At last, something that was a pleasure to read on pheromones. This sites information was well present in a modest but important manner, with full authority and the relevant references to support its views.
The site is http://www.athenainstitute.com , first being a banker i tend to respond favourably to empirical data in the form of statistical and numerical presentations, and here is a site that has demonstrated a scientific approach through statistical data to prove the value of its products.
There is nothing more persuasive then empirical evidence. Though androtics may not have formal statistical evidence on the success rate of its products in its marketing, however all evidence for success of androtics products can be found through reading these threads and it soon becomes evident how many people have been successful and how few have not been as happy as they thought. I believe androtics should keep formal data. To help people decide to choose the right products for them. I purchased almost all the products except for 2 of them, in the hope of something that works well for me, i know there are some who can not afford to purchase all the items hence having additional information will allow for people to make a more informed decision, and help androtics develop more targeted products.
However word of mouth has its benefits to, so any of you try the athena products, lets here from you.
Actually, we can as a group work on defining a study of sorts. It will take some thought and co-operation. The easy part is that observations can be made relatively easily, the tough part is to take all factors influencing an observation into consideration. Study design will take some effort.
I’ve used Athena 10x. In fact I’ve purchased several bottles over time at $100 a pop. The effects are subtle but noticable. One not-so-subtle effect was a female friend trying to nibble it off the application point. We don’t have a “nibbling” relationship.
I usually dilute the product in about 15 ml of ethanol. That’s more concentrated than the recommended dilution.
Perhaps someday, someone (probably me) will publish in this regard. This is what I might say:
Reports of behavioral change to an undisclosed human “pheromone” that acts as a sex attractant—according to marketing claims that are reviewed in Cutler and Genovese (2002) have been dismissed elsewhere (Winman, 2004; Wysocki and Preti, 1998). Sometimes, that’s what happens when other researchers look at published findings that include statistical analyses.
Cutler is the “authority” at the Athena Institute.
Statistics are just math, a neutral scientific tool. Anyone who attributes truth or falsity to them is just demonstrating that they are misinformed. (except when they are joking, like Mtnjim).
In the human sciences, the good use of statistics is often what separates good science from bad science, however.
Bottom line: No study should be taken for granted as good science. You have to carefully examine the methods and conclusions to tell. You should never be impressed just because something gets published, even if it’s in a scientific journal. A lot of absolute crap gets published, for various reasons.
Good research takes a lot ot time, money, effort, expertise, and cooperation. Typically you need a university or research institute to support you, to do it.
I happen to be good at designing scientific studies of humans; professionally competent, in fact. That is my professional training. But you need support and a program to do research right, as well as access to lots of subjects. I doubt Androtics has the resources to devote to something like that.
But you all are encouraged to conduct your own, informal “experiements.” You just have to be very careful and conservative about your conclusions when you’re not being very scientific. I’m willing to help people out in this regard if the topic comes up.
Are you saying that statistics are neutral, but their use separates good science from bad science? When does anyone use “neutral” statistics? I don’t think anyone who has made the attributed statement that Mtnjim made is “joking” about the truth. Instead, they are addressing the use of what you refer to as “a neutral scientific tool” to misrepresent scientific facts, which may be unknown, and thereby to mislead people who are underinformed/misinformed. This begs the question of who among us is not underinformed/misinformed. You, perhaps?
Have you examined Cutler and Genovese, 2002; Winman, 2004, or Wysocki and Preti, 1998? Have you been part of the peer-review process for anything related to the topic of human pheromones? Have you published in this regard? I agree that a lot of absolute crap gets published, but by whose standards are you making your judgement call on what is “crap”? You generally sound to me like any other outsider looking in, except that you also try to sound like you are qualified to advise others.
Good? professionally compentent? – by whose standards? What study design of yours was reported in what journal, so that someone else might attest to your scientific professionalism? Is that social science, biological science, metaphysical science or what? Some people might want a bit more information. You might be a scientifically professional faith-healer.
So what are you saying about those who have the support and programs to do the research? On the surface it sounds like you are attempting to qualify your opinions as being based on the scientific background that you claim to have. What then, is your unstated opinion of human VNO-related research claims, or Cutler’s claims? Is there any research support for your unstated opinions?
Thanks for offering your help. Could you be more specific about the “help” you are willing to provide, and your qualifications to do so? Maybe someone would hire you as a consultant, or minimally to “play” one on TV or in Forum exchanges.
James V. Kohl
author/creator: The Scent of Eros
Edited announcment, published on August 3, 2007:
IRA AND HARRIET REISS THEORY AWARD: Friday, November 9, 2007 – 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM. This plenary given by: James V. Kohl,
Independent Clinical Laboratory Scientist, entitled: “The Mind’s Eyes: Modeling the Development of Diverse Sexual Preferences,” is supported by funds available from the Ira and Harriett Reiss Endowment to highlight and to support theoretical advances in the field of sexual science. The endowment, administered through FSSS, supports an annual award to the author(s) of the best social science article, chapter, or book published during the previous year in which theoretical explanations of human sexual attitudes and behaviors are developed.
I have Athena 10x. I was not in the least scientific but I did read her reports and I did purchase the product because there was alot less hype and more studies on her site. This was before I discovered Androtics and LS and her product just did nothing for me. Of course I was new to this then and may have just not been able to pick up the subtle effects.
I have used products from alot of sites and some work and some dont and I really dont care as much about there scientific claims they put on there websites anymore.
I know that most products here at Androtics work for me and its not imagination because there are a few that dont like Drive him crazy mixes.
PCC and Cleo over at LS dont work for me but Scent of Eros, EOW and Pherofactor do.
Beaches even worked for me but not as dramatically as products here.
I could go on because I have alot from all over.
I like to read the studies and I do have my own theories. My point is that just because there are studies posted on there site dosnt prove a thing.
I think its sites like Androtics and LS who have a open forum for people to report in that proves alot. The others dont want real testimonies because they know the truth. Almost all of us were skeptics at first and I think doing some kind of study among the forum and organizing it for easy reading would be great.
Statistics are not ‘crap’. They are a powerful tool to be used, and a means to determine outcomes and trends based on collected (both present and past) information. They act as indicators and guides to work through new projects and most all provide an answer to whether such endeavours are viable to the end user or the investor.
In finance the use of credit scoring determines whether the bank is going to lend you money or not, give you a credit card or not and what rate they will charge you. Credit referencing works on statistical evidence from previous borrowers who may have not paid back loans or may pose a lending risk to banks. This system works very well and has proved very accurate, hence why Banks the most capitalist of all institutes employ statistics, because its guidance and indication provided by previous documented cases are converted into statistics.
What are the chances of an asteriod hitting the earth…this is an example of a statistic. Well i guess since we got bruce willis we dont need to worry about statistics.
Androtics may not convert its users feedback into statistics, but it sure is using the feedback to develop its products. And if you notice on the bottom of the main page there is statistics on number of users, threads and post, every member who has posted and the number of posts, all this is statistics.
I also have tried pheromones from other places. Several years ago, I tried Athena for Women, and after spending $200.00, decided to move on to others. What I really like about Androtics, is that they have several items that I can try without spending lots of money, until I find out what works for me. I like some of the products at LS . Scent of Eros is one of them, as well as the Pheromone Additive for Women, and Perception gel.
So all in all, does 10x for men work or not? I’ve seen it being advertised in Popular Science, and I’ve come to the idea that, if they would advertise in such a credible and widely sold magazine.. maybe they are real and it works… but I’m a big skeptic. Hell, I’m still skeptical about the androtics products despite all these supposed satisified customers. Who knows, they could be workers for the company making up bogus stories? Yes I know, conspiracy theorists of the world unite… but seriously.
Often times one of my “jokes”, as pointed out above, is a way of making a serious point. My point about “statistics” is that they can be skewed by what is asked, and how it asked, so you must be aware of how the data was collected before you can put any confidence in the statistics.
I agree. Advanced mathematical models do take volatility (also known as Standard deviation) into consideration. For true accuracy the principle of ‘ceteris paribus’ would be bench mark, that is all subjects must be equal at outset.
Well said! I don’t think that anyone here said that statistics are crap; before HABIB001 appeared to take offense and say they are not. DrSmellThis merely offered his (perhaps unqualified) help to others who want to do their own studies, or possibly to determine what published studies are crap. That’s why I asked him if he had examined studies that others have found fault with: Cutler and Genovese, 2002 --as partially reveiwed by Winman, 2004, and Wysocki and Preti, 1998. I’d like to know more about his basis for evaluations/devaluations of others research, since my next peer-reviewed publication (unlike my reviews) may include statistical analyses.
I certainly don’t think statistics are crap in and of themselves, however when you read statistics on a Web site looking to sell pheros, as I said earlier…
ROTFLOL!