets of the body's chemical processes from a psychological standpoint. They look at what actually happens
inside the body when emotonal states, including states of attraction (and repulsion) occur. They also regard
attraction as being based in chemical or homornal activities. So, there is support from the psychological field for
JVK's research.
Conditioning has been studied in many different ways since well before Pavlov's time. In fact,
Freud himself studied some aspects of conditioning. So, one cannot simply dismiss JVK's claims on the basis of
psychological arguments. There are many psychological arguments which favor his presentation.
Having read a fair amount (for a layman) of evolutionary psychology andOne thing
to keep in mind is that I'm not saying that such conditioning doesn't happen at all. In fact I'm almost
sure it does to some extent.But determining everything is another matter. That flies in the face of what
psychology knows so far (e.g, multi causes of things like that have repeatedly and consistently been demonstrated in
thousands of research studies)
physiological psychology literature regarding attraction and love, I can only disagree with you. Psychologists are
still arguing among themselves about how human emotion and mental states arise and evolve, but there is widespread
recognition of evidence supporting the biological perspectives.
JVK's research will undoubtedly be used by many
psychologists in years to come.
There is no real conflict between categorization of external events and attempts
to identify the biological processes which lead to them. There may be a conflict behind the philosophies of the two
modes of research.
In the end, it's all about making babies and ensuring that they survive to make more
babies.
Here are some things I need to
clarify or understandings I need to establish between us before going further:
*Sexuality is about babies; it's
about family and survival, emotional happiness, fulfillment, companionship, mental stimulation, etc, as well. These
are needs that occur within a single life span, as opposed to just continuing the species -- also important.
*Psychology is mainly about humans -- about behavior and experience (the main internal event of interest), not
just behavior, and the biology that supports these things, which is secondary (not just chemical/hormonal, but also
neurological in the broader sense). Biology is primary for biologists. It's also a helping profession.
Psychologists aren't just interested in chemical process, or primarily interested; to say the least.
*Support
for a "bioloical perspective" doesn't mean reducing everything to only biological causes of behavior, as there are
also environmental and agentic (e.g., cognitive) causes. And biology is way bigger than the current simplistic
models we have. So we shouldn't think we have it figured out already. How the brain works is fundamentally
unknown (in paticular, how consciousness works) despite what we know about how it works.
*Most important
concepts about humans (e.g., love) aren't adequately defined (this is a huge issue in the philosophy of psych and
in research), but we still have to talk about them, usually because they're recognizable as important experiences.
Talking about them doesn't make someone incoherent. You can use narrow, easily observable, simplistically defined
"operational definitions" or temporary definitions for your experiments, but they have their own problems if we take
them seriously outside the particular experimental context. If you define attraction ahead of time as only a set of
hormonal chemical reactions, whihc is a step broader than operational definitions, that's still all you'll ever
see, and you'll be blind to other crucial aspects of the phenomenon.
I'm interested in attraction and
sexuality as the larger experience -- the experiences of being attracted and of relating to another individual or
individuals romantically, in the broad sense. That is the way I am using the term. The best definitions in
psychology are phenomenological, where all the things that essentially make up an experience are summarized and the
structure of it experientially is articulated. That is what makes a definition of a human construct empirical, or
based in evidence. That is how you get solid footing in psychology. Do most people do this? No. I am a long time
advocate for people to do this.
So biology is important as a contribution to human experience, not as an
end in itself. And if you limited psychology to narrow mammalian, biological explanations, you would really have an
impoverished, marginally useful psychology.
Psychology ultimately has to answer to every day humans having
everyday concerns experiences in their everyday lives. That is therefore where it must center itself, as challenging
as that is.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 08-29-2004 at 12:47 AM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Doc
On "*Sexuality is about
babies, it's about family and survival, emotional happiness, fulfillment, companionship, mental stimulation, etc,
as well. These are needs that occur within a single life span, as opposed to just continuing the species -- also
important."
I'd argue sexuality is really only about babies, annd then the emotional happiness,
fullfillment, companinship, mental stimulation, etc falls into a different category, somethng we have that other
species might not.
But I think sexuality has to be limited to biology, hormones etc, and then the happiness,
fullfillment, companinship, mental stimulation is why we don't just go around having sex with people with biologies
that sexually stimulate us. I think that's where psychology picks up.
When explaining sexuality, how our
hormones operate and such, I don't think ours should be explained differently than any other mammal.
I do
think our visual preferences - what we find beautiful - has to be learned, I don't see how it can be inate, unless
someone can pin down what instinct really is. Instinct in my mind is only about chemicals. Where, then, is our
knowledge of visual preferences stored if we come into this world with our minds as clean slates? I don't see
anywhere to store it, save the soul.
I also think people keep losing sight of what Kohl is saying. All of
these other things (such as happiness, fullfilment, deep voices etc), he acknowledges is very much a part of how we
behave, but when you boil down what sexuality is, you've got to be able to biologically explain it. Sexuality
existed before species were even self aware.
Why limit sexuality to baby
making and hormones, when the fact of our sexuality is inseparable from just about every aspect of life? Why can't
humans be accepted as humans and not be forcibly crammed into say, the "rat model". You can't ask a rat what's
happening, but you can a human. Rats don't study themselves. Humans do. Rats don't have a say in what their
research is ultimately to be for. Humans do. These are crucial differences. Are people's experiences and human
uniqueness irrelevant? I agree that biological aspects are important, but who says psychology has to be reduced to
biology? We already have biology for that.
Physical reproduction, sexual and asexual, maybe existed
before self awareness, depending on how you define consciousness. But any gay person will tell you sexuality is not
just about reproduction. Further, there are hormonal aspects to sexuality, and there are other aspects. The concept
of sexuality itself comes from self-awareness -- from humans. It did not exist before. Those are the roots.
Maintaining the perspective of the big picture is not trivial.
Obviously, this is more the background stuff.
Attraction is what it is for people in their everday lives in all its richness. That is what we have to answer to.
Otherwise we aren't really concerned about helping anyone. Then we try to support that with biological, social,
physical environmental underpinnings. But even within biological, it's not just about simple endocrine functions.
Neurology is way more complicated.
So while I am enthusiastic about the endocrine processes related to olfactory
influences on everyday attraction, I fight against reducing the latter to the former.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks