If your friends feel like family, there’s a good reason for it
The study showed people were most similar to their friends in olfactory genes, which involve the sense of smell, and were least similar in relation to immune system genes.
I’m working on this. Top Secret. One advantage of joining a testing project is access to some of my personal notes. But, the price for this is good test reports. In exchange for great test data not available elsewhere, I return the favor in kind. As you know.
http://www.pheromonetalk.com/modest-proposal-68195.html
There is now a home test kit based upon the natural signature concept. Tests HLA. Based upon the old T-Shirt experiment. This is the future of pheromone technology. There will not be all this testing. Testing is so 19th century. That’s how chemistry was done 200 years ago. Sniff the test tube.
Instead of embracing the motorcar, people are debating which brand of buggy whip is superior. And testing buggy whips to find out. The solution is a full complement of genetic and endocrine screening. Then, software-based custom formulas. This will happen gradually over ten years. Starting now.
And this will require I move more into named molecules and less toward putatives. I do and always have rejected the Spray and Pray concept. One must use testing and skill. I could be 100% wrong, but I see results in P96 through a medical context. And, since the powers who would know don’t categorically reject my findings, this underscores my methods. P96 is like no other compound known to science, except one.
I challenge any vendor, expert or whoever to report their findings. I’m not going to say publicly if I agree, but, I will offer some tacit understanding.
I find your post somehow really exciting but very confusing. I suddenly feel like I want to be part of whatever it is you are planning, but I have no idea what you just said.
Why do I feel this way?
Did…did you find a way to diffuse mones through forum posts!!!
As the first step in pheromone response chain, receptor binding could certainly be used to sketch a general envelope around target response, but so little is known about the rest of the response chain (tranducing from biochemical sensors to neurological processes) that I think it is still appropriate to empirically monitor the effect of the whole chain over the target pool – unless, of course. you are suggesting a rapid HLA typing of specific target individuals to narrow down the envelope of likely effective agents. I do believe that such testing can readily be made unobtrusive in the coming decade (e.g. a postage stamp-sized tester with nano-printed microchannels containing antigens or antibodies bonded to a response detecting/amplifying enzyme chain)
I realize that this may sound like gibberish to many of you, but the take-home is just it shouldn’t be that hard in principle for hobbyists and grad students today to do proof of concept work, detecting single substrates. A full “fingerprint” would be some time off. You might do your own fingerprint as a baseline for targeting your own phero mixes more effectively or (as I suspect is the intention here) quietly fingerprint a desired target to see what they CAN respond to.
It’s a new field however, and even with today’s crowdsourcing and automated processes which can inexpensively fingerprint an entire genome in days, the other end (field work required to establish usable tables of basic responses and common variations) is daunting. Maybe thoe of you in your 20s might see this deployed while you’re still young enough to care, but I’ll continue with empirical testing of observed end results.
It may be primitive and less precise, but in my opinion, the current methods are what best suit us now as individuals. I might feel differently if I were a phero grad student with some funding for this project or a devoted pure enthusiast (it is indeed an intellectually stimulating idea, if you are prepared to devote years/decades of serious effort) I don’t expect to see this reach commercial deployment in my lifetime (even most of the phero sub-industry isn’t looking THAT far ahead when so much ground work remains to be done.
But there’s always the possibility of luck (a very real force in science history – think of penicillin) and it’s always possible that the central principles underlying pheromone responses will turn out to be simpler and more straight forward than i expect
Good luck with that.
Not exactly. It means present technology is like using a saw to perform microsurgery.
Can scientists predict when you’ll die? Yes. If your marriage will fail? Yes. If you’re lying? Yes. If a particular scent signature is targeted the right people at the right time for the right reasons? Pretty much.
A great deal of information I read about mones online is (more or less) shown to be likely to be incorrect.
I’m reading some posts that social scientists and epidemiologists would laugh at.
Can you get a formula at the gas station that will make your d’ck bigger? No. Do guys in their 50’s reguarly bang college freshman just because they bought a DVD set and $50 in mones? Not on my planet. Did space aliens use magic technology to build the pyramids? No.
Humans are tempted to see that which they don’t understand as magic. They also distort and suppress truth because the truth is too emotionally harmful to their ego.
Thomas Edison fought like hell to suppress AC current. He really didn’t have the foundation in math and physics of a Maxwell or Hertz. So he fought it with sideshow tricks and PR. He was still wrong. His ego got in the way of fact.
You can purchase a test today that will determine your genetic compatability with your spouse. Microsoft’s artifical intelligence engine predicted World Cup.
Our current methods of testing mones worked ten years ago. That was all there was. The entire genome and every protein has been identified. We will soon replace conventional testing with better methods, along the lines of diabetes meters.
Many pheromone formulas on the market…if you checked the statistics carefully…would work no better than a coin toss. Know this: All those thousands and thousands of Enzyte packs that shipped last decade–all the thousands of TV ads. None of it worked. It was all fake. No penises got bigger. All of the reviews and testimonies were faked.
I don’t say that mones are fake, nor are all reviews. I’m saying, if you bet the favorite horse and at track in any race on any day, you will lose 60% of the time. It doesn’t matter how many reviews a product has. It matters if 51 out of 100 users obtained verifiable results. You never hear from the 49 who didn’t. Statistically, you will always lose at casinos, lotteries and gambling (except fo expert handicappers) in the long run. The people who know how to win never talk. They’d be banned.
Stats don’t lie…people do.
No penis pill ever made has been proven to work in 51 of 100 users. Genetic testing has been proven to work. Some testing of mones has been proven (tentatively) in peer-review journals. Example: In current literature, there is very little evidence for a human VNO.
Just identifying if your target has the genotype for smelling -enone as pee is a major step. Why waste your time wearing a mix that you know smells like cat box? Not to everyone. Just certain people.
So what are you suggesting us laymen do, regarding P96?
Try this experiment. Go to 2009. Search for test reports on P96. Go to 2014. Do the same. Post any report from this year the yields some totally unique and novel finding.
I do not think a new cell phone app will forecast pheromone products along the lines of Catlord’s old zodiac software. Not this year or next at least. I do say genetic HLA home testing is on the market now.
I do say we have reached the zenith of useful data using older testing methods. Where in 2007 or so A314 was the only product of its kind, there are now 10 copies (or very close). The average person will not spend $1000 to buy and test these all. Those that do create self-selection biases: People most likely to write favorable reviews and test got results. Those with no results say little and test little. There, in the world, maybe 100 men who post weekly to pheromone message boards. In a world of > 1 Billion adult men.
What one product produces sexual outcomes in 51% of men 51% of the time. In a random sample of 100? We had no such data 10 years ago, today…or are we likely to have it tomorrow–or next year or the year after.
For each popular product…for each favorable review…I can find one otherwise.
There are better ways. Not perfect. Better. A machine did predict World Cup winners.
Place your bets?
Create a matrix. Test 20 mcg against 30 other molecules at 10 mcg. Divide the task among 5 people. Systematically record results with standardized vocabulary and numerical ratings scales.
Nothing.
I have again attempted another fruitless pheromone discussion. I will eventually learn my lesson. I partly have. I don’t keep a public journal anymore. In terms of public or forum-based research. I’ve given up on that. It just doesn’t work. I don’t know all of what the future is. It’s murky. But this. This isn’t it. Not for me. Increasingly, whatever I discover stays limited to a handful of people.
I should have spoken more plainly: Genetic testing for pheromone signature compatibility is available today at an affordable price (it is not Star Trek); it is believed to be a scientific predictor of marriage longevity (presumably FDA accepted).
Hey, that really does make I easier to understand. Thank you!
Where or how can I get this genetic testing?
I will see if I can find the original story. I’d try LiveScience. I think it was a press release or abstract. It was based on HLA. My overall point: Many phero threads are now “so ten years ago.” I can’t think of a reason to mention VNO on a pheromone store. It was still a topic here 10 years ago (and blood type). The world is way beyond that now. When A314 first came out, there was no iPhone. We need to get into the current decade already.
I’m sorry if I misunderstood your intent. I tried to understand what you were driving at, and that was my best guess, based on what I knew.
HLAs (immune system receptor groups) and the pheromone/olfctory system were believed to be linked when I was a molecular biologist 20+ years ago (Snell won the Nobel prize for localizing the MHC complex in 1980), and the role of mouse MHCs in In-group and Out-group recognition had been studied: in-group MHCs are generally favored as “family vs stranger”, but out-group MHCs are instinctively favored for mate selection, presumably to avoid incest.
The olfactory system was guessed to be part of an “immune supersystem”. The kind of intra-gene rearrangement that generates our individually unique antibody sets could be useful in other systems. Similarities in gene sequences suggested that different physiologic systems evolved (or adopted) from a common ancestral root. It was easy to see the utility: if a poisonous strain evolved from a harmless or food plant, random independent rearrangement might allow some random humans to smell the difference, just as we know that a few humans will usually have antibodies that react to a given never-before seen pathogen by lucky antibody gene rearrangement. * The lucky few might survive better, until that gene was held by a decent percentage of the population.
I didn’t mean to shut you down or disparage you. I was simply saying though you find the current style of empirical testing “18th century primitive”, it may remain what best serves the purposes of most of us right now. I don’t doubt that YOU are ready to take on more.
I would be interested in hearing more about what you actually had in mind*
There will long be a need for in vivo testing.
“A study published on Monday found that people are apt to pick friends who are genetically similar to themselves - so much so that friends tend to be as alike at the genetic level as a person’s fourth cousin.”
Phero users have a few options. Consider friendzone. Option 1. Thread number 987. We can narrow 9,000 words to one sentence: Using TUTH etc., might out friendzone you, but the chances are about 50/50 tops.
Facts (likely facts) we know: In non-Western cultures, 2nd-cousins marry.
Consanguinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A reasonable hypothesis. Friendzone simply means attraction based uopn genetic likeness; however, the degree of likeness triggers an instinctive aversion to mating. It defies superficial examination. Because it’s pheromonal and subconscious. At the level of 5th+ cousins, there is an adequate optimal match of similarity and dissimilarity. Chemistry, mating, offspring.
Cousin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My personal opinion is that many friendzone threads aren’t going to work. You probably don’t want it to work. Nature is telling you there is fundamentally weak chemistry there.
What does congruency really mean? It means you wear mones that amplify your on genes…that which you cannot change.
I read in another article that you can send in photos of your ex’s so that can find a genetic pattern of the “look” you prefer to match you with people that are both physically in your attraction zone and genetically.
It’s not unreasonable- but what’s the point in telling me that my soul mate lives really far away with a job I don’t respect. I think they even want to do a reality TV show where you agree to marry each other based on the genetic compatibility.
Look at the big brain on LS! Yes. The reality show. I’ve heard of this. Who wants to crowd fund a dating site that uses genetic testing, five-factor (Kiersey, D. Neil Clarke WhatTheF on TV)…preferably with some pheromone component in the concept?
I wonder about this. People with ingroups that are TOO similar may not be favored. But people then jump to the conclusion that this notion can be projected infinitely, as if primate sweat would be more attractive than human sweat.
Third or fourth cousins have more kids than people who are more distantly related.
I do know from some anthroplogy texts that the defintion of “cousin” is different in other cultures and that cousin marriage is tolerated and even encouraged. Whether this has socioeconomic or evolutionary reasons should be explored. I have read your visitor message, Logos. If you have one or two interesting abstracts I will read these. You may PM me or whatever. Most of my interest centers on fundamental questions. Why and how does androsterone work?