# Anti-Shine/Unsocial A314 ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Men's Pheromone Advice & Field Reports\ **Created:** [October 8, 2008, 11:39am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/anti-shine-unsocial-a314/21035 "2008-10-08T11:39:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 22
**Author:** ![Jasmin](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/jasmin/32/287_2.png) [@Jasmin](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/Jasmin)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 9:52am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/anti-shine-unsocial-a314/21035/22 "2008-11-25T09:52:21Z")
> [@Socrates](#): > > Jas, why BetaNol? I thought people have been using A314 + IH and A314 + CTTM to ‘death’ and the rapport benefits that BetaNol brings to A314 are very well known. You hit the nail on the head! We’ll do that _precisely_ because it’s proven. Why do anything unproven, or with a low degree of success, in oil? Sprays (especially the small To Gos) are like paper, oils are like stone. We want only things with a high degree of success in oil. The things done to death are perfect for committing to the long lasting format of oil. We’ll keep the really experimental stuff to the liquid based MX series, in the To Go bottles. That’s the ideal format for wild eyed experiments. 🙂 BetaNol, p79 and p90 are all well worn both on the forum and in our own off-site experiments. We might not talk about p79 and p90 much on the forum ourselves, but we still have lots of internal data on each. The information on the forum sometimes goes in the wrong direction temporarily due to social proof or inaccurate information spread by strong “sneezers”. (the idea that putatives need any more fixation than any other molecule is one such piece of false data… almost everything, aside from a very few molecules such as _androstenone_, need a ton of fixatives) Our internal information is a tad more objective in the short term, and doesn’t always agree with the socialized forum view. Both sets of data are extremely valuable, especially when “sanity checked” against each other. Using _both_ sets to determine future experiments allows us to move forward more quickly than depending exclusively on one _or_ the other. Traditional science would discount this forum as a useless mass of “anecdotal data”, but we don’t agree. We do agree, however, that you must be very careful about how you parse the data. You have to be very aware of how the social space influences the data in one way or another, just like you have to watch the funding source(s) and motivations of the scientists involved in an academic study. Everything has it’s biases and points of inaccuracy that taint data. Long term and _with enough participants_, the forum data usually self-corrects. Short term, especially with less participants, there’s a lot of social based sway, especially when a strong thought leader is involved in any early experiment. There’s especially a lot of social sway and repetition of the less tested molecules, like p90. Since there is such a small data set on such a molecule, some new testers read everything about the molecule first, and pre-program their results to agree with the few people who’ve gone before. That leads to a lot of lot of dirty data in the short term. Remember, the placebo effect is strong in the social realm, and it involves both positive and negative hallucination. The larger the test group, the bigger the n, the better. Something truly popular will always have it’s dissenting voices, and nobody will ever be able to completely pre-program their results by reading _all_ of the feedback involved with a popular mix or molecule. That’s why there’s often great information in those voices in a large crowd that say something different. --- _[View the full topic](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/anti-shine-unsocial-a314/21035)._