Let’s just talk about the experiments. I think we’re both starting to come across as a*holes. At least I am, but if you are honest you might agree that maybe you are too. Sorry! I sometimes [frequently] disappoint myself. Another check mark on the dissapointment chart for me! UGH! I am so flawed it is frustrating. Let’s run our experiments and support each other’s quest for the truth. Agreed?
More than fair, I must confess I tend to do the same…too much time on political debate forums I suppose.
lol! I do look forward to reading your experiment results and I will be sure to share mine as well.
This is a rather pointless discussion.
So assuming that you are correct and pheormones are pointless and a scam, and you explain all these hits by placebo effect, and people start feeling more actractive there for changing their behaviour, and becoming more actractive… the point is… even if this is placebo effect wich I dont belive because I also tested for that, this is actually giving people what they asked for. And they have a return funds police unbeatable.
So, now imagine that you are correct and you can prove this is all a scam. What happens next? People go back to their old style lose the confidence they had gained by hading the mones, depression will follow for some cases, you will fill accomplished (maybe) but everyone else will fill like crap, and you took from people the only prospect of hope they had.
So let me ask you this. What are you trying to prove and accomplish with this studie of yours? What is your end game? People should all go to shrinks and work on their confidence levels, spending money elsewere instead of here? Would this be mission accomplished? Would this be success?
What difference does it make since you are confident I will find pheromones work. So why bother writing this post – you know the outcome is going to be that pheromones (in these colognes) are genuine in their effects, no? So it doesn’t matter what I am out to accomplish, this will end in me finding that pheromones work as advertised… 
Eheh you didnt have a better way to avert the question did you. I bet you didnt even think about it. You didnt think about the what then. You just think it would be cool to start your endever to prove we are all wrong.
So let me ask you again. Assuming that you are correct. I am capable of doing that so be with me capable of that to. What then? What will satisfy you? What do you hope to accomplish? What will you win by it and how will be the impact on the other peoples lifes? Can you awnser this?
LONG POST WARNING!
nobrain: It is important to challenge things - there is no question about that, and I would even say that it is healthy that you are here and challenging things. I would even go so far as to say I appreciate the fact that you are challenging things. I don’t 100% agree with the tone of your messages sometimes and I’m not convinced you can see how that is potentially grating for people so I’m not going to explain it but I don’t think what you are trying to do is a bad thing in any way. I actually agree with some of what you write too, just find the tone a bit abrasive.
I’m also genuinely interested in what your experiments show, and whatever you find I’ll read it with curiosity and an open mind. As I see it your report will show two things - they work, or they don’t. Or is there a middle ground I’m missing? You appear to be looking for absolutes or I’ve misunderstood somethign somewhere. So either it’ll show - to you and any who want to follow your findings - this is a young science with huge potential, or it’ll show we’re all delusional fantastists so convinced by a placebo and clever marketing, and so lacking in confidence and self-awareness that we’re unwilling to ascribe a positive change in situations to being down to our own abilities and as such we’ll believe anything.
Personally, from reading on the forum and interacting with it’s members, many of whom are amongst the most articulate and intelligent I’ve come across on a forum, and many of whom have applied some scientific rigour to their testing (beyond what I have done, admittedly) I’m disinclined to believe the latter is going to be true and I hope you find the same results as many other people. I’m not going to say “I think you’ll find the same results” because I don’t know enough about what you are doing or how you are doing it.
I’ll read your results with an open mind whatever you find. I don’t think this is the first time this kind of experiment has been done so I’m curious how your results will have more validity / discount work done by others too, whether you find they work or not. I think that’s a fairly critical part of convincing people your research is “better” or more valid than what has gone on before. Because so many people with just as much apparent integrity as you have reported positive findings (yes, in blind tests too) I’m going to find it hard to believe you over them if you say they don’t work, if I’m honest. It’s just a “weight of evidence” thing and that is human nature.
Or let’s say you find they work…you report they work…how does that make a difference compared to the many other people who have said the same? Both in group tests and individually, blind testing and with awareness of what they are wearing? In a few months someone else will come along like yourself and challenge and test and maybe report they don’t work…why would your tests convince them they work? Or is it not about just seeing if they work or not, is your test with some other goal in mind?
The same works vice versa. Let’s say you report they don’t work, someone else does the same and says they do…why will what you are doing carry more weight?
And bear in mind there are reports here by experienced people saying things don’t work for them too. Not just MXs but some of the “Instant” line as well. If you say you have had results does that mean they are wrong? I don’t think the answer is as black and white as that and I don’t think at any point Androtics, or anyone on this forum has said it is black and white - endless threads have people being told to find their “sweet spot” and experiment to find what works for them. If some people find some products don’t work that doesn’t mean that not any of them work or that those same products don’t work for other people. Here’s an example (and I’m not experienced or scientific): I’ve worn some of the P series (reports coming soon), two of which have done a lot for other people. One I’ve found to have similar effects as others have, the other I’ve found does nothing for me at all. Literally nothing. Does that mean everyone else is a liar or mistaken? Or I am? I don’t think it means either. Another example, I’m pretty much immune to caffeine unless I have it just before bed but I’ve got a friend who get’s paranoid on half a latte. Others get a buzz from a single morning coffee that lasts all day, some need a coffee every 3 or 4 hours to keep going, and I’ve got one friend who will have a strong black coffee at 9pm and go to bed at 10pm with no problems. All valid experiences just different and in a group of 10 I don’t think you’d get more than 50% having the same caffeine reaction, amongst my friends certainly. Does that mean caffeine is a placebo?
I’m not arguing with what you are doing, just curious about how you are going to get valid and believable results, whatever those results show.
Don’t read any of this as a challenge, to be honest, I’m not that interested in getting into a discussion until you have your results (it’s too draining and time consuming to get into a debate about hypothetical outcomes) and maybe not then either! I’m just curious why it’ll carry more weight for you than other work that has been done, so when you report your results it’d be great if you could explain those points as I’m sure I’m not the only person it’s occurred to.
For me, with my (mostly) unscientific testing I think pheromones have an impact. A small one, but a noticeable one. I’m not going to deny my experiences are subjective and down to my own interpretation but that doesn’t invalidate them either.
Yes, it is dependant on the wearer, yes there is some placebo effect when you know what you have on (inevitably, if you apply IG you are going to be going out trying to be IG), but pheromones help - that, I believe I know. It’s like the finishing shine on your shoes before a job interview. And I believe, from some of the MX’s and P series I’ve worn, that it is possible to find the same results as others independantly when you don’t know what they have found, which is the closest I’ve got to blind testing. Maybe that makes me a gullible fool, and if it does then I’m still a gullible fool who is happy with what I’ve got here and what I perceive to be results. I’m also part of a forum that has restored my faith in human nature because so many people are out to help each other - not just over pheromones - for no personal gain. If I never wore pheromones again they’ve still given me a positive change.
I’d also be interested, if people think this is a scam with placebo’s, if someone with marketing expertise can explain why hugely popular products with massive demand are unavailable for months or totally discontinued - lots of the MX’s could sold hundreds of times over on reputation alone but are stopped. If it’s a bit of neroli fragrance in a spray bottle with a shiny label and nothing more that’s an odd way to do business.
So to summarise (as I know people like that!) I’m glad you’re here challenging, whatever you find I’m interested to know why you perceive them to be more valid than other experiments (or why bother doing it), I look forward to seeing your thread with results, which I’ll read with great interest, and I assure you, an open mind, and I’ll enter discussion then if I have the time or any questions.
Good luck in your experimenting.
Your philosophy suggests that we should not even search for the truth. What if some compelling scientific FACTS come out and prove that human pheromone colognes do nothing? Are scientists “bad guys”, should they not even STUDY them? You are also ASSUMING I am out to prove people wrong, this is not the case – and, for that matter, there are plenty of people out there who DO believe pheromones are snake-oil… So, either way I will be agreeing with some and disagreeing with others.
The fact of the matter is, no matter what I report people will still believe what they believe. You seriously believe I could post my study here “proving” that pheromones snake-oil and that people would respond with anything but suggestions/examples of why I am wrong? Call me a liar, say I was biased, say my study was fake, flawed, etc… I defer to my work on Aspire 36… My claims were in fact 100% proven and still, the people who called me a liar and a competitor and a troll – STILL after they didn’t soft towards me. Here, it will be no different – though I wonder if my results would be embraced if I come back and say “Pheromones Work”. How do you think people would respond then? So ask yourself, is their response GENUINE or biased? Will you embrace either result, neither result, or only one result? It is easy to lie here and say “either” result or “neither” result. But only you know the truth, but I bet you also know the truth in this forum – ONLY one result will be openly accepted. Either I say pheromones work or I am a liar, scoundrel, my study was fake, flawed…
What could I hope to accomplish? Well, regulation for one. Control of the claims that could be made. Many on this forum seem to have the opinion that ADirect is the ONLY pheromone sales company. If you read through my posts you will see that I have already commended AD. But are you suggesting there are not other pheromone companies that do not make claims even you feel are outrageous? Are you suggesting that there are not pheromone marketeers who prey on people’s desperation for human connection? When it comes to these companies, you probably don’t even need to go further, you and I could probably AGREE that these companies should not be able to continue, correct? Because as far as you are concerned you know their claims to be false.
Yes, there is a distinct danger with people pinning their confidence and their well-being to snake oil (I am not saying pheromones are snake oil). Your suggestion alone that people who are using pheromones as a psychological lift might fall into depression if pheromones were proven bunk makes my point. If this is the case, ask yourself, are these people really CHANGED? Are they really more confident? Or, is their confidence an illusion – it is bottled?
What is my hope? That I find out the truth; at least for myself. If I could 100% scientifically prove that human pheromone colognes were nonsense would I hide the information to protect the fragile pheromone users? No. No scientist would (not that I am one).
Should the world never have been revealed not to be flat or that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice-versa? Should my kids never learn the truth about Santa – I mean, they are CRUSHED when they learn the facts… You are suggesting that the truth should not be searched-for or revealed because the truth might upset some people or shatter their confidence. But I bet you do not want to live in that world. It is called a fantasy world; sure you might want to live in your fantasy if it were real… But what do you call people who are not in “reality” but living in their own fantasy?
So, yes, I understand your philosophy. If so many people pin their confidence on pheromones why should you want to crush their confidence? And I ask you, if pheromones are a fantasy, WHY WOULD YOU WANT PEOPLE PINNING THEIR CONFIDENCE ON THEM?
Maybe you’re not giving these people enough credit… Maybe you are in fact, insulting them. Did you not consider the fact that if pheromones (in cologne) were proven to be nonsense that instead of coming to the veyr incorrect conclusion that “now I am no longer better” they might realize that “hey, I don’t even need these!!”
You act as if any scientific proof against pheromones would make all the pheromones that work for people (and make them more confident) would suddenly STOP working. But the fact would be, of course, they never WERE working. These logical, intelligent people could then realize that the change was IN THEM, not in THE BOTTLE. Don’t you think. I really think it insulting to them to think they would then lose hope. I think they would be better off, knowing that THEY CAN CHANGE THEMSELVES and that they don’t require a BOTTLE OF MIRAGE to do so.
If pheromones DO work, this is moot. Because then it can be said that they do need the boost from pheromones. It is NOT something they actually accomplished on their own, it is something the pheromones worked with them.
So, we can agree to disagree. But I for one do not want to live in a world where the truth is only revealed to me when others make the decision that I can handle the truth.
So just out of curiosity, how will your experiment and report be different from the others that have been done? Some of which say things work, some of which say things don’t? (This forum has plenty of threads that say things don’t work from experienced people who find some other things do work, there are also blind tests that have been done etc.)
I’m genuinely curious and open minded to find out what you discover. I’m just wondering how you will validate your specific set of results as being more “true” or “correct” than anyone elses. ie. why will your results be more believable, whether they appear to show things work, or whether they appear to show it’s a placebo? You say you are not a scientist and yet you are attempting to prove or disprove the work of people who are. I’m not just talking Androtics, there is pheromone research elsewhere too obviously, some of which again suggests human pheromones exist and some of which suggests they don’t impact behaviour.
And not all results are black and white either (and I don’t think Androtics claim they are, see the constant references to “sweet spots” etc).
As an example, take coffee
I am pretty much immune to caffeine unless I have a high dose before bed.
I have a friend who is paranoid and anxious on half a latte.
I have another friend who can drink a strong black coffee half an hour before bed and sleep just fine.
Another gets a major “down” the day after a lot of caffeine which I and others don’t get.
That’s just 4 in my circle I happen to know about. I don’t think it’d be hard to show a less than 70% same effect from caffeine in my group of friends.
But does that mean all perceived caffeine effects are null and void and all our experiences are invalidated? Or does it just mean there is a variation in individual responses that is unquantifiable in normal terms of measurement beyond saying we all get “some” response? I’m neither an expert or a scientist but the same is true of pheromones in my very limited and subjective experience. I’ve found some (notably one of the P series) that I see nothing at all with while others see a lot.
Entire schools of scientific thought are built on far flimsier foundations. If I remember my basic psychology the basis of Freud (who incidentally had a sample group that would be considered totally void these days) is that your denial of the Oedipus complex is used as proof that he is right.
“I never had a crush on my Mom”
“That denial is just proof you are repressing it. QED my theory is proven.”
I’m over simplifying but the point I’m making is that science and cosmetics is FULL of variation. “Can make wrinkles appear smaller”, “can make your hair thicker”, “proven to make teeth whiter in 61% of 72 test subjects”.
This isn’t medicine where the margin for variation is so small because it can be so critical (though even then you get variations).
Take a typical Androtics product page and it is full of words like “can have” not “will have” and “users report” not “we say”. This forum of independent testers reinforces that. Something works for some, works less well for others. I don’t see how that is any different from what any other advertiser to people who want to make themselves appear better does. I don’t have the time to trawl through but I think most claims for AD products aren’t being made by AD employees. If they are responsible in any way for the reports on their products it is down to the fact that either they work, or their customer service skills are just so good people become delusional fantasists and so keen to please them they say what they think they want to hear (and what they themselves want to believe).
I’ve got too much respect for the people on this forum to think it’s the latter. I’d also think it odd that AD as a company has MX’s they could sell out hundreds of times over on reputation alone but choose to stop selling them if all it is neroli scent in a 5ml spray bottle.
My understanding is that in most parts of the world, pheromones are regulated as cosmetics and perfumes because that is what they are. Smells trigger responses because of the molecules they contain - lavender makes (some) people sleepy, bread baking smells makes (some) people feel comforted. Some shops put barely perceptible - and to many imperceptible - fragrance in their air-con to encourage energy. I think it’s lemon but don’t have time to try and find the story now. My ex found some aftershaves I wore made her feel comforted, I found some of her perfumes made her seem more attractive while others would be a little off-putting. I’ve wore one that plain agitated her. Why is that? People respond to scents.
Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see how this is radically different, if indeed any different - it’s scent molecules to trigger a response it’s just refining it. Or is there some greater conspiracy I’m not party too?
Genuinely looking forward to your report on here though and promise I will read it with an open mind
Thanks for the great post. I do not know what everyone else has done, so I cannot say how mine will be different. I just know what I am doing. Also, I have not said I intend to prove anything to anyone other than myself. I will do experiments and come to my own conclusion, for myself. The same as others… For some reason, I just get much more heat since I am starting skeptical. If I said “My intentions are to prove that pheromones work” let’s face it, I would not be getting so much heat here.
I have already run some experiments and am running more. I am also doing the common thing – trying them myself. In fact, you can read my journal and see that what I posted was positive. I have refrained from posting any further in my journal because it will start a back-and-forth I am trying to avoid when possible. I have a tendency (I am a work in progress) to enter too much argument. My other personal experience has been less than compelling so I have just decided to leave the journal alone.
Caffeine is a proven stimulant. The effects can be proven, regardless of the differences from person to person. There is no debate among science as to if Caffeine is a stimulant.
I understand your point about “can make” and not “will make” etc, but that again assumes all companies advertise their pheromones this way. Remember, this is not about* ADirect!* There are plenty of pheromone companies out there that make much stronger claims. But, yes, even AD does make claims beyond can and may…
A314 - “Trust & Respect Pheromone for Men”
They are calling it a trust & respect pheromone. It either is, or isn’t. There either IS a trust & respect pheromone or there is NOT.
It’s one of the hardest products to describe all of the effects of, but easily one of the most rewarding products ever created for men.
A314 is a complex formula that generates many and varied social effects. Many of these effects may be considered “subtle” by themselves, but when added up, the overall effect is enormous and our users say it’s hard to live without.
This clearly does not state “can generate” or “can have an enormous effect”… It says IT DOES GENERATE and DOES HAVE and enormous effect.
*Both men and women **will *give you their attention and respect, and will want to take your lead. You’ll find more people than ever “bending over backwards” to be of service to you, and, surprise, surprise… they’ll love every minute of it.
To me that does not read CAN but does clearly read WILL.
“Turn Up The Heat” Sexual Pheromone for Men (TUTH/m)
*It **gives *you:
- A strong physical & sexual presence
- A clear signal that now is the time to get physical
*Using *Turn Up the Heat *in this manner **will *Turn UP the SEXUALITY, and help to MELT last minute resistance.
Once again, I do see WILL and not CAN. GIVES and not CAN GIVE. You can look at the AD website to verify this.
Some others with other AD products:
IH = In sales, it’ll help you to better know what’s on your prospect’s mind.
AMMO = *Keep in mind it not only has an attractive scent that others will be able to easily smell, but also has human pheromones in it which will affect both how you feel and how others around you feel. *
The site is full of *WILLS *and DOES… And, yes, other companies make much MORE outrageous claims.
The funny thing about this experiment is that you could go and literally put a couple minuscule drops of Ammo, IO or TUTH in a bottle with 4.75 or more mL
of cologne in one bottle and put a full 5 mL cologne in another bottle. I highly doubt anyone could seriously discern one from the other b/c the amount of mones in the first bottle would be so small the effects would be extremely subtle if even that. Unless you let everyone watch you make both batches being the mone and non mone variety I question the integrity of any individual doing this experiment.
Unless you do this experiment with animals or complete strangers who know nothing about mones I don’t see how this experiment can be objective. I’m no scientist or psychologist but for me and many others on here its easy to see what needs to be done for the test to be done correctly.
Put 1 mL of NPA along with 4 mL of stronger cologne in a bottle and mix it.
The other just have 5 mL of that stronger cologne. Find someone with an aggressive type dog and put on 3-4 sprays of the none mone containing bottle and visit the dog for maybe 5-15 minutes. In a week use another 3-4 sprays but with the NPA laced cologne. I guarantee the dog will act “different”. If that doesn’t do it for people try it multiple times with several dogs. Great thing about animals is that they simply “react” and cannot be coerced or dissuaded by a person’s opinions.
We are not questioning the effects of pheromones on dogs, but on humans.
Well nobrain if you want to be context sensitive. Yeah you can put can or possibly instead of will or it will or it’ll. I almost get the feeling that you think that by putting will or it will that AD is trying to convey some absolute truth that is actually some underhanded facade of what something really does.
Now obviously there is still quite a variance in results for the consumer product line but for the most part the instant line along with A314 definitely give a round-about result that everyone agrees with.
I’d think a smart fellow like yourself would realize that AD is still is a business and any information that put about the products on the main pages will sound Infomercial-like and I expect that cause the idea of a web page and what’s written on it is to “promote” products and “draw in” customers.
Noone wants to read a page about any product mone or otherwise that “can potentially” do something. They want to read IT CAN IT WILL. Obviously that invokes a hidden promise or hope that may disappoint but AD stands so much behind their products their willing to be politically incorrect at least according to you.
I was responding to the post where the poster implies they say can and might but they do in fact say WILL.
Yes, but that doesn’t give a free pass to replace CAN with WILL. Would you find it ethical for a business opportunity to say PAY US $1000 and you WILL double your money when in fact they mean CAN… I think, in fact, this is not even legal. Can means CAN and will means WILL.
Thanks for the detailed and considered response. I think it’s good you are challenging and sceptical.
A quick reply - I also started a sceptic and I think most people do. Conversion wasn’t instant, and when I started to perceive effects I didn’t actually like them at first, until I learned to buffer etc. But now I think they are great. I’m not saying they all work for me 100% of the time but there is enough consistency and enough frequency in the way they work for me to trust that they have an effect. It’s that consistency and frequency that has convinced me. It’s a small effect some of the time (hence the endless comments on congruency) and I am inevitably the major contributory factor in responses but they do make a difference for me. And every now and then I get a big effect that is a “wow” factor and that is a novelty that hasn’t worn off yet!
I think of it as the final shine of my shoes before I leave the house. It’s not going to make a difference if the rest of me is below par but when I’m on par it’s going to sing. I don’t think I’m gullible and taken in, but if I am then I’m *happily *gullible with what I get out of them. Yes, there is some placebo (if you wear instant shine you are going to be wanting to project shine) but I strongly believe, like many others, there is more. It’s as simple as that. I wear pheromones because for me they work. It would be cheaper for me to believe they didn’t work and I would even go so far as to say I wanted them not to work just as much as I wanted them to work 
I have no vested interest in saying this and nothing to gain from saying it (and you’ll note my language emphasises the subjective nature of my experience) so you’ll have to take my word as one honest human being to another that in my personal experience this stuff is good. I could also order cheaper and from companies which as you say make bolder claims but I don’t because I don’t need to.
I sincerely hope you and everyone else experiences the same
Best of luck with your tests and I’ll stop by your journal when time allows. This forum is a friendly place full of great people and I hope we can all continue to share our experiences, good and not so good, for the benefit of each other.
Great response. You seem like a class act all the way!! I appreciate your words and I too sincerely hope to become a huge fan of pheromones. Take care and have a great week!
So I guess I am to presume that since were so evolved as humans that we ourselves aren’t animals anymore? even in the slightest sense?
The only thing I can grasp from thinking about what you said is that Humans rely solely on body language and social interaction in order to get along to perhaps make friends or mate as such. Obviously there’s underlying reasons why women and men get together and its much more than that. A dog can react to a person’s fear just as much as another person can but maybe not in the same way. Do you think the dog or the person really sense this fear in a different way? I beg to differ.
As politically correct / rational I try to be I find this thread to be complete and utter malarky. I’m sorry nobrain I’m jewish and you can’t make me believe Jesus existed. ( I’m actually catholic but not really religious anyway)
What you say makes no sense. It is proven in animals that they react to pheromones, it is also proven that we don’t react to those same pheromones. So does the fact that a bee reacts to a certain pheromone prove that it would have the same effect in humans… Nonsense.
No idea what your religion quote means, but it is cool that you are Catholic. Just hold you Bible in front of a dog and let him tell you. Have a good day.
Did I say insects? NO gawd rofl. I can without a doubt say that lots of companies that use androstenone in their products (main component of TUTH)
get their source of it from PIGS. Now tell me for a person to put on androstenone coming from a pig and for OTHER HUMANS to react to it absolutely disproves your counter argument of my statement being nonsense.
Thank you I’m proud to be catholic. You really make me laugh bringing up bees after I say animals. Next thing you know I’ll be saying airplanes and you’ll be arguing helicopters lol.