Weber law states that for most sensory stimuli the difference between two stimuluses of the sizes of 1 and 2 should be the same then the difference between stimuluses of the size of 2 and 4 or the difference between 4 and 8.
Do you feel that this is true for pheromone concentrations or do you think that the difference between 1 and 2 is around the same as the difference between 2 and 3?
Excuse me???
Pheromones are communicator.
Stimuli are more from perceptions.
I think you will OD if you test this theory out using pheromones.
This is why you do sweet spot testing so you are not overdosed or underdosed.
He’s referring to the perceived intensity of a stimulus versus the actual intensity (physical magnitude) of the stimulus. For many stimuli, this obeys a logarithmic relationship. In other words, each time the physical magnitude of the stimulus is varies according to a geometric progression (the intensity is multiplied by a factor), the perceived intensity varies according to an arithmetic progression (addition by a factor). I’ve been trying but can’t seem to adequately explain it here in a way I think is clear. That’s what I get for not sleeping last night. Just google it and you’ll understand. It’s not actually that complicated.
Basically what he’s saying is the following, using alpha-androstenol as an example:
Alpha-androstenol makes people chatty. Let’s say you apply 10mcg of alpha-nol. People get chattier. Now let’s say you apply 10mcg additional alpha-nol, for a total of 20mcg. People get even more chatty, by a specific amount. If we devised some way of quantifying this increase in chattiness, say by recording the number of inane conversations and out-of-the-blue greetings we received from strangers per hour, we might see that chattiness has doubled. How much additional alpha-nol will it take to triple the original chattiness from 10mcg? Will 30mcg make people triply as chatty as 10mcg? Or will it take 40mcg (in other words, each doubling of mcg leads to an increase by one unit of chattiness). Maybe you have to apply a total of 100mcg to see a tripling of chattiness from 10mcg (each increase by a magntitude of ten leads to an increase by one unit of chattiness)! So, what is it?
Ultimately, I think there is a problem in that we are dealing with a very subjective object of observation. Even if we carefully recorded increases in chattiness or some other factor, we would probably observe large differences from scenario to scenario, individual to individual. We might be able to get an average, however. Even if pheromone perception on a subconsious level obeys Weber’s law, I doubt it would be readily observed or confirmed, due to the mediating effects of consciousness on expressing that perception in an observable way.
Honestly, this is a great question. You’ve really got me thinking now and I think this is worthy of serious discussion. I hope more people chime in. I don’t have a decent answer at the moment, but if I think of something, I will be sure to bring it up.
You’re excused.
I would say that pheromones are still definitely a type of stimulus. They seem to work using similar mechanisms to those of the senses of smell and taste, even if the mechanisms aren’t exactly the same, and I would definitely say that you can quantify things as smelling twice as strong or tasting twice as bitter and so on. Since pheromones aren’t consciously perceived, it’s much more difficult to do actual quantifying, but I think the possibility is there, even if it is only present as, say, a rate of neural firing or some other internal condition.
This def makes sense from a biological point… Our senses can only take in so much, so we have to compensate or go into sensory overload (also why we have to sleep… to process all the excess stimuli).
Mones work mostly with smell: do they cap out and how are they staggered to prevent over-stimulation? I think that looking up how the brain responds to smell may be the best.
I do know that smell has the strongest memory recallers. I can smell things and instantly remember something that I likely never would have remembered otherwise.
So, theoretically, a LITTLE bit of a mone should go a long way…
The difference is that scents like somebody who farted aren’t hardcoded in the brain the same as detecting pheromones. Higher dosages do have different effects so I would say that the theory is bunk.
Don’t believe me? Wear 200mcg+ of none around a woman with PMS vs 25mcg
I don’t think any of this ever said that higher doses don’t have more of an effect… The theory is 200mcg ten times more effective as 200mcg? With most sciences, this would be a no… That’s why I presented it as I did…
I thought it would be easier to scientifically gauge the increase if you know the limits on the medium… And, then when you hit the plateau, it’s an OD, right? In this case over stimulation would be what an OD is…
Not that I couldn’t be wrong… I just know how it works en general…
It seemed implied from the post, sorry if I misread.
I am however confused about this:
Could you clarify?
200mcg = 200mcg, Did you mean 20mcg and 200mcg or am I missing more?
Yeah. I meant 20mcg. I’m using my iPhone and they love autocorrect and tacking on extra letters!