Dr. Richard L. Doty's logic

Sniffing out the truth (New Scientist Opinion)

My colleague, Richard L. Doty provides a synopsis of his book “The Great Pheromone Myth.”  Does anyone else think that mammalian pheromones are a “myth”? (more…)

Human Pheromones and Face Preferences

It has been repeatedly suggested by many others that we are primarily visual creatures. This suggestion distances us from what is known about molecular biology across species. For example, pheromones activate genes in hormone-secreting cells of tissue in the brain. The brain directs behavior. What effect on the brain motivates us when we see food, or a potential mate? Sex differences in food preferences have not been detailed. What pathway links what we see to the sex differences in perception that allow most women and men to exhibit a heterosexual response? (more…)

Human Pheromones, DHEA and WHR

Rice et al (2010) address the role that DHEA appears to play in the determination of visceral and subcutaneous fat distribution, which is associated with weight distribution and the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR). So far as I know, no one else has offered an explanation for the evolved development of WHR preferences.  (Evolved development requires an animal model for its basis, and other animals respond to olfactory/pheromonal input, which is responsible for the development of their preferences for the physical features of other animals.) (more…)

Smell, hormones, and bonding

Tobin, Hashimoto et al., (2010) states with unusual clarity: “We are not suggesting that social recognition in humans depends on olfactory signals… and in humans olfactory recognition probably has only a small role.”

If no one with olfactory deficits ever had a problem either with bonding or with social recognition, this might be true. However, the well-detailed link between olfactory/pheromonal stimuli from the social environment (more…)

Human Pheromones and WHR: Pure conjecture?

What are you calling pure conjecture?

1. “The articles in this issue summarize the factors surrounding sex differences with respect to ontogeny, phenotype, and hormone-sensitive actions. (more…)

Wrong measures of attractiveness

Focus on visual perception of sexually dimorphic cues conceals the true meaning of non-verbal communication via olfactory/pheromonal cues, which do not require any interpretation. The WHR preference and other preferences associated with visual input are wrongfully interpreted as meaningful (e.g., by evolutionary psychologists), despite their lack of meaning across phylogeny. Moving forward with this obfuscation, others are now proposing that additional consideration be given for more aspects of WHR-associated visual input. (more…)