Science Debate

[DrSmellThis]

Good experiment.

I'm not sure whether other, less cosmetic surgeries to the nose (like deviated septum repair) also obliterate the

VNO, but they'd be useful either way:

1) If they don't obliterate the VNO, they'd be good controls; and
2)

If they do, they'd be a better population to choose from, as I think there would be less self-selection bias than

there would be in those who chose cosmetic surgery.

In general, it's tough to look at the effects of surgeries

in people, as it is usually unethical to do mock surgeries on the controls, as we do with animals.

Bubba is

the type of person I've interacted with many times over the years in university settings. He is an experienced

researcher.

How do I know? Because I can tell from a paragraph of him speaking. Without a doubt. He wouldn't

have said "self-selection bias" in the middle of a normal, boring sentence otherwise, for example. That's normal,

everyday scientific conversation to me. That's my language. He talks with others how I am used to talking with

other scientists. He is the first one I can remember. Specifically, he is talking the language of someone who

designs, conducts and writes up studies. He understands research from the inside-out.

JVK is literally not

anywhere remotely close to that kind of person with that expertise, education, or training. Nothing wrong with that

whatsoever, but that's the way it is. I admire anyone who is able to participate in a field being essentially self

taught, but it ain't the same thing.

I've met lots of Bubbas. Bubba is the kind of guy, like a prof, that

would have kicked my butt in grad school a thousand times if I had tried to pass BS off as science, scientific

thinking, or scientific talking. So I learned to be scientific over the ten years I was in grad school. Bubba

recognized that from one paragraph as well.

I'd like to assume everybody that talks science, especially if they

are claiming authority, would act like that. No biggie.

JVK comes across as something very, very different; not

a scientist in the way I and most others would define it. He knows a lot of current facts about pheromones, maybe

more than anybody, and has written a number of good literature reviews; some with theoretical importance; but is a

scientific technician (associates level lab tech by education and training, IIRC), who compensates in Napoleanic

fashion with extreme, escalating appeals to ego and authority. If he could just learn to be who he is, he'd be

fine. But that won't happen any day soon, sad to predict, because there is no insight into his own condition. The

ego gets even bigger when threatened.

From day one, I was more than willing to give credit where due to JVK, and

a lot is due. The problem is he oversteps his bounds so often, in so many areas, (e.g., pontificating about human

psychology, a field he has no training in whatsoever, while playing the expert card) you end up spending most of

your time dealing with hollow arrogance. (I was the only one trying to confront this, along with juggling my other

roles.)

It ends up feeling like disrespect/contempt to the forum and its members, though I assume no malicious

intent. Forum members deserve the same care with our words as conference participants, university scientists, or

anyone else. If you're that good, you should be able to be that good here. I've never seen a good scientist have

any trouble with it, maybe because they spend so much time teaching.

I've never been able to speak completely

frankly in these situations because of my historic "helping person" (if you will) role here, (the mods are in a

similar situation) and as a person selling a product. I never wanted to come across as having conflicting roles, as

having another agenda. Plus, I was the only one here with a backround in research methods/psychology (still am, as

far as psych), and there was no one to triangulate off of. It's just your word against someone else's -- and if

the other person is willing to pull out all the stops, say things to mess with people, never admit they're wrong,

and disrespect rules of scientific conversation, you can only do so much.

Even if you have them where you want

them, which I did with JVK many times, they just change the rules of the conversation.

That happened with this

conversation a lot too, the attentive reader will notice. Even when JVK is "dead to rights" wrong for all the

universe to see, he simply changes the rules; says something obscure, technical and confusing; diverts the topic;

and plays the authority card; among other sophisticated tricks (e.g., "I'm right because a Nobel winner links to my

web page"; "how dare you presume your opinion is as important as mine", etc.).

But one thing that impresses me

about Bubba is his ability to get to the meat of it in one sentence. I think that is from dealing with it every day,

and probably from teaching it to grad students every day, etc. You get good at disposing of pseudoscientific jargon

(like the redundant, "cognitive thought" from JVK's paper extract above) very quickly, for example. My hat is off

to him.

An outside person who is clearly a competent scientist coming in to add another person to the mix was

always the thing we needed here. Now you have more than one scientific person in the conversation, and the less

scientific person can't get away with creating an alternate reality, becoming a bully, and relying on enough

impressionable newbies and laypeople in the audience to buy the unscientifc fertilizer. The ethics of it are sad,

frankly, but that's why they teach you scientific ethics in grad school.

[jvkohl]

You get good at

disposing of pseudoscientific jargon (like the redundant, "cognitive thought" from JVK's paper extract above) very

quickly, for example. My hat is off to him.

I use "cognitive" and "conscious" to emphasize the

difference between what we think is happening (i.e., our thoughts) compared to the unconscious behavioral affects

that occur in response to the effect of pheromones on hormones. I do this throughout the article. Therefore, you

explicitly imply (I'm using explicitly for emphasis) that its reviewers and at least one editor either do not

recognize the (i.e., your) need to dispose of pseudoscientific jargon, or that they recognize the (i.e., my) need

for emphasis. Which do you think is correct? Maybe you should read the article before deciding. Or perhaps, maybe

they just didn't want to mention "pseudoscientific jargon" for fear of bruising my ego.

An outside person who is clearly a competent scientist coming in to add another person to the mix was always the

thing we needed here.

Given this ongoing need, why does it appear that he has only posted

approximately 10 times since joining in May, 2006? And why so much activity in this thread? For all we know he could

be a majority stock holder in Erox/Human Pheromone Sciences who is waiting for the stock to rebound with new

fertilizer for the androstadienone and VNO approach.

Now you have more than one

scientific person in the conversation, and the less scientific person can't get away with creating an alternate

reality, becoming a bully, and relying on enough impressionable newbies and laypeople in the audience to buy the

unscientifc fertilizer.

Now we also have changed this thread from androstadienone and the VNO to JVK

and his ego, and you appear to have decided what is unscientific fertilizer.

The

ethics of it are sad, frankly, but that's why they teach you scientific ethics in grad school.

This

Forum has never been about scientific ethics; it's a marketing tool. You've used it to promote your product, I've

used it to promote mine. It is now being used to discredit me by changing the focus from putative human pheromones,

which you agree I know a lot about, to my ego--which you and others seem to think you know about--in this thread.

So, if I don't spend much more time responding to posts like this, I hope you understand

why.

JVK
author/creator: The Scent of Eros

[belgareth]

Now that everybody has had a

chance to blow off at each other, I think it is time we ended this discussion.

[DrSmellThis]

I use

"cognitive" and "conscious" to emphasize the difference between what we think is happening (i.e., our thoughts)

compared to the unconscious behavioral affects that occur in response to the effect of pheromones on hormones.

"Cognition" and "thought" are well known in psychology and psychiatry as synonyms. So it redundant to say

"cognitive thinking", unless you redefine the terms to mean something idiosyncratic to your paper, and clarify that

in your paper. Did you do that?

Plus, now you do seem to be using them as synonyms.

Frankly, now that you

mention it, the term, "unconscious behavioral affects" doesn't make sense either.

Do you instead mean

"effects", as in "cause and effect", or do you mean the noun "affect", which is a basic psychological term that

means the visible manifestation of emotion (which seemingly has little to do with your term)?

Either way would

be an inppropriate usage of the term. You appear to be mixing these basic psychological terms up, a common mistake

among beginning psychology students.

I do this throughout the article. Therefore, you explicitly

imply (I'm using explicitly for emphasis) that its reviewers and at least one editor either do not recognize the

(i.e., your) need to dispose of pseudoscientific jargon, or that they recognize the (i.e., my) need for emphasis.

Which do you think is correct?

This is another appeal to authority. The fact that something gets published

does not make it beyond criticism.

Maybe you should read the article before deciding.

You

posted the excerpt here. I read your posting and the explanation of your posting, which didn't change anything.

It's possible your article would fix something you said, by redefining common psychological terms to mean something

else. But given your explanation, I'm not optimistic or interested enough to read your whole article at this time

for that purpose, frankly. Most readers go by what you post here. If you want to clarify the terms you use here, out

of respect for readers; feel free.

Part of what people are criticising is this implication that readers have the

obligation to read the ongoing body of your work, rather than expect you to take responsibility for what you post

here.

Given this ongoing need, why does it appear that he has only posted approximately 10 times since

joining in May, 2006? And why so much activity in this thread? For all we know he could be a majority stock holder

in Erox/Human Pheromone Sciences who is waiting for the stock to rebound with new fertilizer for the androstadienone

and VNO approach.

I'll let Bubba respond to that one. But I don't see Bubba trumpeting the VNO at all.

He is making measured statements about various possibilities regarding its existence/function, that acknowledge

multiple sides of the issue. Nowhere did he assert the VNO was clearly active. That makes your suspicion of him

having financial motives or whatever uncompelling.

Instead of responding to his statements directly, you talk

about suspecting him of a kind of subterfuge. There you go again diverting the issue.

Now we also have

changed this thread from androstadienone and the VNO to JVK and his ego, and you appear to have decided what is

unscientific fertilizer.

I would also prefer to keep threads on topic; but would suggest that your behavior

might have something to do with threads drifting repeatedly over the years, across any number of posters, into

discussions of your ego. You said you had been through this same thing many times, with both experienced and new

posters. I wonder why? If it happens repeatedly, could you have anything to do with it?

This Forum

has never been about scientific ethics; it's a marketing tool. You've used it to promote your product, I've used

it to promote mine.

If you were interested in forum participants primarily as marketing targets (which I'm

not suggesting); that might help explain any feelings of disrespect readers might feel if they are trying to have a

serious discussion; or a discussion about the science. That is for you to say.

I'd hope all of us could

separate our marketing from our scientific discussion.

If you are talking about science while representing

yourself as a scientist, no matter the forum, professional ethics would and should apply. They apply to me, too.

It is now being used to discredit me by changing the focus from putative human pheromones, which you

agree I know a lot about, to my ego--which you and others seem to think you know about--in this thread.

Some

of us are criticising consistent behavior in the forum, which is different from "trying to discredit" you. You keep

shifting the focus elsewhere, whether onto your outside work, being victimized, or whatever.

[DrSmellThis]

Sorry, Belgareth, I hadn't

noticed your last post before writing mine. I won't post again.

[belgareth]

Sorry,

Belgareth, I hadn't noticed your last post before writing mine. I won't post again.

It wasn't an order.

It was a suggestion because this thread really isn't getting us anywhere. Its a non-productive waste of time, in my

opinion. So long as it stays here in Open discussion it doesn't matter all that much, though.

[DrSmellThis]

Still, I agree.

[Bruce]

Let's leave it.

James, suffice

it to say, you've obviously made a lot of enemies over the years with your schoolyard bullying. But, you've

obviously made a lot of great contributions too. Bubba is obviously the superior scientist. I think we could all

learn a lot about real science under his tutelage.

As the admin here, I have been very lax. My *intention* at

this point is to provide more security for the layman-ship around here. If there is such a thing as an "authority"

they are certainly welcome to contribute in a positive way, but may not use their perceived superiority as license

to browbeat the general membership, and I hope the moderators will back me up here.

Peace Love Truth

(preferably in that order)
Bruce

[Bubba]

But one thing

that impresses me about Bubba is his ability to get to the meat of it in one sentence.

Gosh, if you

keep talking like that, "Bubba" is going to be a perfect description of the size and shape of my head.

[Bubba]

For all we know he

could be a majority stock holder in Erox/Human Pheromone Sciences who is waiting for the stock to rebound with new

fertilizer for the androstadienone and VNO approach.

I'm not. As an academic, all I've got is my

403(b) retirement account with TIAA-CREF.

Now we also have changed this thread from androstadienone

and the VNO to JVK and his ego, and you appear to have decided what is unscientific fertilizer.

When you

argue from authority, you are responsible for that change.

[DrSmellThis]

Gosh, if you keep

talking like that, "Bubba" is going to be a perfect description of the size and shape of my head.

My

intention was not so much to give you a compliment, but to accurately describe how you come across: As a

professional researcher, who has been around the block, understands the scientific method, and does science every

day. I should hope you could own up to all that by this time without getting a big head.

That said, we

certainly appreciate your participation.

If you say something I disagree with (or just have something to add

to), I won't hesitate to point it out. But you can be sure I'll watch my scientific "P's and Q's" if I do.

The nice thing is that such care would not be wasted.