PUA Forum
https://www.pick-up-artist-forum.com/

Pheromone?
https://www.pick-up-artist-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=132968		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Silver8 [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Pheromone?
I've read something for these Pheromones but it's hard for me to believe that with some smell you can sexually attract a woman.. Anyone ever tried this?
Author:  asesino [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 5:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Nope, its been debunked. It was however previously thought that among humans they had the tendency to attract mates. In other animal species, however, pheromones play a role in the attraction of mates.
Author:  paradigm shift [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 5:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
it hasn't been debunked at all... but you can find lots of info online, theres a massive form called pherotalk i think and you can get all your answers here...

people might as well just say pua has been debunked if they are going to take that attitude towards it...
Author:  asesino [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
it hasn't been debunked at all... but you can find lots of info online, theres a massive form called pherotalk i think and you can get all your answers here...

people might as well just say pua has been debunked if they are going to take that attitude towards it...
As per Hunter's (2011) metanalytic review of current pheromone research:

Table 1: What are the myths and realities of odour psychology?
To our present knowledge there are no
aromatic materials that act as pheromones
on humans. Human pheromones are
considered a myth. Fragrance does not
physiologically sexually arouse people; rather
any effects are from emotional association
and suggestion based on society’s current
set of behaviours.

The most important
sexual aid we have is our imagination.
w Any fragrance creation will not be deemed
novel without reference to the acceptance
of peers and customers. Commercial
success rather than the beauty of the
product itself is the criteria by which any
odour is deemed novel in the fragrance
industry. Therefore fragrance creativity has a
competitive streak through it in
commerciality, taking it further away from
the concept of art. This is contrary to what
the “new age” natural perfumers aspire.
w Odour does stimulate behaviour through our
emotions but in specific situational ways
that may be unique to every individual,
remember the Killgrove example. Due to
olfactory signals going directly to the limbic
cortex which also controls emotions,
fragrance will always have an important
influence on humans that fragrance and
cosmetic companies will continue to try to
exploit. Perfumery will remain a multi-billion
dollar commercially orientated industry.
w Just like any language is limited by its
vocabulary, fragrance novelty is limited
by the fragrance vocabulary and
classification systems of the day.
Novelty only increases its bounds when
perfumers go beyond current
classifications and create the need for
new classifications. In probability with
the commercial orientations of the
industry, breaking the bounds will be a
truly rare occurrence that will happen
only a couple of times each century.
w Aromatherapy efficacy through inhaling
odours depends upon the ability of the
odour to connect with moods and
emotions to be effective.20 As we are
aware, the connection of odours to
emotions is a social construction and
the way aromatherapy through
inhalation works is through the beliefs of
the user. There is nothing wrong with
that because it is what one believes that
is reality, and the correlation between
moods and wellbeing is a strong one.
The relationship between odour and the
hypothalamus is still unexplored territory
at this point of time. Aromatherapy
through infusion and massage has the
ability to push more essential oils into
the body through digestion and skin
absorption respectively.
w Our olfactory receptors cannot distinguish
between natural and synthetic odours
because, to all intents and purposes, the
molecule is exactly the same, except for
some isomer differences. The
appreciation of something natural is a
value rather than being something
physiologically different. There is nothing
wrong with having values about things,
because without values the human
species would not survive.
w Odour is situational to people, places,
and contexts. Due to the influences upon
(air conditions, fatigue, concentrations,
etc.), and architecture of the olfactory
system, different people in different
circumstances will smell an odour
differently. This is also cultural specific,
and contextual to different situations, i.e.,
camphor is medicinal to Australians but
used to embalm corpses in Malaysia,
thus creating different imagery in people.
w Finally, a great perfumer must have
imagination, curiosity, the emotions of
interest and passion, olfactory sensitivity,
a prior knowledge of odourous materials
and their characteristics, knowledge of
outstanding fragrance creations, practical
experience, time, patience and
perseverance, be an artist, psychologist,
and marketing practitioner, all in one.


I can pull out at least a dozen studies which clearly debunk the pheromone myth, but if you choose to remain delusional, by all means do so.
Author:  asesino [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
it hasn't been debunked at all... but you can find lots of info online, theres a massive form called pherotalk i think and you can get all your answers here...

people might as well just say pua has been debunked if they are going to take that attitude towards it...
Just because a community forum exists on a particular subject matter doesn't make that subject matter any more credible or valid. I can make a bulletin board on my encounters with a flying spaghetti monster and some whackjobs would join believe it were true and likely have sightings of their own to share. Don't be so gullible. The un-skeptical mind is simply a waste basket for useless garbage.


And yes, funny you should mention, PUA techniques have largely been debunked. The funniest thing about PUA is the simplicity of PU they wouldn't want you to ever know: it's a NUMBERS game one which involves taking risks as with risk comes opportunity and vice versa.

Pry your head from your ass and stop being so suggestible by bunk information.
Author:  Monsignor Crisanto [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Nope, its been debunked. It was however previously thought that among humans they had the tendency to attract mates. In other animal species, however, pheromones play a role in the attraction of mates.
This 'debunking' still needs sufficient evidence as the researchers who said so found no clear evidence that certain parts of the human nose with their animal equivalents that are used to sniff pheromones are 'not functioning well' based on the test methods or equipments used. This debunked claim has not yet reached the debunked level of the Flat Earth Theory or has established its prominence like Copernican Heliocentricism. For all we know, it's not the human nose parts that are defective but the test methods or equipments used are defective.

This debunked claim is only supported by one study, if not very few studies, versus the massive body of evidence to the contrary done by well known and reputable researchers in the academe.

The best recourse is to test on field and see the results for yourself. :twisted:
Author:  asesino [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:
Nope, its been debunked. It was however previously thought that among humans they had the tendency to attract mates. In other animal species, however, pheromones play a role in the attraction of mates.
This 'debunking' still needs sufficient evidence as the researchers who said so found no clear evidence that certain parts of the human nose with their animal equivalents that are used to sniff pheromones are 'not functioning well' based on the test methods or equipments used. This debunked claim has not yet reached the debunked level of the Flat Earth Theory or has established its prominence like Copernican Heliocentricism. For all we know, it's not the human nose parts that are defective but the test methods or equipments used are defective.

This debunked claim is only supported by one study, if not very few studies, versus the massive body of evidence to the contrary done by well known and reputable researchers in the academe.

The best recourse is to test on field and see the results for yourself. :twisted:
Just like how you chimed in about the MHC complex which was based on old literature, and is no longer accepted as being clinically valid. The studies in themselves were ripe with confounds, I'll have to dig some of them up later.
Author:  Monsignor Crisanto [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
...is no longer accepted as being clinically valid.
Who accepts what, hmm? Alfred Wegener was ridiculed by George Gaylord Simpson and so was Gregor Mendel. Scientific history is profuse with debunking and ridicule. Eventually, the truth came out.

There is no debate. Just test on field and see if it works for yourselves. Applied engineering or applied sciences are vastly different from theoretical engineering or theoretical sciences. Many scientific theories have been proven to be wrong in the past. Application is the ultimate test of any scientific theory. :twisted:
Author:  asesino [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:
...is no longer accepted as being clinically valid.
Who accepts what, hmm? Alfred Wegener was ridiculed by George Gaylord Simpson and so was Gregor Mendel. Scientific history is profuse with debunking and ridicule. Eventually, the truth came out.

There is no debate. Just test on field and see if it works for yourselves. Applied engineering or applied sciences are vastly different from theoretical engineering or theoretical sciences. Many scientific theories have been proven to be wrong in the past. Application is the ultimate test of any scientific theory. :twisted:
Of course many theories have been disproven (I use the word loosely), but the scientific method gives us something to work from, rather than relying solely on anecdote which more often than not is riddled with subjectivity. You can argue all you like that the sky is purple, and no matter how passionately you do so does not change the fact that it is blue. You're talking more from your ego than making any logical statements, and are trying to provoke people in a dick measuring contest (which, incidentally you'd stand no chance of winning;) ).

I'm going to do the smart thing and leave this one alone.
Author:  Monsignor Crisanto [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Simple tests can gauge if pheromones work or not. On the other hand, overly complicated tests and scientific explanations are needed to disprove that pheromones don't work. Here's an example from ABC news.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhWgK9FHt7Q[/youtube]

If any ordinary person can test a scientific principle for themselves, then the technical mumbo jumbo of a scientist trying to make a name for himself/herself is at best inutile. Simplicity is the hallmark of science. :twisted:
Author:  asesino [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Simple tests can gauge if pheromones work or not. On the other hand, overly complicated tests and scientific explanations are needed to disprove that pheromones don't work. Here's an example from ABC news.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhWgK9FHt7Q[/youtube]

If any ordinary person can test a scientific principle for themselves, then the technical mumbo jumbo of a scientist trying to make a name for himself/herself is at best inutile. Simplicity is the hallmark of science. :twisted:
If you believe in it, at the end the day that's all that matters.

Take it easy.
Author:  Monsignor Crisanto [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Of course many theories have been disproven (I use the word loosely), but the scientific method gives us something to work from, rather than relying solely on anecdote which more often than not is riddled with subjectivity. You can argue all you like that the sky is purple, and no matter how passionately you do so does not change the fact that it is blue. You're talking more from your ego than making any logical statements, and are trying to provoke people in a dick measuring contest (which, incidentally you'd stand no chance of winning;) ).

I'm going to do the smart thing and leave this one alone.
If you cannot argue on the merits of the argument and end up with argumentum ad hominem, then it's best that you shouldn't fish for debates that you cannot back up. :twisted:
Author:  asesino [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:
Of course many theories have been disproven (I use the word loosely), but the scientific method gives us something to work from, rather than relying solely on anecdote which more often than not is riddled with subjectivity. You can argue all you like that the sky is purple, and no matter how passionately you do so does not change the fact that it is blue. You're talking more from your ego than making any logical statements, and are trying to provoke people in a dick measuring contest (which, incidentally you'd stand no chance of winning;) ).

I'm going to do the smart thing and leave this one alone.
If you cannot argue on the merits of the argument and end up with argumentum ad hominem, then it's best that you shouldn't fish for debates that you cannot back up. :twisted:
You're an easy read, ego-driven borderline narcissistic, engaging with you is akin to partaking in a game of mental masterbation; there's nothing to win, although you perpetually engage others in what you think is a battle of smarts in the misplaced belief that in the process you'll satiate your own ego.

Your psychological profile reads transparently, and within the context of an internet forum you've made it an easy feat. I know you aren't into any sort debate (although you masquerade your conversation as being under this theme, it is only a guise). You'll simply contest anything offered irrespective of its validity.

I know how to pick my battles, you aren't worth pandering to, and the entertainment value I derived, at your expense is no longer there. My ego is bigger than yours (a case of takes-one-to-know-one), however unlike you I know how to disengage.

Bye:)
Author:  Monsignor Crisanto [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 9:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
You're talking more from your ego than making any logical statements, and are trying to provoke people in a dick measuring contest (which, incidentally you'd stand no chance of winning;) ).
As far as I can remember, the only people who had a passionate obsession about my ego and kept imagining about the measurement of my dick were women.
Quote:
You're an easy read, ego-driven borderline narcissistic, engaging with you is akin to partaking in a game of mental masterbation; there's nothing to win, although you perpetually engage others in what you think is a battle of smarts in the misplaced belief that in the process you'll satiate your own ego.
The last person who called me names is a woman who in the end told me she loves me. She used the name calling to catch my attention. Now, instead of trying to catch men's attention in this forum, why don't you actually help people around here (both men and women), hmm?

This trolling habit of yours for entertainment is best explained by the works of Albert Bandura. :twisted:
Author:  paradigm shift [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 9:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
ha.. see what i've started?
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/