http://athenainstitute.com/sciencelinks/climac.html


Dr Cutler always has interesting studies and information pertaining to women's issues and Pheromones. I like the way she sets up her research to.

Tisha

Tisha,
What is it that you like about Cutler's set ups?
Here's another critic: "Most notably, there is no support in data for the claim that the substances increase the attractiveness of the wearers of the substances to the other sex." See: Do perfume additives termed human pheromones warrant being termed pheromones? A Winman - Physiology & behavior, 2004 - Elsevier
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15327...d_RVDocSum

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

(08-14-2009 8:52 PM)Tisha Wrote:  http://athenainstitute.com/sciencelinks/climac.html


Dr Cutler always has interesting studies and information pertaining to women's issues and Pheromones. I like the way she sets up her research to.

Tisha

LOL My bad, I dont mean the actual research. I meant the format she uses on her site to present her data. I should have been more clear on that. I like how she breaks it down with different tabs for different sections. Makes it easier for the laymen.

I know some of the researchers have disputed her finding but you can find someone to dispute just about every study out there.

I use mones a lot and I know a lot of people who use them. I do respect many of the studies published out there but for me nothing beats seeing the results for yourself in a natural uncontrolled environment. I am not a sciencetist but as a women who has used mones for many years and who is older then the average mone users. I agree there is a increase in attractiveness when you wear certain mone products.

I think many people think of the word attractiveness in just a visual term. There is more to attraction then how a person looks but I do feel some mones can enhance you visually or at least the perception people have of you visually.

There is a possibility that the attraction was present already and the mones just help people express that feeling more which I think is most likely the case.

Visual attraction can also develop from emotional connections. Someone at first glance may be average looking and once you get to know them and connect with them visual perception go's up. Mones can bring out emotional responses and feelings of connection which can contribute to that.

I have experienced it enough times though to agree she is on to something there. It may have a long way to go before its proven scientifically but just because it hasn't been proven yet doesn't make it untrue.

(08-17-2009 7:24 PM)Tisha Wrote:  I like how she breaks it down with different tabs for different sections. Makes it easier for the laymen.

Perhaps it's just her way to make product claims seem valid.

(08-17-2009 7:24 PM)Tisha Wrote:  I know some of the researchers have disputed her finding but you can find someone to dispute just about every study out there.

The problem is finding anyone who supports her findings, even former co-workers like Wysocki and Preti. Besides, she doesn't attend any scientific conferences where she could present to those capable of discerning the facts. Getting others to publish studies of her undisclosed compounds is a remarkable feat, since their reputations are also at stake. Failure to disclose is a huge red flag to other scientists; she might as well just say she's hiding any and all facts.

(08-17-2009 7:24 PM)Tisha Wrote:  Visual attraction can also develop from emotional connections. Someone at first glance may be average looking and once you get to know them and connect with them visual perception go's up. Mones can bring out emotional responses and feelings of connection which can contribute to that.

I have experienced it enough times though to agree she is on to something there. It may have a long way to go before its proven scientifically but just because it hasn't been proven yet doesn't make it untrue.

I don't know of any way to get to visual attraction without first developing an olfactory/pheromonal response to what we see. By the time you're evaluating someone at first glance, you already have preferences for natural scents--just like you have food preferences, which have developed over a lifetime of associations with the "visual" appeal of different foods. That's why it makes a difference what Cutler is using in her products. It could be anything, and that doesn't attest well to any knowledge of human pheromones--despite her claims to have discovered them.

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

James, I have to say, I love reading your posts, threads and contributions! You are so elegant in rebutting statements from others, and/or getting your point across!

It is truly a blessing to have you here!

Quote:Perhaps it's just her way to make product claims seem valid.

You make some valid points. I admit her product isnt the strongest and best preforming I have used. I have always said that but I do get a degree of both sexual and social reactions when I wear it. Its not my first choice in Pheromones.

Quote:The problem is finding anyone who supports her findings, even former co-workers like Wysocki and Preti. Besides, she doesn't attend any scientific conferences where she could present to those capable of discerning the facts. Getting others to publish studies of her undisclosed compounds is a remarkable feat, since their reputations are also at stake. Failure to disclose is a huge red flag to other scientists; she might as well just say she's hiding any and all facts.

I know to a scientist these things mean a great deal. Again I am not a scientist. To me personally though, others in the field backing her science means very little to me. Attending conferences doesn't mean much to me. To the regular mone users what matters is does the compound she is using do what she claims in her study. I would say yes to a degree it does. This is not to knock your work or any other published persons work though. I can see how the red flags would go up for scientists when she will not share all the facts of her findings. It does make her claims less valid then others in the field.

Quote:I don't know of any way to get to visual attraction without first developing an olfactory/pheromonal response to what we see.

You don't need a olfactory/pheromonal response to experience visual attraction. Visual attraction is just one part of what makes up attraction as a whole. What I am saying is the olfactory/pheromonal response can increase a persons visual attractiveness to another person.

Quote:That's why it makes a difference what Cutler is using in her products. It could be anything, and that doesn't attest well to any knowledge of human pheromones--despite her claims to have discovered them.

I do agree because she hasn't disclosed what compound she is using it is hard for the scientific community to say that a pheromone compound is responsible for the reaction though. I mean like you say it could be any compound in there causing the reaction. I think the problem is not with her science really just the fact that she says "she discovered it" but she wont disclose what it is she discovered.

This may seem like a strange question. How come no one in the science community doesn't just buy her product and find out what it is she is claiming to discover ? I assume most of the people disputing what she claims have labs capable of doing this. Maybe there is a law against it or a code of ethics between scientists. I was just wondering.

Tisha

(08-18-2009 1:59 AM)Tisha Wrote:   You don't need a olfactory/pheromonal response to experience visual attraction. Visual attraction is just one part of what makes up attraction as a whole. What I am saying is the olfactory/pheromonal response can increase a persons visual attractiveness to another person.

It's a common misconception that you don't need the olfactory/pheromonal response, because the response is conditioned by exposure from the day we're born (or earlier)--just as it is in other animals! Other animals don't need to think about how they respond, but when we think about our response, most of us think we are responding to the visual stimulus.

That's not possible; there's no direct link between what you see and sex differences in the processing of the stimulus that could lead to sex differences in perception and associated behavior. I use food preferences to help explain this. Food preferences do not develop based on the visual appeal of the food. And, even if they did, there would be no explanation for sex differences in food preferences (if there were established sex differences in food preferences that I don't know about). I detailed all this in Kohl (2006), and will make the powerpoint presentation to the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality available sometime soon.

(08-18-2009 1:59 AM)Tisha Wrote:  This may seem like a strange question. How come no one in the science community doesn't just buy her product and find out what it is she is claiming to discover ? I assume most of the people disputing what she claims have labs capable of doing this. Maybe there is a law against it or a code of ethics between scientists. I was just wondering.

I don't know anyone in the scientific community who would be the least bit interested in determining what Cutler is using, or claims to have discovered. Nothing prevents them from doing so. Early on, she claimed on the Montel Williams show (I have the transcript) that she was using DHEA or its sulfate. Soon thereafter she began saying she couldn't tell people what she was using due to her patent application. In my opinion, it doesn't take much research to expose the BS, and the BS has nothing to do with science.

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

Quote:It's a common misconception that you don't need the olfactory/pheromonal response, because the response is conditioned by exposure from the day we're born (or earlier)--just as it is in other animals! Other animals don't need to think about how they respond, but when we think about our response, most of us think we are responding to the visual stimulus.

I agree with you but only to a certain extent. I know pheromonal response is a part of attraction but so is visual response. What I mean is that while it helps to strengthen attraction it is not the only aspect of it. I can look at a picture of a person that I have never met and feel a attraction and it has nothing to do with a Pheromonal response. I can talk to a person and get to know them with out ever seeing or being exposed to their pheromones and feel attraction.

Same with food preferences. Anyone with kids know this. If it doesnt look good no matter how good it tastes they don't want anything to do with it. Even if my kids have tried certain foods and have admitted they smell and taste good they wont eat them if they don't look appealing. Even as adults now. What is visually appealing to one person may not be to another as well.

I cant believe I am gonna say this publicly but take Gegogi for instance. I find him hot as hell. Never seen him, never smelled him. Does it influence my responses to him. Yes it does.

I think limiting attraction to one sense alone is a misconception. But I do agree that olfactory response is part of attraction. I love science, always have, but I find many scientists think in black and white and some things in life especially when it comes to human behavior and responses don't fall in that category.

Tisha

The science of animal attraction is black and white. Either there is a direct biological pathway from the stimulus to a hormone response and an associated behavior, or you can't get there using an animal model.

For the latest on this see: From pheromones to behavior. Tirindelli R, Dibattista M, Pifferi S, Menini A. Physiol Rev. 2009 Jul;89(3):921-56.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19584...d_RVDocSum

Please then consider looking for an article that details the link from any animal's visual system to sex differences in behavior. Opinions can be based on anything (or nothing). I think you'll find nothing. But you're not alone.

Many people think our behavior should be compared to birds, and think that birds are primarily visual creatures. Duh, did any of them ever study olfaction in avian species? Well, no--but they know what they've observed/seen. Birds respond to colorful plumage and different songs, so they must not be relying on olfaction; they're visual or auditory creatures. So much for bird watching; it's like biology without a microscope.

In the real world, however, if there's no animal model, you are forced to invent a stimulus response correlate--one that someone may someday detail (as in, it's possible). That's what social scientists have done with physical attraction, and the development of partner preferences. It doesn't seem to matter that there is no animal model for what we are told is visually-based human physical attraction and mate choice. Most social scientists will give you the opinion that we are primarily visual creatures without a thought for how ridiculously unfounded in biological fact their opinion is (i.e., it's for the birds).

So, people commonly misrepresent what I'm saying, and imply that I said visual input isn't important.

(08-19-2009 4:48 AM)Tisha Wrote:  I think limiting attraction to one sense alone is a misconception.

Of course visual and other sensory input is important! What I've said is that olfactory/pheromonal conditioning of our response to other sensory stimuli from our social environment must come first. Animals can survive without eyes or ears, but not without the ability to respond to chemical signals in their social environment. In your case, you cannot look at a picture of food or of another person and respond appropriately (e.g., hedonically) unless you have had past experience with the underlying salient chemical cues that give people and food their value.

With regard to people thinking in black and white: have you ever heard a social scientist attempt to explain homosexual attraction? Their black/white science of attraction is typically as simple as male/female -- unless they have invented a non-biologically based model for the development of homosexual preferences.

Biology is the study of life. When you posit that some things in life don't fall in the category of science (i.e., human behavior and responses), your only way forward is speculation unsubstantiated by scientific fact--not that there's anything wrong with that. It just doesn't allow for scientific discourse.

James V. Kohl
Clinical Laboratory Scientist

(08-19-2009 4:48 AM)Tisha Wrote:  I think limiting attraction to one sense alone is a misconception. But I do agree that olfactory response is part of attraction. I love science, always have, but I find many scientists think in black and white and some things in life especially when it comes to human behavior and responses don't fall in that category.

Tisha