Originally posted by dadudemon
Riiiight...that must be why everyone is debating about it becaasue “it’s…common sense.”Whaaat? Hormones emit chemical signals? I thought they attached to specific receptors on cells and then a signal transduction path is activated. So when are hormones supposed to be doing this "detecting" that should be CNS' job?
Riiiiight. heh heh.
Wow. Thanks for the irrelevant lesson. But I don't know if I can trust the information given to me by you on pheromones when you think that hormones "detect" pheromones and you also, despite what EVERYONE else is doing, continue to misspell the word "pheromone".
I don't know what you are talking about. Seriously.
What does this sentence even refer to? I didn't say I wasn't NOT going to cite a resource...so why would you make a statement like that? I asked YOU to cite the resource.
No...sorry. That doesn't address/satisfy your statement. Let me show you...
Ahem..
So, do you know of a study or resource that shows that monamine neurotransmitters cannot influence sexuality. (IMO, that does NOT refer to sexual orientation. If it does, you still need to cite a source.) Also, monoamine neurostransmitters cannot influence the activities of steroid hormones? At all? Can you really not think of any ways?
Again with the homeopathy reference? 😕
So, what is your point about pheromones? You seem to be really interested in arguing about them, but like, what are you trying to prove? That pheromones are the same as smell?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oops. Sorry, dude. I didn't want to put that in there. I was going to erase that before I clicked submit. As you can tell, that reply took a while...I read over it one time to check for mistakes but even that was a quick skim. I was going to delete it because it was needless and you don't deserve to be antagonized by me. Also, I forgot to type the word "know" in there...as you can tell...it still doesn't sound right. I wanted it to say this...."Wait wait wait....are you really Devil King who is trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about?"
Meaning he is putting words in my mouth while trying to come off as medically educated. It really is insulting to you to compare you two like that; I am sure you wouldn't pretend to be an expert.
Also, just like I was telling you in the other thread, you can eventually tell if someone is a fraud when they pretend to be someone they are not. They eventually slip up. He tried to pretend to know intricate details of neurology but slipped up at fundamental levels...no doubt he is a "Wiki-spert". I have yet to catch Queeq make fundamental mistakes when he gets serious about his field of study...but this is how one can tell. I don't have the expertise in his field of study to really catch him on a fundamental mistake...but I know more than enough in that field to smell bullshit.
Dude you are so professional 🙂
Don't let frustrated ticking time bombs get the best of you. Keep your cool 😎
Originally posted by inimalist
So, what is your point about pheromones? You seem to be really interested in arguing about them, but like, what are you trying to prove? That pheromones are the same as smell?
No...that IF people REALLY do change their placement of the sexual orientation spectrum...there should be a measurable difference. With pheromones, it should be how the brain responds to those pheromones. In the study, the hypothalamus was the key to kind of proving that sexuality isn't just a fickle thing like choosing your color of drapes. I thought that I made my point clear in my last long ass post. 🙁
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Dude you are so professional 🙂Don't let frustrated ticking time bombs get the best of you. Keep your cool 😎
👆
Originally posted by dadudemon
No...that IF people REALLY do change their placement of the sexual orientation spectrum...there should be a measurable difference. With pheromones, it should be how the brain responds to those pheromones. In the study, the hypothalamus was the key to kind of proving that sexuality isn't just a fickle thing like choosing your color of drapes. I thought that I made my point clear in my last long ass post. 🙁
ok. I see your point 🙂
What was the hypothalamus study? No offense, but saying the hypothalamus was key is really not saying very much, lots of stuff goes on in the hypothalamus, and related areas like the amygdala almost have to be involved in something of this nature, I would suspect...
Also, the construct validity of measuring pheromone response as a measure of sexual orientation, how well established is that? And, I guess the only other thing I would say is that, regardless of how genetic or developmental sexual orientation is and how much it isn't a choice, sexuality is a huge social and personal construct. There is no reason to assume that a person's present self-described sexual orientation would necessarily match their pheromone response, even if it is a valid measure.
Also, now one knows if the brain guides it or that the brain changes due to circumstances. The brain is an organ that does adapt and change. In cases of addiction that is already proven: addiction can change the brain's disposition towards addiction. Now it's assumed that it's genetic, but scientists have no zero measurement, so it's an ssumption.
Well, it's one example, a field where we have some insights about the brain. The perception of pain is another. And don't get so sensitive about it, because pain, addiction, these are things that can be and are measured and tested in fMRI scans. It's the fMRI scans that give us an insight in the workings and development of the brain. Just because there is a negative connotation to it, doesn't make it less valid to use it to hypothise with it. Sexual orientation cannot be experimented with, can you now? But since scholars discovered there's a difference in the brain when sexual orientation is involved, that doesn't say anything. Now we know from various studies the brain is very plastic and can alter due to circumstances, the very discovery of the difference does't mean anything. It doesn't prove it was from birth, or if it happened during the brain development during childhood when size and connections still had to be made.
I asked a professor in Amsterdam once who does addiction studies and he said that smoking addiction was probably heriditary (and the addictive disposition of smoking gets worse the more you smoke, the brina alters), I asked him how he knew and he said that in most cases the parents also smoked and therefore had a smoking addiction. But when I asked if he could be sure that it was heriditary or that the addiction sensibilty may have been caused by the smoke and nicotine emissions from the parents, he answered that they didn't know for sure. There's no way yet to measure it. Either way is possible.
Even emotional experiences involves stimuli with substance (Adrenaline for instance) but what is their effect on the brain? We don't know. But we do know that things can affect brain development (smoking, smoking by the parents, food etc).
One thing is pretty certain these days: it is very hard to claim that any disposition of the brain is solely biologically heriditary. But since data is lacking what conclusions CAN you draw? Not many.
Originally posted by inimalist
ok. I see your point 🙂What was the hypothalamus study? No offense, but saying the hypothalamus was key is really not saying very much, lots of stuff goes on in the hypothalamus, and related areas like the amygdala almost have to be involved in something of this nature, I would suspect...
Also, the construct validity of measuring pheromone response as a measure of sexual orientation, how well established is that? And, I guess the only other thing I would say is that, regardless of how genetic or developmental sexual orientation is and how much it isn't a choice, sexuality is a huge social and personal construct. There is no reason to assume that a person's present self-described sexual orientation would necessarily match their pheromone response, even if it is a valid measure.
I apologize for not posting a source to define what I meant with my introduction of the hypothalamus. To be honest, I was taking for granted how smart you are on these things and I figured you would recall the study I was talking about. Can you blame me for assuming though? you know tons about this stuff.
Here is one link:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html
'The scientists exposed heterosexual men and women and homosexual men to chemicals found in male and female sex hormones. One chemical is a testosterone derivative produced in men's sweat. The other chemical is an estrogen-like compound in women's urine.
These chemicals have long been suspected of being pheromones, molecules emitted by one individual that evoke some behavior in another of the same species. Pheromones trigger basic responses, such as sexual attraction, in many animals.
But scientists have long debated if humans respond to pheromones. The new study suggests that pheromones indeed play a part in making humans sexually attractive to one another.
In a previous study a few years ago, the Swedish researchers showed that the brain's hypothalamus region, which is involved in sexual behavior, becomes activated when men smell EST (the estrogen derivative) and women smell AND (the testosterone compound), but not vice versa.
For their new study, the scientists added a sexual-orientation element, which revealed a difference in the brain activity of gay and straight men.
The researchers found that the testosterone compound activated the hypothalamus in homosexual men and heterosexual women, but not heterosexual men. Conversely, the estrogen compound activated the hypothalamus only in heterosexual men.
"It shows a different physiological response to the same external stimulus," said Ivanka Savic, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute and the study's lead researcher. "This response [occurred] in the brain region involved in reproductive behavior."
When the study subjects sniffed scents such as cedar or lavender, all of their brains reacted only in the region that handles smells—not sexual behavior.
The results show that the human brain reacts differently to potential pheromones compared with common odors.
"It directly shows a link between brain activity and sexual orientation," said Hamer, the NIH geneticist.
[and here is the part that I was rolling over in my head]
Hamer cautions that the gay men's different brain activity could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it. But, he said, "it certainly seems unlikely that somehow being interested in men would cause the brain to rewire itself in such a dramatic way."
Other studies have also found that gay and straight men respond differently to the body odors of others.
Scientists at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, found that gay men preferred odors from other gay men, while odors from gay men were the least preferred by straight men and women.
The Monell Center's results were released yesterday and are to be published in the journal Psychological Science in September.
"There are many ongoing studies in the field, and I think that we soon will have better clarification," said Savic, the Karolinska Institute neuroscientist. "At the moment, there are no definite proofs."
However, the new studies boost the hypothesis that homosexuality has a genetic basis and is not simply the result of learned behavior.
"This, incidentally, is not in any way controversial for biologists," Hamer said. "It's completely expected from the basic tenets of biology. It's only controversial because of the social and political controversy over homosexuality." "
Originally posted by queeq
Well, it's one example, a field where we have some insights about the brain. The perception of pain is another. And don't get so sensitive about it, because pain, addiction, these are things that can be and are measured and tested in fMRI scans. It's the fMRI scans that give us an insight in the workings and development of the brain. Just because there is a negative connotation to it, doesn't make it less valid to use it to hypothise with it. Sexual orientation cannot be experimented with, can you now? But since scholars discovered there's a difference in the brain when sexual orientation is involved, that doesn't say anything. Now we know from various studies the brain is very plastic and can alter due to circumstances, the very discovery of the difference does't mean anything. It doesn't prove it was from birth, or if it happened during the brain development during childhood when size and connections still had to be made.I asked a professor in Amsterdam once who does addiction studies and he said that smoking addiction was probably heriditary (and the addictive disposition of smoking gets worse the more you smoke, the brina alters), I asked him how he knew and he said that in most cases the parents also smoked and therefore had a smoking addiction. But when I asked if he could be sure that it was heriditary or that the addiction sensibilty may have been caused by the smoke and nicotine emissions from the parents, he answered that they didn't know for sure. There's no way yet to measure it. Either way is possible.
Even emotional experiences involves stimuli with substance (Adrenaline for instance) but what is their effect on the brain? We don't know. But we do know that things can affect brain development (smoking, smoking by the parents, food etc).
One thing is pretty certain these days: it is very hard to claim that any disposition of the brain is solely biologically heriditary. But since data is lacking what conclusions CAN you draw? Not many.
I agree with you entirely. However, for homosexuality, the correlation in twin studies is too high to be social. I'm no expert on the research, but I remember the correlation for twins being raised apart being very high as well. The cartoon Adam_PoE posted talks about the mother's immune system affecting the fetus, this would be a very powerful explanation that doesn't require a strictly genetic explanation.
The whole genetic/choice dichotomy is ridiculous. It is clearly not a choice, but that doesn't make it genetic. It not being strictly genetic doesn't make it a choice. I personally wouldn't be surprised to see that early and even adolescent development play a major role in sexual orientation, though again, the twin studies point away from that.
As far as the addiction thing, the only reason I say it is a bad example is because addiction is a dopamine reaction mediated through the hypothalamus. It is somewhat related to plasticity, but strictly speaking, I'd classify it as something closer to memory (or long-term potentiation, however, I'll admit I'm swinging a bit above my weight with that kind of speculation). There are studies where cats are reared in environments devoid of horizontal lines, and thus never develop the ability to see them, or of activation in the visual cortex of blind people when they read braille. Those are WAY closer to what you are talking about.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I apologize for not posting a source to define what I meant with my introduction of the hypothalamus. To be honest, I was taking for granted how smart you are on these things and I figured you would recall the study I was talking about. Can you blame me for assuming though? you know tons about this stuff.Here is one link:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html
'The scientists exposed heterosexual men and women and homosexual men to chemicals found in male and female sex hormones. One chemical is a testosterone derivative produced in men's sweat. The other chemical is an estrogen-like compound in women's urine.
These chemicals have long been suspected of being pheromones, molecules emitted by one individual that evoke some behavior in another of the same species. Pheromones trigger basic responses, such as sexual attraction, in many animals.
But scientists have long debated if humans respond to pheromones. The new study suggests that pheromones indeed play a part in making humans sexually attractive to one another.
In a previous study a few years ago, the Swedish researchers showed that the brain's hypothalamus region, which is involved in sexual behavior, becomes activated when men smell EST (the estrogen derivative) and women smell AND (the testosterone compound), but not vice versa.
For their new study, the scientists added a sexual-orientation element, which revealed a difference in the brain activity of gay and straight men.
The researchers found that the testosterone compound activated the hypothalamus in homosexual men and heterosexual women, but not heterosexual men. Conversely, the estrogen compound activated the hypothalamus only in heterosexual men.
"It shows a different physiological response to the same external stimulus," said Ivanka Savic, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute and the study's lead researcher. "This response [occurred] in the brain region involved in reproductive behavior."
When the study subjects sniffed scents such as cedar or lavender, all of their brains reacted only in the region that handles smells—not sexual behavior.
The results show that the human brain reacts differently to potential pheromones compared with common odors.
"It directly shows a link between brain activity and sexual orientation," said Hamer, the NIH geneticist.
[and here is the part that I was rolling over in my head]
Hamer cautions that the gay men's different brain activity could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it. But, he said, "it certainly seems unlikely that somehow being interested in men would cause the brain to rewire itself in such a dramatic way."
Other studies have also found that gay and straight men respond differently to the body odors of others.
Scientists at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, found that gay men preferred odors from other gay men, while odors from gay men were the least preferred by straight men and women.
The Monell Center's results were released yesterday and are to be published in the journal Psychological Science in September.
"There are many ongoing studies in the field, and I think that we soon will have better clarification," said Savic, the Karolinska Institute neuroscientist. "At the moment, there are no definite proofs."
However, the new studies boost the hypothesis that homosexuality has a genetic basis and is not simply the result of learned behavior.
"This, incidentally, is not in any way controversial for biologists," Hamer said. "It's completely expected from the basic tenets of biology. It's only controversial because of the social and political controversy over homosexuality." "
ok, interesting....
The full research article is available free online (BADASS!!) here:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0407998102v1
Most of the questions I asked are covered really well (duh) in the article, so ya... barring something contradictory, this may be approaching a physiological test for homosexual response.
As far as someone's response changing over time as they "become gay", that would require more research, though there is potential... given that is how sexuality works.
Which sort of brings up my caution in interpreting these results. Many things that seem intuitive to think about fall apart when dealing with neurology. Each person's brain is unique, and how unique brains have to be to produce different changes is a controversial question to say the least, and as queeq alluded to in his post above, it is something that our current technology is inept at even tackling. A very important note about the research is that each participant scored as either a 0 or a 6 on a 0-6 scale of heterosexuality-homosexuality. What does that mean, I don't know, other than to say it shows some discrepancy in the most extreme of cases.
Originally posted by queeq
And also how hard it is to determine exact origin of the state of the brain.
lol, impossible
neuroplasticity basically means that the nature/nurture debate is answered: Yes.
input to sensory organs sends out chemicals that activate genes in undifferentiated neurons to grow axons to or away from certain points. The development of the brain is based on are Darwinian process, where the most activated, thus most used and strongest, connections remain and the rest die off. I forget how many more neurons we have at birth than will remain, but many just die off because they are never used.
Determining the origin of any sexuality at the level we are discussing now is well beyond the scope of modern science, unless in the broadest of strokes and models.