A psychologist explains why sex addiction therapy is more about faith than facts, as told to Tierney Finster
During withdrawal, the brains of addicts create junctions between nerve cells containing the neurotransmitter GABA. This process more or less inhibits the brain systems usually excited by drug-related cues — something we never see in the brains of so-called sex and porn addicts.
These types of advocates are wedded to the idea that porn is an uncontrolled stimulus the brain gets addicted to because of the dopamine release it causes. According to their thinking, anything that causes dopamine release is addictive.
Unfortunately, that’s just scratching the surface of the faulty science practiced by these recovery centers. For instance, according to proponents of the sex addiction industry, the more porn someone watches, the more they’ll experience erectile dysfunction. However, my recent study with Nicole Prause, a psychophysiologist and neuroscientist at UCLA, showed that’s absurd.
My comment: The design of studies by researchers like Jim Pfaus excludes everything known to serious scientists about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all cell types of all individuals of all living genera. The study results are reported in terms that other researchers can understand, but the researchers who understand the results are not likely to be serious scientists. They probably do not recognize the need to link RNA-mediated cell type differentiation to behavior via the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction.
I’ve seen Pfaus and his cronies express their ridiculous opinions many times. For example, Pfaus touts his pseudoscientific nonsense in What Do We Actually Know About Pheromones?
James Kohl, a chemical researcher who now sells a line of such products, says that our lack of strict responses to certain chemicals doesn’t indicate their nonexistence, but just a high level of self-control. He uses the analogy of food odors: Humans respond to them by salivating, but we can choose not to eat. “The truth,” he says, “is that some people control themselves better than others. We’re not like other animals, which is why we don’t respond to pheromones like other animals!”
But Kohl’s products, which he likens to food spices (“They give you an extra kick!”), make some researchers roll their eyes. Dr. Jim Pfaus, professor of psychology at Concordia University in Montreal, is one of them.
My comment: The rest of the article expresses the opinions Jim Pfaus has about human pheromones. One month earlier, I had published Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Jim Pfaus studies rats. My model is based on ~60,000 hours of testing in the clinical laboratory that links the pH (hydrogen ion concentration) of body fluids to nutrient energy-dependent hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs via RNA-mediated events. For example, RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry links the substitution of excitatory and inhibitory amino acids to behavioral development during life history transitions from mice to primates. Fixation of a single amino acid substitution links differences in the cell types of chimpanzees and modern humans to morphological and behavioral differences in gorillas.
See also: DNA versus RNA with my emphasis
- DNA is stable under alkaline conditions while RNA is not stable.
- DNA and RNA perform different functions in humans. DNA is responsible for storing and transferring genetic information while RNA directly codes for amino acids and as acts as a messenger between DNA and ribosomes to make proteins.
My comment: Every serious scientist I have ever met knows that “…RNA directly codes for amino acids and as acts as a messenger between DNA and ribosomes to make proteins.” Every pseudoscientist still tries to link their gene-centric neo-Darwinian nonsensea about mutations or their theories about natural selection from beneficial mutations and protein folding chemistry to morphological and behavioral phenotypes of different species. But their mainstream pseudoscience does not include facts about the required links from the physiology of reproduction to RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and the nutrient energy-dependent stability of organized genomes linked to supercoiled DNA.
Using both WT mice and a humanized mouse model of reduced BDNF function (Val66Met SNP), we found that the epigenetic activator of histone acetylation, P300, plays a pivotal role in the dynamic up- and down-regulation of mGlu2 expression in the hippocampus in response to chronic and acute novel and familiar stressors. This dynamic reaction of the hippocampus reveals a window of epigenetic plasticity, a temporary timeframe of dynamic neuroplasticity, in response to stress that could allow interventions to rapidly promote resilience through regulation of acetylation of histones.
My comment: The mouse model has been linked via the conserved molecular mechanisms of epigenetically-effected top-down causation in all living genera. A nutrient energy-dependent base pair change and one RNA-mediated amino acid substitution are all that is required to link cell type differentiation to the physiology of reproduction in all living genera, or from microbes to humans via the pheromone-controlled physiology of nutrient-dependent reproduction.
See for comparison: What Do We Actually Know About Pheromones?
Dr. William T. Swaney, who studied pheromones in mice at McGill University in Montreal, hesitates to make such a leap from rodents to humans when it comes to odor conditioning. Sense of smell, he says, just isn’t as important for humans as it is for mice.
p 210 ” James Kohl, an independent researcher who also markets “human pheromones” to the general public, believes that pheromones may have a primary influence in setting up a person’s basic sexual orientation. Other, more consciously perceived aspects of attractiveness, such as facial appearance, are attached to a person’s basic orientation through a process of association during early postnatal life, according to Kohl. 35″
p. 210 This model is attractive in that it solves the “binding problem” of sexual attraction. By that I mean the problem of why all the different features of men or women (visual appearance and feel of face, body, and genitals; voice quality, smell; personality and behavior, etc.) attract people as a more or less coherent package representing one sex, rather than as an arbitrary collage of male and female characteristics. If all these characteristics come to be attractive because they were experienced in association with a male- or female-specific pheromone, then they will naturally go together even in the absence of complex genetically coded instructions.”
p. 210 – 211 “Still, even in fruit flies, other sensory input besides pheromones — acoustic, tactile, and visual stimuli — play a role in sexual attraction, and sex specific responses to these stimuli appear to be innate rather than learned by association [36.]. We simply don’t know where the boundary between prespecified attraction and learned association lie in our own species, nor do we have compelling evidence for the primacy of one sense over another.”
My comment: There is no defined boundary between epigenetics and genetics in any species. Nutrient-dependent metabolic networks must be linked to genetic networks by the same molecular mechanisms. Anyone who claims there are differences in the molecular epigenetics that link atoms to ecosystems in all living genera is biologically uninformed. Do not trust them to report what serious scientists know about biologically-based cause and effect. They think they can still get away with making claims that are based on their ridiculous opinions. The compelling evidence for the primacy of one sense over another links atoms to ecosystems via quantum physics, the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes and ecological niche construction linked to our socio-cognitive niche construction by serious scientists — not by people like Jim Pfaus, Will Swaney, or Simon LeVay.
See also: Artificial Micromotors in the Mouse’s Stomach: A Step toward in Vivo Use of Synthetic Motors published December 30, 2014
Reported in January 2015 as: Nanobot micromotors deliver medical payload in living creature for the first time
Once the mouse ingested these tiny tubes and they reached the stomach, the zinc reacted with the hydrochloric acid in the digestive juices to produce bubbles of hydrogen which then propelled the nanobots along like miniature rockets.
My comment: A similar delivery method (injection compared to ingestion) was used in the plot of Greg Bear’s 1985 science fiction novel “Blood Music.” The link from quantum physics to classical physics and biophysically constrained nutrient energy-dependent hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs in solution, which link atoms to ecosystems via RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all living genera, seems to be missing in the news from every available outlet.
Greg Bear detailed those links, too. Did pseudoscientists caused science to fall 30 years behind the predictions of his science fiction? If so, what can be done to fix the problem? Perhaps the first thing to do is stop trusting pseudoscientists who have learned nothing about cell type differentiation in the past 42 years since Dobzhansky wrote: