Perfuming the
mind
Entelechy: Mind and Culture
http://www.entelechyjournal.com/
The article offers some
basic info with alternative biologically based explanations for reports that we are primarily visual
creatures.
JVK
Perfuming the
mind
Entelechy: Mind and Culture
http://www.entelechyjournal.com/
The article offers some
basic info with alternative biologically based explanations for reports that we are primarily visual
creatures.
JVK
This article was a good
read
Yes, thank you JV!Originally Posted by supefly
I'll be printing them both out so I can read them as soon
as I get a chance!
Treasure Every Moment that you have
Yesterday is History - Tomorrow is a Mystery
Today is a Gift - That's why It's called the Present!
(Unknown source)
nice article,
jvk
________
Cheap box vaporizers
Last edited by chicago; 04-08-2011 at 03:25 PM.
Thanks all; let me know if there's
something specific you would like me to address in a follow-up article. For example, the ratio of the 2nd digit
(your pointer finger) to the 4th digit (your ring finger) is different in men and women (and some reports say that
it varies with sexual orientation). Quite a few articles link the difference to levels of testosterone in the womb.
So far, no one has hinted at the probability that there is a correlate between 2D:4D and a more masculine or more
feminine scent signature. If 2D:4D is a function of testosterone, we should be able to sniff out differences in
scent that vary with the ratio.
Though I may not respond to you directly, I'll consider any input for
another article.
JVK
v. good article JV Kohl - ive
cutted and paste to my PC along with a lot of youre other articles for future reference thanks
JVK,
I haven't read your
other work but you make some very strong statements regarding the efficacy and importance of pheromones, not only in
humans, but in all mammals.
For example:
"People are the only mammals who incorporate conscious processing into
what they think when they see another person.[3] Other mammals do not think about the visual appeal of a potential
mate; their sexual behavior is biologically directed by the unconscious affect of pheromones on hormone levels."
This implies that pheromones are the basis of all sexual preferences and behavior, which you also go on to
directly state; but if this is true, then what about babies who were born vomeronasally impaired or anosmic? Are
there studies showing that these children have lower or non-existent sex drives? What about in other species?
Another interesting phenomenon is how some people find traits visually attractive (simply from a photograph) even
though they could not have come across these traits during childhood, and could not have established the pheromonal
link.
You also state that: "The unconscious affect of pheromones on hormones directly links olfactory input and
changes in our hormone levels to what we see... Once visual appeal is conditioned to pheromones, olfactory input is
no longer required. "
From my readings about the vomeronasal complex, I understood that it is entirely separate
from the olfactory system. Does the olfactory system play a role as well, and is it as strong a role?
iOriginally Posted by pherohero
can't answer the other questions, but the answer to this one is "Yes"!
There are also studies that show when
people later in life loose their ability to smell, either through illness or injury, their sex drives disappears.
Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
--Lazarus Long
The human vomeronasal organ presence and function is a deadOriginally Posted by pherohero
issue--debated to no end. It is not required to process pheromones in humans and in several other species. Male
children who are anosmic (no sense of smell) from birth were reported to exhibit emotional apathy, have no interest
in dating, etc--or more simply put "they don't fall in love."
Anosmia from birth means the animal will show no sexual interest.Originally Posted by pherohero
Explained belowOriginally Posted by pherohero
What don't you understand regarding the ability of pheromones to condition the response to aOriginally Posted by pherohero
picture? Ever see a picture advertisement for food that made you want the food? It's the chemical appeal of the
food that makes it look good; it's the chemical appeal of people that makes them look good--whether or not the food
or the person is physically there.
You could forget everything you read or think you know about the VNO;Originally Posted by pherohero
pheromones elicit a hormone response which explains their effect on behavior. Unconscious affect=the hormone
response; the hormone response effects behavior.
Thanks for your interest; it would help you to read my
book.
JVK
Thanks for the response, JV, but it seems like you jumped the gunOriginally Posted by jvkohl
there. You were just too quick to assume I didnt understand the sort of conditioning you were talking about, but I
took that into account when constructing my question.
I understand that people can be conditioned to respond a
certain way to certain visual or aural cues, based on association. My question was: how can people be attracted to
traits they could not have been conditioned to, because they have not seen them before (because they are facial
features that belong to members of a race they have not been physically exposed to).
For example, showing
members of certain remote tribes living in landlocked regions of the world pictures of people with very different
facial features can turn them on more than pictures of ordinary people in their tribe. How do they 'know' these
far away people whom they have never sniffed before are hot?
Also, how can the attraction for those with genetic
dissimilarities be explained in light of what we know about pheromones? That they are the basis of all sexual
attraction, and that preference for any other traits are formed through conditioning.
Most young children (and
members of remote tribes) spend most of their time exposed to people with similar genes (family, etc), so wouldnt
they be conditioned to be hot for people who look like themselves?
Lastly, and on a more personal note, I know
it's hard not to assume other people are flat out stupid when you're part of the MENSA/intellectual crowd, but at
least you can try.
WeOriginally Posted by pherohero
are conditioned to respond to pheromones associated with genetic differences -- XX or XY dependent
genetic/hormonal
/pheromonal differences, but also differences in the HLA/immune system (e.g., tissue type).
People can be attracted to genetically distinct phenotypes (how genes structure the features of a person) either due
to novelty, or due to similarity. With no exposure to racial traits such as skin color, the likely response to lack
of exposure (novelty) is fear of darker skin color, which also signals higher testosterone levels, and increased
androgenic/dominant male pheromone production.
We can also be conditioned to respond to more
estrogenic/child-like or female features (e.g., lighter skin) due to more common associations with features that are
close to the maximum signals of estrogen. When we then encounter the maximum signals of estrogen, we respond with
increased attraction.
Selection for geneticOriginally Posted by pherohero
diversity via pheromones is the only way most mammals can avoid inbreeding. It works because they adapt to the
pheromones of close kin, and because they cannot adapt to the immediate effects on their hormone levels of novel
potential mates.
I made no such assumption. Perhaps you assumed that you knew enough about conditioning to askOriginally Posted by pherohero
"new" questions. If my response seemed terse, it's because I've answered the same questions many times--and my
book is all inclusive. Still, I did my best, and thanked you for your interest. Making me out to be an intellectuial
snob seems somehow inappropriate, especially for someone new to this
Forum.
JVK
How about this?
After sex, production of the hormone prolactin surges. This in turn causes
stem cells in the brain to develop new neurons in the brain's olfactory bulb, its smell
center.
"But I like it, I love it, I want some more of it,
I try so hard, I can't rise above
it.
Don't know what it is 'bout that little gal's lovin',
But I like it, I love it, I want some more of
it."
I was thinking people can
extrapolate indicators of higher testosterone/estrogen (and, proportional pheromone output from things like skin
tone, size of breasts, etc.) based on what they have already come across. But what about totally new features like
round nose vs pointy nose, or high eyebrows vs low.. how would the landlocked tribesman/woman know 'this chick/guy
has to have some awesome pheromones'?
It's not at all because yourOriginally Posted by jvkohl
responses were terse... on the contrary, it's because you asked questions like "What don't you understand
regarding the ability of pheromones to condition the response to a picture? Ever see a picture advertisement for
food that made you want the food?" Didn't say or imply my question was new, just wanted to make it clear that you
misinterpreted it the first time.
I was considering other things, like how you say pheromones are used to
transmit signals regarding reproductive fitness. What about visual indicators of reproductive fitness itself... dont
they play a role, totally bypassing the use of pheromones?
Like, I wouldn't be turned on by a fat woman even if
she was emitting a tub's worth of the most ass-kicking pheromones out there. There's no way I can be conditioned
into wanting to have sex with such a chick, simply because they cant be as good at it. Ages ago, when the norm was
for women to be underweight, and those who weighed a little more than average were 'fit' or 'normal', a guy
preferred these women knowing that they wouldnt faint before he reaches an orgasm.
To be fair, the same is true
for women. They probably dont prefer men with thick penises just because they've sniffed enough naked guys to know
that size correlates with pheromone output... the more plausible explanation is that i perform better in bed, and
that the extra surface area increases the sensation of pleasure during sex.
I'm sure none of these points are
new, since I'm just restating what most others say in other threads (even here).. that pheromones dont seem to be
the only route to sexual attraction and cant be used to explain all of it.
Actually JV, I got the same impressionOriginally Posted by jvkohl
the other guy did. It's not what you said, it's how you said it. And not just in this post.
I think your too
blunt to have too many friends here with the exception of the respect people have for your knowledge and profession.
That and the fact you come off like you take the intellectual highground wich comes off very condescending.
Take
a stab at diplomacy and etiquette. You know so much about pheromones and human behavior, it shouldn't be hard to
pick up on word patterns that amount to social manners that would also obviously affect human behavior.
Send me
a sample of your pheremones, that way when I enter scent range of you or someone like you, I'll know if they're
enemy or not without having to remember them.
Ryan
Good points. Let me explain a bit. I've been a Forum participant for several years.Originally Posted by Kardz
Every so often, someone comes on with the attitude that "it's not just pheromones; can't just be conditioning" or
some other comment in reference to what I've said/written. In nearly every case, they fail to understand what I've
said/written, but without looking further (past posts, reading my book) they tell me how they "think" it is, or that
it's much more complicated than I think it is. Nothing else. No background info, no mammalian model, no biology, no
developmental staging... In any case, it's always more complicated that I make it out to be.
I used diplomacy and etiquette for many years--until my model was validated andOriginally Posted by Kardz
accepted by most of my colleagues. I wrote an entire book for a general audience that was well-received and got many
good reviews from other authorities. I've debated with other authorities things like the baby study results--and
the other authorities know that babies can identify their mother's scent within a few hours of birth--and that
visual perception is not nearly as acute or specific.
Then, someone who uses no diplomacy or etiquette,
offers the Forum an example of something that they think can't be explained by pheromones. No need to read my book,
or any other writings (mine or by others). Just tell me how it is. Sometimes this irritates me more than usual.
Sometimes I want to limit my involvement in the discussion, and so, sometimes I'm not diplomatic. I don't know how
to be diplomatic with someone who has so little interest in human pheromones that they won't inform themselves a
bit before commenting on what I've said. And so, I'm blunt, or maybe I take the intellectual high ground--as a
means to show them they need to learn more to debate the topic with me. Hasn't stopped anyone, yet.
I might
be better off just ignoring the posts that try to tell me how it is, rather than become indignant. But my
participation in this Forum, means that I can't ignore all the posts, and I can only advocate that others read my
book once in a while--not in response to every post. Clearly, there are many people whose interest in pheromones
does not extend much beyond the Forum postings. Those are not the people that I am addressing my comments to. I try
to interest people in looking beyond what they think they know, and hope they will learn something new. Most don't.
Those that do learn, don't try to tell me how sexual attraction works--they know, I know.
For those who
don't read any books, my domain provides plenty of information--more than enough for anyone to figure out that we
are not primarily visual creatures; we follow the same biologically driven mammalian model as other species
follow--if mammalian sexual behavior is driven by visual input ours would be too. Mammalian sexual behavior is
driven by olfactory input; so is ours.
JVK
You talk and act like you're dealingOriginally Posted by jvkohl
with people that are clinical scientists like yourself, or people who have atleast gone to school or studied this
stuff long term.
You don't at all act like or keep in mind people here are your average joe, or a few steps
above that.
And furthermore, you act like they're completely ignorant when they obviously haven't studied
pheremones more than a few weeks or months. They are in comparison to you--myself included, but there's no reason
to ever show that if you choose to post and reply to these types of people.
People here develop their own
perceptions and facts weather they're true or not, just as you have. Although yours are obviously broken down into
a deep level of science, and you've obviously been studying this stuff for years or decades whereas probably noone
here has atleast in anywhere near the time you've got logged.
And with all of this in mind, i'm sure, you
still don't get it.
Loosely, this entire community is your average jane and joe. And you act like this isn't
going to happen. That people aren't going to list their own findings in a less than desirable way and challenge
what you have to say.
Do you think your average joe is going to spend months or years researching,
experimenting, developing models, and concluding like you?
By comparison you argue this stuff to us like a
college grad could be arguing the finer points of trig to a gradeschool student.
It's 100% redundant, and with
all of your intellect i'm not sure why you bother the way you do it.
You of all people are experts on human
behavior, don't you think the way you do it is not at all the best way? Don't you think your obvious tone in your
posts is going to close people's minds to you?
Speaking of closed minds, weather your right or not--you post
and reply and state your infinite knowledge on the topic as the end all, be all.
A good scientist is always open
minded, open to other possibilities. Pheremones are just one of the MANY dynamics of human behavior from any one of
our 5 senses. It's a small piece of the pie in the grand scheme of things.
But weather you know your right or
not, I don't think your going to win much respect doing that. And it's an attitude and a mindset you need to shake
if your going to deal with people that aren't at a comparable level as you in the pheremone world.
That's not
to say we can't benefit from your knowledge, because you've obviously got alot to offer. And i'm sure plenty of
people see that. But I can guarantee alot of people aren't going to be nearly as open minded until you get rid of
the supremacy attitude and come down to our level and our social standards. THAT is how you reach people.
Not
by acting like your all-knowing and arguing the finer points of pheremones with your fellow scientists on a 50foot
yacht off the coast of australia to some rich retard over cocktails.
There's really no point otherwise.
Ryan
Last edited by belgareth; 11-24-2005 at 04:14 AM.
I don't doubt our internal
responses to pheromones are involuntary. However it would be unfair not to mention the role of freewill in the
resulting social and sexual behavior. I've gotten involved with women I wanted so bad I thought my little willie
would explode. I couldn't stop thinking about them and could barely draw myself away. Nevertheless I later decided
to flee from her for various reasons: too young (jail bait), big mean husband, incompatible lifestyle, etc. Yes, the
attraction was uncontrollable but the actions resulting from the attraction can easily contradict the biological
urge.
"I'm just a dirty hornytoad" -Gegogi
I don't think anyone disagrees
that at it's most primordial, attraction has a biological basis. And pheromones are at the heart of that process.
Nevertheless, biological urges still must intermingle with the social and intellectual aspects of human existence.
Pouring a bottle of SOE on a loser will not a Casanova make.
Why are some women attracted to withered but
rich old men? It's not their pleasing visual appearance or their virile pheromone signature. Well, the abstract
concept of lust for money and power doesn't fit well into a biological model does it? At a lower level, hookers
have sex with anyone willing to pay their fee. Other women are attracted to and marry convicts with lifetime
sentences based on letters and phone calls. They know there is little or no chance of actual physical contact.
Groupies follow rockstars from city to city hoping for a chance union. They haven't been near enough to even catch
a hint of their pheromone signature.
My point is human attraction is multifaceted. That is, the intermingling
of the biological (real or imagined), visual, social and intellectual. To reduce human attraction to a purely
biological or visual basis is misleading.
"I'm just a dirty hornytoad" -Gegogi
MyOriginally Posted by Gegogi
point is that the only means by which the visual, social and intellectual environment can biologically interact with
behavior, is via a neuroendocrine (e.g., hormone) response. Pheromones directly elicit this neuroendocrine response;
no other sensory input from the social environment does this.
To complicate the biological facts with
scenarios that are purely functions of socialization is misleading. Our sexual behavior, when reduced to its lowest
common denominator, is based upon the interaction of olfaction with hormones--as sexual behavior is in all mammals.
I use a mammalian model; you use no model.
If you want to debate a reductionist approach (e.g., ask me to
explain why this or that happens), at least offer some common ground. Let's compare
models.
JVK
I think that pheromones do play an
important role but what differs human beeings from other animals is that they are much more complex and that there
are much more other factors. Especially beauty itself does seem to play an important role -more important than
pheromones.
To constate my opinion I'd like to show you an interesting article from: Social Psychologie, Brehm
et. all, 5th edition, New York 2002, S.309:
"A source of evidence for the view that beauty is an objective
quality is that babies who are too young to have to have learned the culture's standarts of beauty
exhibit a nonverbal preference for faces considered attractive by adults. Picture the scene in an infant laboratory:
A baby, lying on its back in a crib, is shown a series of faces previously rated by college students. The first face
appears and a clock starts ticking as the baby stars at it. As soon as the baby looks away, the clock stops and
the next face is presented. The result: young infants spend more time looking at attractive faces than
unattractive ones -regardless of whether the faces are young or old, male or female, or black or white.
Other studies showed the same"
Babies without any sexuality are more attractes by good looking fathes rather
than by ordinary looking faces.
So beauty seems to be something that can cause arousal or attraction by itself.
I really do think that pheromones do play an important role but luckily there are (in my opinion) many other
factors beyond them. I think that's one big aspekt what differs human beeings from animals that relationships and
arousal go beyond the evolutionry perspective.
This type of baby study offers noOriginally Posted by mavo
explanation for how one face becomes more attractive than another: male/female, black/white, symmetrical or
asymmetrical; big nose/small nose, whatever. What do you think is being measured when an infant spends more time
looking at one face than another? What makes anyone think that its linked to attractive facial features, when the
attraction is based upon adult responses?
Like many psychological studies, there is no mammalian model for
face preference (though some sheep studies present comparable, yet ridiculous, findings). In contrast,
hormone-dependent pheromone production correlates well with attractive facial features. All infants are exposed to,
and respond to pheromones before they can focus on faces, or facial expression. This brings in a developmental
staging effect that is absent in the baby studies of facial attraction. It is also consistent with a mammalian model
(e.g., sheep rely on olfactory cues for mate choice--even homosexual sheep).
Leave out the need for a
mammalian model and leave out developmental staging and you can have lots of findings that suggest something is
going on other than a response to pheromones. But use biological logic, and you'll get back to the primacy of
pheromones.
JVK
First, theJVK comments, "To
complicate the biological facts with scenarios that are purely functions of socialization is misleading. Our sexual
behavior, when reduced to its lowest common denominator, is based upon the interaction of olfaction with
hormones--as sexual behavior is in all mammals. I use a mammalian model; you use no model."
main focus of this forum is hands-on advice for artifical pheromone users. We crave information useful in our daily
endeavors, e.g., making friends, business contacts and getting laid. Therefore, information presented here is viewed
in the light of said application and not for scientific appreciation.
Furthermore, you may note in my above
post I did, in fact, agree with you that "our sexual behavior, when reduced to its lowest common denominator, is
based upon the interaction of olfaction with hormones..." I merely pointed out that human socialization can and oft
does circumvent the biological process, a painful lesson many young men learn while using artifical pheromones. In
other words, a few dabs of NPA doesn't break down social barriers as effectively as it may elicit an neuroendocrine
response. Artifical pheromones may make her want to jump your bones but it won't override the color of your skin,
religion or socioeconomic level. It that light, my statements are not misleading. They are practical reality for the
man in the street.
"I'm just a dirty hornytoad" -Gegogi
Good point. I'm not reallyOriginally Posted by Gegogi
considering the purpose of the Forum when I post, or respond to a post. What I tend to consider most important is
dissemination of factual information, as opposed to opinions. The Forum is a good place to exchange opinions. Yet,
when I read an unsubstantiated opinion, my reaction is to challenge it without concern for
context.
If a young man must learn thisOriginally Posted by Gegogi
lesson from the use of artificial pheromones, he's pretty far gone from reality. Granted, marketing claims for some
products indicate they're "guarenteed to get you laid," but I don't recall seeing such claims on the Love-Scent
site. So, I don't feel the need to offer up the obvious fact that socialization can/does circumvent the biological
process. Only a fool would think otherwise.
WhichOriginally Posted by Gegogi
man in the street do you think isn't aware of these facts. More likely is that they deal with them on a day to day
basis, but are unfamiliar with any factual representation of the biological basis for human sexual
behavior.
In each of your scenarios above, you ignore the fact that pheromones conditionOriginally Posted by Gegogi from a previous post
the visual response. For example: this is why women (most of them) are attracted to men--not just withered but rich
old men (which is more a function of socialization). Lust for money and power do fit into a biological model: the
model of provisioning. Again, however, there must be a more basic model for the attraction that comes before one is
in a position to provision or to be provided for. Physical contact is no longer required once the sexual response
has been conditioned to pheromones, but you don't seem to acknowledge this. Instead you offer comments that ignore
the biological basis for women fixating on prisoners or following rock stars.
If others can freely ignore
biology, why should I not freely ignore socialization? Making a point here--I understand your acknowledgement of the
biological basis. Still, in the scenarios you offer--the biology is gone, as if it were never there in the first
place. And pheromones are part of the biology that is there in the first place. Olfactory communication is first and
foremost in the lives of all mammals. Drawing only from one species in an attempt to downplay the role of biology
seems somehow inappropriate to me. Might be better if more people learn/acknowledge what pheromones can do, and the
role that they play in all socialized scenarios.
JVK
Maybe the dog knows something's up and the BF should quickly follow suit and make babies!What makes you think that
a male dog is humping a woman's leg because he finds her visually appealing? Clearly it's her
pheromones.
I've been around bitches in heat many times and, fortunately, didn't get horny. However, when I was a kid a dog
ambled up to me and peed on my leg. I'm not sure if I had the appearance of a tree or fire hydrant, or I lacked
pheromones to signal I was in fact a mammal and not a territorial marker.
"I'm just a dirty hornytoad" -Gegogi
I have a quick question concerning
that baby and face study, and I'm hoping those of you who have cited it can answer this so I don't have to take my
own limited time to dig out the answer.
In all the pictures that were shown to the babies, did those pictures
include the baby's parents? Could there be a possibility of a link between the parent's pheromone signatures and
the baby's "image" preferences? I'm thinking baby might link the positive "feelings" (food, protection, comfort)
with the parents, both in terms of odors and visual perception. What would if mean, if anything, if said baby
reacted well or poorly to it's mother's photo?
PS And us Mensa folks can be "stupid" too...
The opposite of love isn't hate.
It's apathy.
Hi Rbt,
they showed them
pictures across many different cultures especially North Americans and Europeans. No pictures of there parents.
American college students were shown the same pictures.
Exactly the pictures which were rated to be very
attractive by the students got much more attention by the babies (they spendet much more time starring at them).
The interesting think is (as this study took place in the U.S.- and most of this babies didn't have any contact
to Europeans so far in their short lives) that the babies even starred longer to good looking Europeans (even though
they were never exposed to Europeans and their pheromones)
Many scientists share the oppinion that perceptions
of facial beauty are largely consistent across cultures. Those regarded as good-looking in one culture also tend to
be judged as attractive by people from other cultures -even without any contact to this other culture and their
special pheromon signature.
Yesterday I meet an very attractive
woman. I was very intersted in getting to know more about her so I started talking to her. After we talked about 10
minutes I started to notice that she's pretty stupid and after the consversation with her has finished, I was
turned off.
I suppose that most of you guys made comparable experiences so far.
Judging other people
(especially women) to be attractive or not depend on many factors like their humor, their look, the way they use to
smile, their intelligence, their eyes, etc.
I'm really convinced that the real life is much too complex to be
captured in a model.
Models can help us to understand the world as they simplify complex circumstances and
therefore they are only one perspective of the world.
I think models are useful because they allow us to isolate a physical trait or behavior and view it
unfettered by outside systems. Once you understand the isolated trait or behavior you're ready to stand back and
view it in the context of the whole. We do this in music and I imagine science does it for similar reasons. However
it is human nature to sometimes "miss the forest for the trees." Lots of young men talk about women as numbers based
on appearance: "she's only a 6," 9s are conceited," etc. Women are more than bodies and to score high in my book
she must be smart, witty, educated, liberal, culturally refined, kinky, horny and attractive. Of course I'm willing
to compromise and exchange a little appearance for personality as the total package is what counts, not individual
traits.
"I'm just a dirty hornytoad" -Gegogi
Thank you!Originally Posted by Gegogi
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
From what I've read and
experienced, the selection of males by human females duriing the teens and twenties are based mainly on the
availability of men. If a relatively ugly guy and a good looking female were stranded on a desert island then they
would likely have sex. When there are a few guys and one woman, then she can get a bit more selective and the
attraction changes and other things may factor in. There is probably a hiarchy of needs... Such as will the guy
have a good dna match (pheromones?), does the guy have good inherent health, will the guy be a good father, will the
guy be a good provider. In a society where these issues are less important, then possibly the woman starts to be
attracted to other things too.
I don't know, but just thinking out loud....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks