I think that the biggest problem that I see here is that the pheromones give different effects due to the varying individual pheromone signature of each person. So what if we could remove this signature so that we all start on the same playing field. I have been trying to search about the methods of calibrating pheromone level on the forum, but I haven’t really seen much about it. Do you you think that going to a sauna and sweating out all your natural pheromones (and then taking a shower to wash it off) would help in starting the pheromone level at zero? Calibrating is necessary in order to make this research as scientific as possible, instead of starting the pheromone level subjectively depending on each person’s natural pheromone signature, it would be much easier to compare with a calibrated pheromone level, do you guys agree?
Its not possible as the body constantly secretes “your signature” so going to a sauna is no different from soaking yourself in soap solution.
If sauna could make a point zero, every criminal on the run from the authorities, those that use tracking dogs at least would have to make a sauna a necessary stop while on the run.
Where are you seeing its a problem? We see a majority of consistent results, I don’t see any real issue with consistency other than environments which unless you are in the vacuum of space will always effect literally everything.
While the knowledge of pheromones has increased over the years the actual presence of natural pheromones has declined. Humans…Americans especially now a days are very hygienic. We scrub, wash, rinse cover, mask, use deodorant’ etc etc… We have access to products for just about everything.
All of this has put a damper on the natural pheromone signature.
However, You can never truly totally be rid of that signature (thank the gods) but if you shower daily using soap and wash your clothes after each wear you are starting with the cleanest “slate” possible. Yes as he day wears on your natural signature will mesh with the signature you applied. You want this to occur at least to some extent so that it matches your natural persona. It enhances you. Without that natural signature to mesh with your synthetic one you would signal a sort of strangeness. A feeling that something is just not right about this person.
You do not want to replace your natural signature you want to enhance your natural signature. This way when your without synthetic mones your not giving off something totally different then before.
In some areas of science calibrating is necessary in research but not all instances especially when it comes dealing with the human body. We are all different, those differences are just as important in testing as our similarities because there will never ever be a one size fits all when it comes to anything to do with human biology. Its impossible to calibrate anything perfectly to the human body. Even in the case of medicines and treatments individuality and differences are always present and adjusted to the person using it.
Tisha
Thanks for the responses guys, its just that calibration would have been awesome, you have got to admit, because it means that we all know where we stand. Regarding the sauna, I just wanted to put it out there because i realize that sweating produces this natural signature, and if you “sweated” out much of your pheromones, then the cleansing of the body (showering, soaping etc) would have lasted longer before you start sweating again. At least I noticed that with myself, after a sauna, I don’t sweat quite so easily for the rest of the day, and this is really something considering I live in Bangkok. So basically I am just delaying the mix of the pheromones that I want to project (the synthetic ones) with my own pheromones, which I have no idea of what composition they are in. It would have made research more objective, I don’t know, just putting it out there, that’s all. Coz it works for me 
Yes, it is temporary I know, a deodorant also helps significantly, but we’re talking delaying the sweating, not permanently stopping natural phero production.
Yes John, but we’re talking degrees here, we’re just wanting even more consistency, I don’t see that as a problem, I see it as wanting more consistency that’s all. By the way, I get what you mean, when I start out a thread with “I see the biggest problem” I guess you think I was complaining, that is not my intention at all, sorry for that mate
I kinda feel like you’re thinking too much into it.
Something about using pheromones feels very much like a science experiment that needs to be approached with absolute precision…but as much we we try to refine the process down to an exact science (pun intended), there’s always the random variable of human behavior that ultimately comes into play…and I would argue that an understanding of human interaction is more of an art than it is a science. You can try to remove the random variable of your natural pheromone signature, but you cannot remove the random variable of human interaction. And pheromones have no value outside the context of human interaction.
I’ve found that the best way to truly understand the intricacies of different pheromones is to stop thinking about them. Put them on, throw yourself in the mix, and see what happens. The more you put yourself out there, the more blatant the effects will be.
You are absolutely right mate, no doubt at all about that. Of course, acting like a jerk despite wearing “Instant Gentleman” would not help, the pheromones are subtle, and they in most situations enhance rather than create, at least in my opinion. Even if you’re wearing instant shine, if you’re acting like a grumpy, old man, the pheromones won’t work. What I am saying though, is a completely different issue. You are trying to mix in the human interaction with the pheromone as if they could never be separated, I am saying yes they can be isolated, this is the issue. Won’t you appreciate it even more if it can be pinpointed down to an exact science? Is it so impossible to think that we could make this a proper science rather than a pseudoscience? As long as we continue to mix the pheromones with the random variable of human interaction, we will NEVER make it a proper science. Tell me why economics is regarded so respectfully? Isn’t economics also dependent on the random variable of human nature? I am sure the pheromone veterans would disagree with everything I stated, I am absolutely certain of that. But for the newbies, making pheromones “more scientific” would definitely be more appreciated, I can guarantee you that.
If we were using pheromones in a perfectly controlled environment, it would be possible to approach the effects purely scientifically…but most of us are ‘experimenting’ in completely random environments, subject to the random elements of the behavior of people around us, and the random element of our own behaviors and perceptions.
The relationship between economics and its differences from the real world of finance is a good analogy to this, I think. If the world the financial world followed pure economic theory to the T and was not subject to the random element of human financial irrationality, there would never be economic uncertainty, or financial risk/reward, or all the nonsense we see going on in the economy right now. This is where the study of finance differs from the study of economics. The study of finance is an impure science that applies the random element of human irrationality to the pure science of economics in order to evaluate the price, risk, potential return/loss etc etc of an asset. And as an impure science, the same set of data, in the hands of two difference analysts applying two different methods can have very different results. (i.e. S&P 500 financial rating of the US vs Moody’s)
The interesting thing about finance, is that its a process that very much benefits from experience…as in the more historical data you to process, the more you can benefit from the law of large numbers, and the more accurately you can account for volatility. Even with good historical data, however, the real world study of finance is an imperfect science. I mean, the asset allocation models we’ve used that indicate that the equity markets should be ‘up’ in any 10 year period (based upon historical data indicating such), have failed us, as anyone who’s been in the equity market following a pure asset allocation model for the past 10 years would be at a loss right now.
Anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that when it comes to pheromones, the true value of them comes from real world experience…not pure scientific method. Understanding the science is a good backdrop when using pheromones, just as economics is ultimately the backbone of finance, but I think the experience is far more valuable than a scientific approach. Unless your goal is to truly turn this into a backyard science experiment, focus more on the experience than the science. Outside of a science experiment, with experimental controls, its impossible to approach pheromone usage in the real world purely scientifically…plus its less fun to approach it that way.
Don’t be afraid to get your hands dirty…sit back and have fun with it!
If you read the posts from people who have had great success with pheromones, you’ll notice that their approach to their usage and ultimately their success is not purely scientific, and really is more of an art based upon experience, and at times, a lot of trial and error. If you haven’t had a chance to read Tacitus’ (RIP) posts, do so!
Yes but even in finance, there is always a calibrated "zero’ or base to compare from, for example the stock market indices’ performances are compared to a base year, the growth of anything is always relative to base year, whether inflation, interest rate, bond prices etc. There needs to be a base from which to compare. With pheromones, our bases or starting points are all different, therefore comparison such as number of sprays and dosage are almost futile, don’t you honestly believe that having a base point would help considerably?
Our starting bases really are all different…and it goes far beyond what the standard make-up of our natural pheromone signatures are made up of. Our personalities, our looks, our goals with pheromones, our social status’, our ages, etc etc are all different. Your argument is that these factors can be isolated…I’d argue that its impossible to separate pheromone effects from the more outward social triggers that we broadcast, and because of that, its impossible to approach to pheromones purely scientifically.
If pheromone effects really could be absolutely separated from the random nature of human perception, interaction, and social triggers/filters, it would mean that I could sprinkle female pheromones onto a man, and men would feel a strong sense of attraction to him, independently of the social triggers that tell them they aren’t attracted to men. It just doesn’t work that way. People are social creatures, not mindless insects.
Pheromones work on a very subconscious level, and ultimately, the consciously processed social triggers we’re constantly broadcasting will have a far more profound effect on people. And short of blindfolding people and telling them to using nothing but their noses to find who their most attracted to, its impossible to isolate these factors, and without isolating these variables, its pointless to apply a purely scientific approach to pheromone use.
Yes we break down mixes down to the number of mcg of each ingredient, but this to me is more akin to the art of cooking, than a science experiment (I’m a huge foodie and food network fan!).
So I believe that you prefer to categorize the study of pheromones as an art rather than a science? If so, why would sprays and dosages matter? You mentioned breaking down mixes to the number of mcg of each ingredient etc, but that is almost worthless considering that the food we are cooking is different. What if one dish is already sweet, while the other is not, and you recommend putting 3 teaspoons of sugar, how helpful is that? Yes it would benefit the latter dish, but it would make the former too sweet. The former believes that it doesn’t work, so he believes the ingredients are worthless to him. The same analogy applies with pheromones. What if we could calibrate the dishes so that they are starting out at the same point of sweetness?
I think the underlying argument here is not whether pheromones is an art or science, or whether they can be isolated, this is not the root issue at all.
I guess we have been off track, the root issue is that you believe that calibration such as through saunas are not effective, while I believe that it could help significantly. You believe that pheromone signatures are produced almost immediately right after sauna and showering, but I believe that the signature production can be delayed because it had been exhausted in the sauna.
The underlying argument is that even if you could, hypothetically, completely wipe your natural pheromones signature to a ‘0 point’, there are still other factors that dictate the effects of pheromones. Social contexts, personality traits, looks, etc etc. I don’t think its possible to truly have a true neutral base, as these factors will always come into play. It’s very hard to apply a ‘one size fits all’ scientific approach to real world pheromone use.
If you take a highly intimidating person (a salty person, by the cooking metaphor), and a highly timid person (a sweet person), and put the same pheromones on them, they would have two completely different results with them even if you did manage to completely wipe their natural pheromone signature away by having them sit in the sauna. Take their natural pheromone signatures away, and a ‘salty’ person will still be perceived as a ‘salty’ person, and a ‘sweet’ person, will still be perceived as a ‘sweet’ person.
They would also have very different results if you put one in a night club, and another in a coffee shop…Also, the ‘palette’ of college aged women and middle aged women is completely different, and the two of them would have very different results with women of different ages.
The point I’m trying to make is that its more important to focus on social contexts and learning how to use pheromones to compliment social contexts and social cues is a far better use of your time than it is to try to hone in on and eliminate your natural pheromone signature.
If your motivation for getting into pheromones is purely scientific, then a purely scientific approach is the way to go…but most of us are using pheromones to enrich and better our own lives, and our daily lives are full of uncontrollable ‘random variables’ inherent in human interaction that we can never separate from pheromone effects. These base line factors can never truly be eliminated, and the results we have with pheromones are inherently tied to them. The key to success with pheromones the way we, as every day people, use them, is to have an honest evaluation of yourself, the social contexts you expect to be in, the ‘palette’ of the people you’ll be around, and to use the right pheromones to compliment these factors. And truly understanding social contexts and human interaction, and as such, knowing which pheromones to use and when, really is more of an art than it is a science.
Actually I’m sure most of these products have been tested under “calibrated” conditions already. The testing we do (those who are testing as opposed to just wanting results) is more for practical application. Since humans will perspire to varying degree’s depending on the the person, their physical/emotional state and the location where they are…knowing how a single spray of IO (as an example) effects people around somebody who’s only pheromones come from that spray, is not as useful as knowing how a single spray of IO works under a variety of conditions for a variety of people.
Besides which, from what I’ve read a single spray of Ammo contains more mcg each of the three mones it’s made of than most people produce in a day. So yeah, when two different people wear the exact same mones the effects won’t be totally the same since the signal is the mones they spray PLUS what they naturally produce…but in most cases the sprayed mones are in a high enough concentration that the naturally produced mones are little more than small enhancer that makes the total signal more unique.
Like two pots of sauce with identical recipes, save for one pot having a single pinch of salt more than the other. They’re both the same kind of sauce, but somebody with a sensitive pallet will note that one tastes SLIGHTLY different than the other.
You could shower and scrub and use witch hazel or peroxide and come pretty close to erasing your signal…at least as much as is realistically possible. But I’m pretty sure the products have already been lab tested as the spray with only those mones that are ingredients as a factor. Besides which, I would imagine that on a subconscious level people might get a feeling of something being strange about you if you had a signal that was 100% IO with none of your own natural None, Rone or A1 etc in the mix to let them know you’re a total human of a specific gender.
Fair play Sigma, your response was well thought out and presented. I guess it just isn’t possible to approach it in a scientific way in the real world, only in labs. Regarding Radman’s comment, I hope you are right that our naturally produced pheromones do not have much of an impact anyway since the synthetic ones are more powerfully built.