Post: #21

(12-18-2009 11:24 AM)jvkohl Wrote:  All species require the classically conditioned response to chemical/olfactory cues. I think that if there was another biologically based model for this, someone would have suggested it during the past 20+ years that I have spent developing my model.

I was just alerted to something that I think will help a few others to understand the significance of sex differences with regard to sensory processing and to resultant behaviors. This article abstract (linked below) supports what I've been saying with regard to any model that links sensory input from the social environment to behavior.

A plethora of discoveries relating to sex influences on brain function is rapidly moving this field into the spotlight for most areas of neuroscience. The domain of molecular or genetic neuroscience is no exception. The goal of this article is to highlight key developments concerning sex-based dimorphisms in molecular neuroscience, describe control mechanisms regulating these differences, address the implications of these dimorphisms for normal and abnormal brain function and discuss what these advances mean for future work in the field. The overriding conclusion is that, as for neuroscience in general, molecular neuroscience has to take into account potential sex influences that might modify signalling pathways.

My emphasis added. Olfactory/pheromonal input modifies signalling pathways by effecting gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) pulse frequency, which modulates the concurrent maturation of the neuroendocrine system, the reproductive system, and the central nervous system.  The input is sexually dimorphic and is processed by the only innately (from birth) sexually dimorphic sensory system.

GnRH modulates luteinizing hormone (LH) levels, but GnRH cannot be directly measured in humans. Thus, LH is the link between sex and the sense of smell.

The biological pathway for the link must be neuroscientifically sound, and it must include sex differences. When it doesn't, as with visual processing, the behavioral affect must be conditioned by a stimulus that is sexually dimorphic; that is processed via a sexually dimorphic pathway; and that elicits sexually dimorphic effects via this pathway: gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system.

James V. Kohl

 

Post: #22

(12-18-2009 12:39 PM)Gone with the Wind Wrote:  You are quite fortunate in the way people misinterpret you.  For me, when many people think I'm saying something that I'm not, it's usually because I said it poorly.

That's also a good point.  I never know whether I'm conveying the information clearly. What do you think caused the problem with interpretation? When I read others' journal articles, or the abstracts like the one I just posted, I am not distracted by thoughts of other influences, like what visual input does. So, when they indicate that the molecular neuroscience must be detailed, I simply agree and pass on the information.

But when I try to clarify that the information directly pertains only to a model of olfactory/pheromonal conditioning, most people are going to think of something else that, to them, must be involved. It seems that I should better be able to anticipate such comments and attempt to diffuse any argument before it begins. But including disclaimers may take away from the point I'm trying to make. And it could always be the case that the forthcoming article will tell us about something besides sexually dimorphic olfactory pathways that species from flies to humans have in common--and how it is more important to our neuroscientific understanding of sex differences in behavior.

I welcome any suggestions that you, as an informed and educated reader, might make with regard to saying what I say more clear. Should I emphasize key words from the start, for example?

Thanks,

 

James V. Kohl

 

Post: #23

For the article I'm getting an error, DOI Not Found.

Post: #24

(12-18-2009 1:29 PM)Niatalya Wrote:  

For the article I'm getting an error, DOI Not Found.

Not sure of the problem. I clicked on the link in my message above and it takes me here:

Maybe the above link will work better for you.

 

James

Post: #25

Second link works great, thank you

(12-18-2009 2:39 PM)jvkohl Wrote:  

 

Not sure of the problem. I clicked on the link in my message above and it takes me here:

Maybe the above link will work better for you.

 

James

Post: #26

(12-18-2009 1:14 PM)jvkohl Wrote:  ...I welcome any suggestions that you, as an informed and educated reader, might make with regard to saying what I say more clear. Should I emphasize key words from the start, for example?

Here are possible places we could have gone astray.  Let's both keep in mind that we are talking about possible differences in what you wrote and what I interpreted.

I'm still not clear on what was trying to be communicated, although I'm pretty sure my initial interpretation was not what you meant.

(12-05-2009 3:06 PM)jvkohl Wrote:  ...In presentations and publications I continue to make the comparison to visual input. Men and women see the same thing; the signal is processed by a sensory system that is not sexually dimorphic. Therefore, the signal cannot be directly linked to a sexually dimorphic hormone response, and it cannot be directly linked to any behavior, let alone a behavior that is different in men and women (e.g., a sexually dimorphic behavior)...

My first difficult point here is the unsupported claim "the signal is processed by a sensory system that is not sexually dimorphic".  I don't know if the claim is true or untrue but since the subsequent argument uses it I'd need to feel confident in the claim before accepting the conclusions of the argument.

If the claim about the processing system were granted, still the claimed consequence
"Therefore, the signal cannot be directly linked to a sexually dimorphic hormone response, and it cannot be directly linked to any behavior, let alone a behavior that is different in men and women" 

does not seem to follow.  Why can't a signal from a system that is not sexually dimorphic cause sexually dimorphic behavior?  There are many steps from the transmission of the signal by the eye to the expression of a behavior, and many of those steps are sexually dimorphic. For instance, we know that processing in the brain is sexually dimorphic, and that the brain has effects on the endocrine system. 

(12-17-2009 9:35 PM)jvkohl Wrote:  Levels of biological organization require the social stimulus to elicit effects on gene expression in hormone-secreting nerve cells of the brain, or the stimulus cannot directly (i.e., via gene activation) influence behavior, which is hormonally driven.

I can spend quite a while on my difficulty in understanding this sentence.  This part

"Levels of biological organization require the social stimulus to elicit "


is pretty much incomprehensible to me as written.  This part

"or the stimulus cannot directly (i.e., via gene activation) influence behavior, which is hormonally driven. "

leads me to believe that you are drawing distinctions between different types of influences on behavior, but it is not clear what the distinction is.  There also appears to be a claim that behavior is hormonally driven, which it certainly is in part, but it is by no means clear that that is the only behavioral driver.

(12-17-2009 9:35 PM)jvkohl Wrote:  

(12-16-2009 11:20 PM)Gone with the Wind Wrote:  Also, the sexes have obvious sexually dimorphic behaviors in response to erotic magazines, red lights hung over houses of prostitution, etc.

The behaviors are conditioned by exposure to olfactory/pheromonal stimuli and the effects of the exposure on hormones during a lifetime of experiences in which olfactory/pheromonal and other sensory input are paired. If experiences are taken from this "picture" --as with young children who have no erotic experience, the magazine pictures and red lights cannot have acquired value in and of themselves.

Here your point is well made with respect to the red light example, but requires more support with respect to the magazine example.  It is easy for me to imagine that hormonal response to magazine pictures or movies might occur even without conditioned responses. Your reply seems to discount the possibility of instinctual "hard wired" sexual dimorphism in the brain.  That's why I posted the example about the baby, because it seemed to indicate the possiblity of instinctual "hard wired" responses in humans.

(12-18-2009 11:24 AM)jvkohl Wrote:   They forget that my model does not include anything about what anyone thinks. Biological facts don't change!

You do speak about conditioned responses, although it is not clear if that is within the "model" you refer to.  If so, it is going to be difficult to convince modern psychologists that a model can be comprehensive without taking "thought" into account.  I can convince myself with just an erotic daydream that my endrocine system can be influenced by my thoughts.

(12-18-2009 11:24 AM)jvkohl Wrote:  I wrote: "The required levels of biological organization can't be found in discussion of non-olfactory/pheromonal stimuli from the social environment."

This could use some explanation.  Again, I am perceiving a discounting of the possibility of hard-wired sexual differences in neural processing.

(12-18-2009 11:24 AM)jvkohl Wrote:  I don't include all sensory input (sunlight, artificial light, loud noises, puncture wounds, etc.) since no one has modeled the affects of all sensory input on behavior. Nevertheless, I fully understand why my behavior might change towards another person, if that person stabbed me with a knife.

The knife example is very good and was a clear pointer to me that I was not understanding what you were trying to communicate.  You might want to use that up front in instances where people could go down some of the apparently wrong paths I did.  It may "head them off at the pass."

Also here you talk about how your model doesn't include all sensory input.  It was your statements about optical stimulus that first struck me as odd and started this whole (valuable) digression.

Post: #27

(12-18-2009 4:24 PM)Gone with the Wind Wrote:  Why can't a signal from a system that is not sexually dimorphic cause sexually dimorphic behavior?  There are many steps from the transmission of the signal by the eye to the expression of a behavior, and many of those steps are sexually dimorphic. For instance, we know that processing in the brain is sexually dimorphic, and that the brain has effects on the endocrine system.

Olfactory/pheromonal signals have direct effects on hormones, which is how they directly affect behavior. The signal from the eye cannot directly cause any sexually dimorphic behavior. In your question above, directly is the missing operative word with regard to cause and effect. The brain responds directly to olfactory/pheromonal stimuli with nerve-cell-driven hormonal changes that result in differences in sex hormones. The sexually dimorphic steps you mention are caused by differences in sex hormones but the steps have nothing to do with visual input, because when we look at another person, what we see has no direct effect on hormones. Note my use of the term directly below. Perhaps I tried to convey too much information in a single sentence.

(12-17-2009 9:35 PM)jvkohl Wrote:  Levels of biological organization require the social stimulus to elicit effects on gene expression in hormone-secreting nerve cells of the brain, or the stimulus cannot directly (i.e., via gene activation) influence behavior, which is hormonally driven.

(12-18-2009 4:24 PM)Gone with the Wind Wrote:  Paraphrased by JVK: This (above) leads me to believe that you are drawing distinctions between different types of influences on behavior, but it is not clear what the distinction is.  There also appears to be a claim that behavior is hormonally driven, which it certainly is in part, but it is by no means clear that that is the only behavioral driver.

The distinction is that olfactory/pheromonal stimuli directly effect hormones and affect behavior. No other sensory input from the social environment directly influences hormones, which are the only behavioral driver. I can't clarify the fact that hormones are the only behavioral driver; that's a biological fact exemplified by authors in the journal titled "Hormones and Behavior."

(12-17-2009 9:35 PM)jvkohl Wrote:  The behaviors are conditioned by exposure to olfactory/pheromonal stimuli and the effects of the exposure on hormones during a lifetime of experiences in which olfactory/pheromonal and other sensory input are paired. If experiences are taken from this "picture" --as with young children who have no erotic experience, the magazine pictures and red lights cannot have acquired value in and of themselves.

(12-18-2009 4:24 PM)Gone with the Wind Wrote:  Here your point is well made with respect to the red light example, but requires more support with respect to the magazine example.  It is easy for me to imagine that hormonal response to magazine pictures or movies might occur even without conditioned responses. Your reply seems to discount the possibility of instinctual "hard wired" sexual dimorphism in the brain.  That's why I posted the example about the baby, because it seemed to indicate the possiblity of instinctual "hard wired" responses in humans.

The only known "hard wired" sexual dimorphism in the brain is in the olfactory system(s). There can be no more support for the magazine example other than the obvious fact that a picture of food has no effect on sex hormones because the response to food is not "hard wired" to be sexually dimorphic. Nevertheless, the picture of food might have an effect on hormones associated with appetite because the hormones drive behaviors associated with appetite and satiety, just as sex hormones drive behaviors associated with sexual interest and satiety.

(12-18-2009 11:24 AM)jvkohl Wrote:   They forget that my model does not include anything about what anyone thinks. Biological facts don't change!

(12-18-2009 4:24 PM)Gone with the Wind Wrote:  You do speak about conditioned responses, although it is not clear if that is within the "model" you refer to.  If so, it is going to be difficult to convince modern psychologists that a model can be comprehensive without taking "thought" into account.  I can convince myself with just an erotic daydream that my endrocine system can be influenced by my thoughts.

This could use some explanation.  Again, I am perceiving a discounting of the possibility of hard-wired sexual differences in neural processing.

Conditioned responses are one of the basic tenets of the mammalian model, and here we have another operative word: mammalian. It's easy to convince psychologists that the mammalian model is comprehensive without incorporating thoughts, because other mammals don't think about their conditioned responses to olfactory/pheromonal stimuli.  We trust animal models in all of medicine, and in most of psychology. At what point do you think our thoughts should come into the picture? We don't think about conditioned responses.

(12-18-2009 11:24 AM)jvkohl Wrote:  I don't include all sensory input (sunlight, artificial light, loud noises, puncture wounds, etc.) since no one has modeled the affects of all sensory input on behavior. Nevertheless, I fully understand why my behavior might change towards another person, if that person stabbed me with a knife.

(12-18-2009 4:24 PM)Gone with the Wind Wrote:  The knife example is very good and was a clear pointer to me that I was not understanding what you were trying to communicate.  You might want to use that up front in instances where people could go down some of the apparently wrong paths I did.  It may "head them off at the pass."

Also here you talk about how your model doesn't include all sensory input.  It was your statements about optical stimulus that first struck me as odd and started this whole (valuable) digression.

I suspect that you took whatever statement I made about optical stimulus out of context. That context is what I bring to the table each time I comment. I hope I have helped to clarify the facts.

 

James V. Kohl

 

Post: #28

James,

Thanks for the thought, time and effort you put into your post. It does help explain difficulties in communicating.

Key points -

It's good to emphasize what you mean by "directly." There are various ways causal chains can be conceptualized, and what might be termed direct in some conceptualizations would not be termed direct in others.

There are a couple of non-intuitive ideas you use that will take a bit of work to get people to accept.
1 - Hormones are the only behavioral driver.
2 - A model that does not address thought can explain the complexity of human behavior.

As of yet I haven't been convinced of either of these points. I suspect many others have the same difficulty in accepting them. They seem to be key elements of your model and I suspect may be at the root of some of the communication difficulties.

Post: #29

(12-20-2009 12:27 AM)Gone with the Wind Wrote:  James, Thanks for the thought, time and effort you put into your post. It does help explain difficulties in communicating. Key points - It's good to emphasize what you mean by "directly." There are various ways causal chains can be conceptualized, and what might be termed direct in some conceptualizations would not be termed direct in others.

Thank you for recognizing that my efforts were time-consuming. Rarely do I think the time I spend is worth the end result when only one person's view is at stake. However, you very pointedly (but politely) indicated that it was likely not only your view, and that your same perspective was held by others who could not grasp the content of what I was trying to convey--if only for my lack of emphasis or substitution of "direct" for more information on "proximate" cause.

In all, I think that those not trained in biology are more likely to misinterpret a biologist's use of "direct" or "directly." Social scientists may have convinced many people that love at first sight is directly due to perceived visual stimuli, for example. The problem with this approach is that it fails to explain many changes in a very powerful emotion, like when people fall out of love --or why the emotions are not applied to non-heterosexuals. Clearly, (to me at least) the real issue is how sexual preferences develop, not how they are suddenly manifest in reproductively mature human conspecifics. Perhaps social scientists hold human uniqueness in too high a regard. How are we different from other animals seems to become We are different from other animals.

(12-20-2009 12:27 AM)Gone with the Wind Wrote:  There are a couple of non-intuitive ideas you use that will take a bit of work to get people to accept. 1 - Hormones are the only behavioral driver. 2 - A model that does not address thought can explain the complexity of human behavior. As of yet I haven't been convinced of either of these points. I suspect many others have the same difficulty in accepting them. They seem to be key elements of your model and I suspect may be at the root of some of the communication difficulties.

It took very little time for me to find a few short paragraphs from a book review that I think addresses both of the points you make above. I would be interested in anything you could find that supports your lack of conviction to what I perceive to be biological facts, especially if you can find anything that challenges what is written here:

Some added background information may help you to better understand my perspective. In 1993, Bruce McEwen of Rockefeller suggested that Donald Pfaff of Rockefeller might lead me to someone who had information on the direct effect of pheromones on genes. This information was required to validate the model I had already reviewed with McEwen, and which I was scheduled the next day to review with Pfaff.  I was referred by Pfaff to Robert L. Moss whose work had not yet been published on this direct link. The in-press articles sufficiently convinced McEwen of my model's explanatory power, and my model was subsequently validated by other researchers of similar high standing in the academic and research communities.

Yet, here we are many years later discussing concerns that have all but been eliminated from the biologically-based research community.

1 - Hormones are the only behavioral driver.

2 - A model that does not address thought can explain the complexity of human behavior.

Thank you for stating these two points of contention so clearly. The challenge now is to find information that is antithetical to what I consider to be these two biological facts.

James V. Kohl

P.S. "It is important to remember that the animal perceives erotic odors in a manner analogous to his perception of food odors." --Iwan Bloch

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Bloch, I. (1933) Odoratus Sexualis: A Scientific and Literary Study of Sexual Scents and Erotic Perfumes. New York: American Anthropol. Soc.

Post: #30

Just about everyone guards their time jealously, especially in our society.  Just as you have spent an unusual amount of time in persuit of this communication goal, so have I spent time in this interaction I would not have spent, were I not convinced that you have something very valuable to say. 

Most listeners who do not have my bias, would have stopped listening the first time they hit something that seemed wrong or a waste of time vis a vis their world view.

The link at  is very good, and sends off no alarm bells in my mind.  The writer asserts hormones are behavioral drivers, but does not assert they are the only ones.  Some illustrative quotes

Quote:
...he shows that the biological basis for sex drive--one of the most primitive human instincts--is largely explained by ...

...Looking at libido from a biologist's perspective also made sense because sex drive is an "aspect of mental life closest to being dominated by biological determinants," 

...These similarities strongly suggest that the primitive aspects of libido in humans derive from what happens in other mammals. The burden of proof, Pfaff says, is on those who would claim that humans are unique. (Again, he cautions that his lab is looking only at the biological side of sexual desire, not the cultural factors that influence it.)

 ...every drive has two components: one to arouse the brain and another to direct behavior. Some of these drives are controlled by hormones--

..."Given that we can explain hormonal, neuronal and molecular bases of certain forms of animal reproductive behavior in considerable detail, we can infer that these investigations have a lot to do with the human mind and behavior," 

These quotes make it clear to me that the author is not claiming that hormones absolutely determine observable human behavior.  However, many times I was left with a (mis)impression of such claims from your posts.

My worldview includes knowledge that spraying Androstanone in the snout of a sow will induce presentation of genetalia and acceptance of mating.  And further that spraying Androstanone in the snout of a human female produces black eyes and bloody noses for the researcher, as well as calls to 911.  I am aware that humans have a highly evolved cerebral cortex that most other animals do not share, and that this cortex appears to have effects on human behavior that modify the impulses we apparently share with other mammals, and produce differences in human behavior from that expected from other mammals.  Also in my world view are experiences that suppression of cortical function lead us to behave in manners more like the other mammals.

Reading something like "hormones are the only behavioral driver" immediately produces awareness that what I am reading is not consistent with my world view.  In cases like this, if the conflict appears large, the tendency is to stop paying attention and wasting time. 

For instance, I long ago gave up on following crackpot "proofs" by that pi is certain rational fraction.  However, I have devoted considerable time to wondering about non-euclidian spaces and am aware that the euclidian pi is not inviolate.  The differences between my reaction to the crackpot high-school geometry teacher and Reimann or Einstein are 1 - I have already thought through an euclidian proof that pi is irrational and have confidence that the logic was valid, 2  - The non-euclidian arguments were put forward in a clear and compelling manner that did not conflict with what I already "knew", although they did require a complete rethinking and recontextualizing of what I "knew." 

Part of this may be due to the use of "jargon."  Jargon consisting of highly defined terms used in a manner different than they might be used in common speach, is almost a requirement for professionals in any field in order to communicate efficiently.  I use jargon in my field.  But if I start using it with people outside my field, miscommunications quickly develop.  When a professional communicates with those outside his specialty, in order to achieve the communication goal it is often necessary for him to revert to the common vernacular, and to suck up the penalty of not being able to express the ideas in a minimal number of words.