Re: [evol-psych] List with fresh(ish) eyes
- Excerpted From: hibbsa <hibbsa@...> "In other words, academics probably want what I, and many others want from the list. An environment that encourages academic/specialist contributors, also open to members of the interested public."
JK: I'm a specialist contributor with a detailed model that now includes facts on how Nuclear Aggregation of Olfactory Receptor Genes Governs Their Monogenic Expression. The model explains adaptive evolution via epigenetic effects of odors on intracelllular signaling and intermolecular alterations of the 4.5 million interactive DNA "switches" in the human genome. That pattern of interactions is nutrient chemical-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man (see for example: Epigenetic regulation of olfactory receptor gene expression by the Myb-MuvB/dREAM complex).
At a time of neuroscientific progress and details about systems biology and the molecular mechanisms of adaptive evolution, there has been more discussion of astrology than discussion of any model. The discussions of astrology are initiated by Julienne, who harshly criticized my use of the term "pendulous human female breasts," which resulted in equally useless discussion that "set the tone" for her increased presence.
Anyone interested in evolutionary psychology can again now see that this group is not the place to go for interesting discussion about that topic. No one knows how many interested academics or specialist contributors are already lost to discussion here by the mindlessness of several participants who obviously have too much time on their hands and no common sense. Unfortunately, I've seen no evidence that the problems will change, and I have too much common sense and too little time to contribute to the foolishness (except when I take a break from research/writing).
Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
- Frankly, hibbsa, I don't understand how you can fail to appreciate the amazing spectacle of this list. A dry, 'intellectually safe' academic list, let alone some journal, is as deficient in psychological exemplars as a monoculture compared to an old-growth forest!
And free speech! Well, almost ... and how much do you see of THAT elsewhere?
So you don't get to read a brand new, breakthrough hypothesis here every day ... nor anywhere else either.
Don't step on the hose ;-)