Using the scientific method in a way that eliminates personality from the equation.
First the Question: Do certain ratio’s of pheromones communicate certain images ie does IG really communicate a Mature gentlemanly vibe, does IJ communicate an “asshole that gets the girls” vibe etc.
Second the Hypothesis, for sake of argument I’ll say that the products work as claimed.
Third construct the methodology: Show a good variety of women assorted pictures of men who’s look reflects certain easily defined characteristics. Let the women rate the men on attractiveness as well as offer their own descriptions of what type of man they appear to be; nice guy, player, mature, commanding etc.
once the women have their own preconceived notions about the men in the photographs, we play an association game. Several plain white hand towels each treated with an Andriotics product, some salt water to help mimic human sweat, and a cologne cover scent. The women will be told that the towels were used by the various men and they have to smell each one (kept in a good quality freezer type ziplock bag) and guess which picture is associated with which scent, as well as which scent do they associate with the man they rated highest on attractiveness.
Of course I’ll have to also clarify the findings according to race and age demographics as well as what stage in their cycle each woman is in during the experiment.
Now, do you think the photographs are a good idea or would it be better to give each woman a false biography of several men, such as “Bachelor #1 started and runs his own business, and currently dates a runner up in a state beauty pageant” “Bachelor #2 is a college athlete that claims to have slept with over 200 women” etc?
An interesting idea. However, I have a problem with the false biographies. You risk the women tainting the results with their own personal biases, desires etc. Check this post for an example of how it can distort results.
I swear my timing sucks, I hadn’t even looked at the “free pheromones” thread before I posted this. Then reading that thread I realize that this one probably seems like I’m trolling, I assure you I’m not. I really hope that nobody gets the impression that I’m trying to be a troll by doing this. I’m just a newbie and legitimately curious/skeptical/hopeful
I think this experiment might be flawed in the respect that aroma will play the biggest role. If they all smell 100% identical it might work, but chances are there will be at least a subtle difference in aroma. To see what I mean, all you need to do is this…
Show three pictures:
A Man Holding a Water Pipe and Wearing a Shirt that Reads “LIAR AND PROUD OF IT”, Flamboyant Man in Bright Colors Helping a Woman Cross the Street, and Mechanic in Work Attire Working on Cars…
Towel #2 put some Marijuana scented cologne (yes, it exists) and load it up with Instant Honesty
Towel #3 put some floral fragrance and load it up with Instant Jerk
I hypothesize that towel #1 would almost always go with the Mechanic – even though he may appear the least “mature and sophisticated”. Towel #2 almost always to the guy with the “LIAR” shirt, and towel #3 almost always to the “Flamboyant Man”… This is an extreme example but it would clearly demonstrate that AROMA is more a factor than PHEROMONE.
However, if you move forward with this experiment I would try and make the aroma 100% identical but I would still leave CLEAR visual suggestions in the pictures. If however, the SCENT on each towel is not 100% identical then the experiment becomes questionable since it can be clearly demonstrated that aroma would play the strongest role.
A simple version of this experiment would be to offer someone three towels, one with Instant Honesty, and two with non-mone colognes. Ask them to pick which towel fits the picture of a guy wearing a “LIAR AND PROUD OF IT” shirt. The Instant Honesty towel should be selected significantly less than 33% of the time.
Any products used would have the neroli scent and use an identical cologne cover scent, any variations in conscious detection would be a result of the mones themselves. Which of course would support the notion of pheromone association with the female perception of a man.
I don’t think you can state the bolded above as a fact. Again, I would try the much simpler experiment I outline as there are less variables. Your experiment has way too many variable to control. You will find a direct and simple experiment will be more valuable and then you can dig deeper to discover the gap. The experiment is very subjective since many of the products will have cross boundaries…
On the other hand, simply presenting someone who is openly dishonest (wearing the “LIAR AND PROUD OF IT” shirt) and seeing the percentage of subjects that do/don’t associate him with the “Instant Honesty” scent is very direct and not nearly as subjective.
A314 is going to be tough because of the diversity of it’s reported effects. For Instant Jerk maybe one of the classic “Rich Jerk” photos (http://www.rich-jerk-exposed.com/assets/images/rich_jerk_and_car.jpg) or maybe a classic TV jerk (was “the fonz” a Jerk, didn’t watch that) or maybe one of the “Jerks” from Grease. If you use a “famous jerk” you might get a better result.
For Instant Gentleman maybe Sean Connery or another famous “gentleman” celeb.
Using Celebs you can then take pheromone suggestion out completely. You can simply ask, which of these smells do you think is “Sean Connery”? Better phrased of course!
I will give it further thought; good point but I think it is doable. I think using Celebs is a good method however. Maybe Donald Trump for A314?
Good question. I will let my (no)brain think on it for a bit!
Problem is using celebs would not be believable to the test subjects, I’d really rather not have to try and convince a group of women that I got Sean Connery to wipe his sweat on a towel
Don’t. I wouldn’t recommend you try and tell them it is anyone’s real sweat. Maybe less is more… I am going to give you three towels, when a say a name, hand me the one you “feel” fits that name. Don’t think about it, just go with your first instinct… Sean Connery.
