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.