On October 30 2012 23:28 meteorskunk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 22:55 Aterons_toss wrote:5 min in he said basically nothing.
Also description of him, his study, his methods on youtube
Two bold young neuroscientists have initiated a revolution in the scientific study of sexual attraction. Before Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, the only researcher to systematically investigate sexual desires was Alfred Kinsey, who surveyed 18,000 middle-class Caucasians in the 1950s. But Ogas and Gaddam have studied the secret sexual behavior of more than a hundred million men and women around the world. Their method? They observed what people do within the anonymity of the Internet.
yeah... but nah... it ain't for me to spend 1 hour to see if he actually has something interesting and fact based to say.
In the first five minutes I learned that I don't believe he is a scientist. Even in that description the scientists are "bold" and their work is initiating revolution. Does science need this much ego?
He states that neuroscience is a way to understand the brain under the assumption that comparing brains to computers can yield valuable information, though he does not say it in such objective and clear terms.
He continues by analogizing sexual desire to gustatory desire and states that men and women are distinctly different in sexual desire but almost the same for gustatory desire. He does this without mentioning a brain region, neurons, or hormones or anything other than the word "hardwiring."
Why did we divide men and women? His opinion is more dominant than the bare content of his research. I find this very dubious.
What did you learn HeavonEarth?
Edit: thirteen minutes in, i'm skeptical that he has no data about vagina. Why has he not mentioned the bias all of his research coming from internet porn might entail? I suspect he has his own bias
So, yeah the vagina is my favourite part of a woman and then boobs and then spine sooo.. yeah i guess i rewired somewhere down the line in his elegant theory.
And then theres the part where "women care about a man's confidence, his ability to get things done. men dont care about this in a woman." I'm a man who loves a woman who can do things. Alpha traits are some of my favourite things. Why can he not speak about htese things without dividing man and woman, or even just add the disclaimer "this is generally true for most women." He just has bad form.
He also mentions "alpha males" without explaining it in any scientific terms.. I find this quite bad but i will continue to watch.
Edit #2 now its over. Someone asks about his data and he cites NO actual research. He says "we talked to the shemale pornstars and they said most of their fans were heterosexual." Even if that counted as data it would be biased because these are people who are already into it.
What was his main finding? New effective ways to perpetuate stereotypes with the popular erotic content for each respective gender. Secondly we explained the phenomenon of the popularity of shemale porn among heterosexual men. Separate visual cues "trick the brain." Like someone looking at the mona lisa is tricked into an ambivalent feeling of her emotions, the penis, which is a sexual cue for men combined with other sexual cues of a female body do something similar for men. I guess thats good?
For me its really easy to explain why the penis is an important part of my sexual stimulation. I have one. I can empathize with the penis as it enters the vagina. Thats why i like to have one in my porn..
Overall, i would not recommend this lecture if there was an event with multiple lectures and some are at the same time. I learned very little and found much of the ideas were not congruent with my own experiences.
I like some of the kinkiness of a vampire too. I'd rather just say that the myth of vampires speaks to something that is true in some way about my human experience. Id even rather look to some of Freud's or Jung's ideas on complexes and fetishes and child sexuality.
EPT
It is so disappointing. If you want to learn, seek out peer-reviewed studies. Don't read / listen to summaries by charlatans.
