I don't know how I missed the names when I read and then also scanned the test. Thanks for citing them.

And now, back to our investigative reporter.... Willow.

James

(02-19-2010 12:59 PM)Willow Wrote:  "The odors were butanol, cedar oil, lavendel oil and eugenol."
So they were not odorless, by any means, but ordinary.

I read the whole brief. Figures 1 & 2 were certainly interesting.

But to play devils advocate here, the fact that inhaling Alpha Androstenol produces different neurological reaction within the brain to inhalation of classic olfactory stimuli, does not necessarily correlate to inhalation of Alpha Androstenol triggering "...a definite behavior or a developmental process". In that much, the semantics-obsessed academics have the right, in my opinion. And demonstrating a causal effect on human behavior will be a huge obstacle.

As a "pheromone" end-user, I am attempting to manipulate human behavior - and I'm flying on blind faith. Any anecdotal evidence I amass is highly suspect. I spent a good portion of one undergrad summer staring at Japanese Snow Monkeys and recording their behaviors as part of a huge behavioral study. I shudder to think what you might be able to devise to truly test pheromonal activity! And the years of data accumulation before you could make any assertions? Yowsers.

Demonstration of cause and effect is possible with the right study design, and the study design is not complex. The brain activation by androstenol reasserts the importance of the animal model of relatively brief (e.g., 15-minute) interactions.

I wonder if anyone will ever attempt to test whether visual input from the social environment has direct effects on brain activation (i.e., gene activation, particularly in hormone-secreting cells of the hypothalamus). Fortunately for the proponents of this vague link between what we see and our behavior, no one needs to demonstrate the link because most people believe it actually exists. This belief trumps any approach to detailing the evolved neurophysiological mechansisms that must be involved. It's really these beliefs that present the huge obstacle.

James V. Kohl
http://www.scentoferos.com

(02-19-2010 1:27 PM)Willow Wrote:  ... demonstrating a causal effect on human behavior will be a huge obstacle....

...I shudder to think what you might be able to devise to truly test pheromonal activity! And the years of data accumulation before you could make any assertions?

(02-19-2010 1:27 PM)Willow Wrote:  ...
But to play devils advocate here, the fact that inhaling Alpha Androstenol produces different neurological reaction within the brain to inhalation of classic olfactory stimuli, does not necessarily correlate to inhalation of Alpha Androstenol triggering "...a definite behavior or a developmental process". In that much, the semantics-obsessed academics have the right, in my opinion. And demonstrating a causal effect on human behavior will be a huge obstacle.
...

This is a huge problem in human research. We have higher (cortical) brain functions that inhibit or modify pheromonal reactions. Even Kohl tacitly acknowledges this. (Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality. 18;4: 313-369. 2006)

Quote: Human physical attraction may not cognitively equate with definitive indications of sexual preferences or definitive sexual behavior, because sexual preferences can be cognitively denied and sexual behavior can be suppressed. Thus, when comparing human and non-human animal behavior, it is difficult to separate cognitive effects, like thoughts, from unconscious affects, like neuroendocrine changes, that may be manifest as human emotions. Therefore, sex researchers cannot be sure whether they are sampling some vague unconscious affect of human behavior that is not cognitively considered by their subjects—and not considered in the study design or the data analysis.
The failure to fully consider unconscious affects that may be manifest as opportunistic behavioral tendencies leads to a lack of clear findings, and the underlying biological underpinnings of sexual preferences can readily be missed. Accordingly, the reporting of incongruous and ill-defined results that are, nonetheless, meaningfully interpreted, is problematic.

(02-23-2010 10:50 PM)Gone with the Wind Wrote:  This is a huge problem in human research. We have higher (cortical) brain functions that inhibit or modify pheromonal reactions. Even Kohl tacitly acknowledges this. (Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality. 18;4: 313-369. 2006)

In "The Great Pheromone Myth," Richard Doty seems to miss this fact, although I'm still reading. Meanwhile, researchers continue to mistake co-existence for cause and effect. These are the experts that tell us we are more visual creatures compared to other animals, when no neurophysiological evidence and no animal model of social behavior supports visual cause and effect (i.e., other than via association with olfactory/pheromonal stimuli).

Thanks for citing me with the quote "Accordingly, the reporting of incongruous and ill-defined results that are, nonetheless, meaningfully interpreted, is problematic." It is this meaningful interpretation that tends to annoy me the most. If visual input is linked to brain activation, the report automatically assumes there is a neurophysiological mechanism, and no details are provided. People are led to believe that the visual stimulus causes something, when it can't. Just like with food preferences, the visual stimulus of a steak doesn't cause you to want it; the associated chemical appeal is what makes the steak visually appealing.

James V. Kohl
http://www.pheromones.com