yobit.net eobot.com digifinex
  • Thank you for visiting DiscoverXS your pheromone research community.
    If this is your first visit please register so you can join the community: click the Sign Up link above to proceed.
    To start viewing messages, please login and select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AD IN POSts

Collapse

Why They Can't Identify Human Pheromones

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why They Can't Identify Human Pheromones

    For a molecule to count as a pheromone, the behavior it elicits must be innate, not learned, and the chemicals must be able to signal anonymously to any member of the species, rather than providing an olfactory fingerprint of any one individual.
    https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i46/...pheromone.html

    I often wonder how the scientific community manages to continue to deny the existence of human pheromones. It's definitions like this, that they must be species-specific instead of person/individual-specific. The whole marketing philosophy is built around us wanting to be the one and not just part of the herd.

  • #2
    "Pheromones" is a loose word it seems. Because no known chemicals can produce such an obvious effect of having a woman take off her clothes and bend over (except maybe evolve), or start ovulating on command we have chemicals that IMHO just put the idea in their subconcious.

    Whether we want to call these pheromones or not is upto opinion but I think the scientific community doesn't want something like this to become mainstream, and instead keep the general population skeptical and thinking phero companies are scams.

    Comment


    • #3
      Humans mate differently than most mammals, Our females don't show visible signs of ovulating and they aren't seasonal like most mammals. We don't wait around for Spring or Fall. On any day of the year, we could be in the midst of several women physically ready to mate. It's like we are looking for an apple in a basket of oranges. Only that apple is ready but it still looks like an orange. Its not like we are out at the mall with a bunch of dogs and cats trying to sniff out a human because its Fall and every woman we find is ready at the same time to mate.

      Thes scientists are STUPID!! lol They need to get off their stools and into the malls.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Muestereate View Post
        Humans mate differently than most mammals, Our females don't show visible signs of ovulating and they aren't seasonal like most mammals. We don't wait around for Spring or Fall. On any day of the year, we could be in the midst of several women physically ready to mate. It's like we are looking for an apple in a basket of oranges. Only that apple is ready but it still looks like an orange. Its not like we are out at the mall with a bunch of dogs and cats trying to sniff out a human because its Fall and every woman we find is ready at the same time to mate.

        Thes scientists are STUPID!! lol They need to get off their stools and into the malls.
        Because it's so much more concrete though in animals I see this as something more a psychologist, sociologist or psycho pharmacologist should study in more abstract terms.

        Human psychology at this stage has a problem with testing methodology, the current tests being run don't give us much useful info. If we could somehow reliably setup the same social interaction with pheros being the variable then that would be cool/useful

        Who wants to hire some actors? Lmao

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Muestereate View Post
          I often wonder how the scientific community manages to continue to deny the existence of human pheromones.
          Because for them earth is still a disk.

          Originally posted by Devin1Neil View Post
          "Pheromones" is a loose word it seems. Because no known chemicals can produce such an obvious effect of having a woman take off her clothes and bend over (except maybe evolve), or start ovulating on command we have chemicals that IMHO just put the idea in their subconcious.
          In my opinion pheromones are a communication medium on the subconscious level, nothing more. The pheromones are very important for the "first contact" the rest is up to you and only up to you.

          Originally posted by Muestereate View Post
          Thes scientists are STUPID!! lol They need to get off their stools and into the malls.
          Reminds me somehow to the nutty professor but I agree with you.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm sure this article has made its rounds on the forum; however, I view it as fairly positive: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3987372/

            Note: all scientific articles will always say "more study required" or "more evidence required" - that's sort of the standard

            Comment


            • #7
              I think the word pheromone is often confused with aphrodisiac. While some pheromones are aphrodisiacs, not all are. The real definition of a pheromone is a scent that makes a female get on all fours and hoist her but up in the air. In lower animal their muscles are locked in that position. Obviously our women have evolved and are now able to twerk but they don't do even this for pheromones, That response seems to be related to public display rather than the sex act itself. They merely signal and can maintain conscious control. I'm afraid some men's definition of pheromone goes even beyond aphrodisiac and into the realm of date rape drugs. If the woman doesn't yield her conscious control over her body on the first whiff, they claim its not a pheromone and ineffective. I'm really speaking of some of the diehards over on pherotruth and stubborn scientists moreso than anybody over here.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think the word pheromone is often confused with aphrodisiac. While some pheromones are aphrodisiacs, not all are. The real definition of a pheromone is a scent that makes a female get on all fours and hoist her but up in the air. In lower animal their muscles are locked in that position. Obviously our women have evolved and are now able to twerk but they don't do even this for pheromones, That response seems to be related to public display rather than the sex act itself. They merely signal and can maintain conscious control. I'm afraid some men's definition of pheromone goes even beyond aphrodisiac and into the realm of date rape drugs. If the woman doesn't yield her conscious control over her body on the first whiff, they claim its not a pheromone and ineffective. I'm really speaking of some of the diehards over on pherotruth and stubborn scientists more so than anybody over here.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I envision pheromones similarly to this:

                  dump GIF

                  It's whether or not we resist the urge presented. The pull is there, but we can still say no....
                  You're never too old to learn NuTrix ^_~

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    but do we say no?
                    XSPerfumes 10ml Sprays Comply,Sexy Confidence,Bitch, Celebrity, Babe,XSential Body Spray for women, P86, P114,P106,Mascot,Engage,BNOL,Sweetness,EST, Tease,Odyssey,Temptress,Flirt,Fairytale,Girlfriend ,Sleaze
                    XRS94,Innocense,Goddess,Madame,DMspray
                    Testers:Babe,Happiness,Temptress,Inbetween,Cohesio n
                    Cops:A,B,C

                    Oils: Fantasy,Copulin,Connections,DesireMe,Xist,Neno,EST
                    From a lab IsoE Super+Ambroxan

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      some of us call them pheromones, others the aura, others energy that surrounds them. either way u want to call it, its invisible and because it affects the physical and the soul realm. the evidence that it exist lies mostly in our personal experiences on what it does in us , others around us. i believe they are corelated pheromones in the natural physical real and auras in the spiritual realm.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by eroque View Post
                        some of us call them pheromones, others the aura, others energy that surrounds them. either way u want to call it, its invisible and because it affects the physical and the soul realm. the evidence that it exist lies mostly in our personal experiences on what it does in us , others around us. i believe they are corelated pheromones in the natural physical real and auras in the spiritual realm.
                        Eroque, i like what you said. I put out a question out there as to our auras and phermones and thinking it might have some connection to that. Thanks. Kinda confirms, or atleast gets the thought process working.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I really think that people get a misconception of how much they do. Without the rest of yourself put together they will not help it's an enhancement nothing more.
                          Pheromone XS
                          Oil: evolve, xist
                          Spray: Xist, Evolve, cohesion, sob

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Just my 2 cents being a scientist and a biologist in particular. Coincidentally I also did some research into insect pheromones many years ago for a lab I was working in - this doesn't make me an expert but at least provides a bit of context. I've read the article and did want to make a few points in defence of the way science works a bit, something I think has been misunderstood a lot in recent years.

                            It starts with - things are rarely/extremely rarely black and white (as much as we would like them to be, I'm sorry it's just not the case, especially in any biochemical research).

                            Any quotes I'm using are not (in any way) aimed at 'having a go' at anyone or belittling them. I'd just like to put forward my views/answers/counter arguements as a reasonably experienced scientist - I'm not trying to get on my high horse, but I think it's important to make a few points if I may and I hope that's ok.

                            Originally posted by Muestereate View Post

                            https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i46/...pheromone.html

                            I often wonder how the scientific community manages to continue to deny the existence of human pheromones.
                            It doesn't, and the article just states that the scientific community are having trouble proving their existence. Scientific proof will be extremely difficult to attain in this area. It would require a repeatable, measurable and specific biochemical reaction under very rigorous conditions and relies on looking for the right chemical to measure in the first place. This is like looking for the needle in a haystack. I will try to make this brief so I'll try not go on, but it's a bit like knowing why cancers develop (and many of the pathways responsible) and finding one (or even several) magic bullets to cure or prevent them - it's just doesn't happen like that. Sadly it's never been as easy as saying A+B=C. With pheromones you're looking at chemicals which act on the brain and then, either directly or indirectly interact and effect responses in the nervous, endocrine and muscular systems (at least) - this is without even thinking about the strong likelihood that genetics also play a role. This is why all of your experienced users of mones here and elsewhere say you've got to test things for yourself I'd imagine and I'm nowhere near having tested anything well enough myself yet.

                            If scientists didn't think human pheromones existed, they wouldn't study it at all. The hypothesis will be that they do exist and have effects (every other part of the animal kingdom seems to support this) but proving it to a level of acceptable scientific rigor is extremely difficult/currently virtually impossible and anecdotal evidence just doesn't cut it - it might do in psychology, but not here I'm afraid. With funding across the world being what it is, it will take a very long, motivated, expensive and likely private study to really do this. Let's face it, where would you want funding into research to go?

                            Being a half decent scientist apparently doesn't mean I can work out how to add further quotes to this post haha, so I'll have to continue below ...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Devin1Neil View Post
                              "Pheromones" is a loose word it seems.
                              It's not. It's defined in the article as
                              substances produced and emitted by one individual of a species as signals affecting the behavior or physiology of another individual of the same species
                              and it mentions that these behaviors must be innate somewhere. I think the way some people understand, or misunderstand the word means that it is often used loosely.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by Phaethon View Post

                                Because for them earth is still a disk.
                                It really isn't! There is not one scientist I know, or know of, that thinks this. There are many interesting individuals with many interesting views who purport to use 'science' to provide evidence for this, but it's really, really not science and scientists most certainly do not think this.


                                Originally posted by Phaethon View Post

                                In my opinion pheromones are a communication medium on the subconscious level, nothing more. The pheromones are very important for the "first contact" the rest is up to you and only up to you.
                                Agree completely.

                                Right, I'll leave it at that. I've taken up enough of anyone's time for now, especially mine and I hope I've been respectful in my responses.

                                Thanks.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  I just have to go back to the idea that the definition is wrong. That was a definition for that study but the English language changes with usage. It could be argued that they eliminated or wished to eliminate that their effects were inate or across all species. Not that I agree that they did so but, Ok, That leaves me with pheromones within our species are a learned response rather than inate, that instead of belonging to physiology they are better served by the softer definitions as in psychology.

                                  The learned response explains various reactions by people to the same chemical.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Yes, I get what you're saying and yeah, observed responses are definitely more into the realms of psychology. As a biologist, I've always been very cautious separating anything into a nature vs nurture/innate vs learned as I tend to think (again) it's just not as black and white as that and both things occur concurrently to a greater or lesser extent.
                                    In the case of repeated exposures I'd think that responses become more conditioned rather than learned (I might be splitting hairs on that, but my understanding of learned implies some active decision making, but as I say, I might just be splitting hairs). My feelings would be that pheromones must bring about innate responses which changes someone's biochemistry in probably very subtle and quite complicated ways (though these are currently not fully understood). These changes might include reward, pleasure and learning parts of the brain which could make repeated exposures more powerful, or subconsciously remembered and sought. In a similar (and probably much simpler) way, chocolate stimulates calming and pleasure centres of the brain and so some people really love chocolate, but I'm not sure I'd say that they've really learned that chocolate does this, more that they like chocolate. Personally, I don't really like chocolate (it's alright) which is probably because I don't react as strongly to it as many people do. I do love chili heat and would say I'm a bit of a chili-head. Chili also stimulates reward and pleasure centres, releases endorphins, etc, but, whilst I know I love hot food, the effects aren't really conscious ones - I don't eat hot food cos I know I'll feel different/good afterwards - so I couldn't say I've learned that. I'd tend to think that the innate responses in my brain have conditioned me into liking these foods and my behavior follows.

                                    I'm going on too much again, haha, but I guess that some people like chocolate, some people like chili, some drink loads of caffeine, etc. People have different biochemistry's but we all respond (unconsciously) to some chemicals and we get conditioned to liking/seeking similar responses. Just my hypothesis and hope it makes sense.

                                    Long story long I'd say its a mixture of innate and learned/conditioned.

                                    Comment

                                    Ad down

                                    Collapse
                                    Working...
                                    X