After trying TAK alone and with Instant Shine, I’ve been trying TAF.
Unsuccessfully at the beginning with only 5mcg to 10mcg.
I had to put 4 or 5 sprays at 5mcg/spray to discover that it was effective only at one time : with my girlfriend.
Holy beeeeeep I didn’t realize it was due to TAF at first… It was “feeling in love and showing it”.
If TAF plays on concentration and details, then I have already been producing it cos I always focus on details and communicate with as many details as possible to be as clear as possible.
But with this TAF, I was fond of my girlfriend as I was at the beginning of our relationship.
So I’m wondering if a high dose of TAF could intensify love, or if it’s concentration on one specific point and then why this one…
Very weird… excitingly weird. And very efficient when being on nerves.
Didn’t work on my girlfriend though (haha).
I’ll try it when being with other couples to see their reactions, especially the men’s.
I didn’t use anything else on the last days. it was the TAF testing days (with the temptation to use other products!).
I’ll try it again with friends at home to see if it’s TAF or if it was my girlfriend natural pheromones attracting me…
Exactly. Beyond the profound perceptual effects it can have on the wearer, it can also act as a “reset switch” for both the wearer and targets.
Perceptually, you seem to get just raw data, minus all of the judgements and filtering.
These were first of bit research we generated that appeared to be substantial, and they’ve now weather time well. Lots of confirmation here by surprised first time users.
For whatever reason, the “raw filtering” (and the suppression of the reticular activating system, or whatever it’s doing, we need to check by fmri to make sure) seems to increase people’s appreciation of things. You lay reality bare, and whala… it turns out to be a good thing to most people.
Could famous therapists and changeworkers like Richard Bandler be correct? Could reality be better than we think? Could most negativity just be made up nonsense passed from generation to generation?
All interesting things to consider. Especially during holidays when you’re supposed to be more giving. Thinking about this gives you more of a reason to love thy neighbor and thy fellow grocery store shopper alike.
So it has this effect on you, the wearer, but not your girlfriend, the target?
We first noticed the “second chance” / “second look” / “new again” type effect at 2 sprays of 10mcg (20mcg total). So about the same you’re using. Most profound effects to us were at a minimum 50mcg total as a baseline, but users here may have figured out the dosage curve a little more precisely after all this time.
Thanks Jasmin.
Reeading your post, I know now that TAF is a pheromone and it explains a lot about myself. The fact that people see me as a “contemplator” because even when I do the same thing over and over I never see it the same, there’s always something different, something new. And to have such a vision one needs to focus on details. There’s always something new !
If you could see me smile right now… you could say TAF is efficient for liftings as well!
I think that what is useful as well in focusing on details is the efficiency it can have in communication. To be able to communicate more precisely with an efficient “meta-program”.
Used with Instant Openness or Instant Honesty, communication could be more precise, then clearer ? Or would TAF make an interruption pattern by “resetting” ?
Anyway, I was not fond of TAF at the beginning, now I am !
Hmmmm… the "quote message in reply? box is grayed out…
Anyway, from Jasmin:
We first noticed the “second chance” / “second look” / “new again” type effect at 2 sprays of 10mcg (20mcg total). So about the same you’re using. Most profound effects to us were at a minimum 50mcg total as a baseline, but users here may have figured out the dosage curve a little more precisely after all this time.
As molecules diffuse, they get less concentrated the further you get from the source right? It stands to reason that some dosage (in this case, 20mcg) is large enough to effect the wearer due to close proximity to the source but not the target. (not so close) Logic = good?
Jasmin, this may be a dumb question, but I don’t know much about psychology. In long term relationships, one tends to let their sides show that you wouldn’t do so in the beginning. You know, the “scratch yourself and pick your nose” side. I’m wondering if one should be careful about planting an unsavory opinion of the person wearing the product in the back of the targets mind. Maybe, while trying it out in higher doses, the wearer should put his best side forward.
I guess I must produce TAF or something similar, as I lose concentration and can’t keep my mind on any thing beyond 20mcg.
I think there’s a limit between the positive “reset switch” and the “non-stop reset and then unable to work properly”.
I’m sure there’s a lot of work to be done in this field. Maybe the same as/for other pheros like TAK for example… ?
There’s some sort of curve just like lumens or lightfoot candles. The perfuming industry is pretty lame in a sense, in that it hasn’t figured this out in any substantial way, as far as I know. There’s not enough science to their art.
As we start a new research base this year, I hope to take on a chemical physicist to figure out the mechanics of all of this a little better.
I think this is may true of pheromones that create a strong memory effect. (many of them do, but many also put a positive spin on your behavior, which negates the need to be overly self conscious)
However, TAF doesn’t do this. It takes you out of memory and puts your consciousness into the present. It has a return to reality effect, and that reality is mostly good.
It’s the kind of thing where you can pick your nose, and others will think it’s cute. Sort of like the first stages of love. The stage where you can just be you, and it only deepens the love. Lots of acceptance. Almost “unconditional”, you could say.
One of our early testers was deeply hated by his bestfriend’s girlfriend. He wore 2 sprays of 10mcg/spray TAF and she was all of a sudden laughing at his jokes which she previously hated. From then on, they started to become friends. Even without TAF.
It’s quite an amazing molecule. One of the strongest in terms of proving the power of pheromones, and many of the effects could do a lot of good in the world. Too bad the self-effects might be considered a little too strong or radical for the American market.
It’s going to be a lot of variables to consider. On the one hand you have the diffusion being similar to the radiance of light from a point of origin, where its concentration falls off at the square of distance. But you also have to consider body heat, ambient temperature, subject movement, movement of surrounding air, composition of surrounding air, degree of diffusion, surface area diffusing, location of application, specific molecule, substrate, application density, time spent at a given location… and I’m sure I’m forgetting some. It’s really complex. But I’m sure you already knew that, didn’t you?
Pure speculation, but it sounds as if TAF resets the effects of oxytocin, the ones that bond us in long-term (months) relationship.
As to diffusion, it is largely two dimensional and would follow standard math (DIV as in vector analysis.) I’m working on a project for the Japanese on the diffusion of hydrogen and oxygen gases down a stagnant, pressurized water pipe with one end hot and the balance just ambient. The issue is when the nuclear reactor has a rapid depressurization, the gases fizz and the purpose of the pipe (reactor water level) is negated. Different problem - similar math.
That’s why I’ve been skeptical of empirical efforts to “reach out” longer distances in still air with pheromones. The only way I know would be to increase the concentration at the skin/air interface, causing overdose closer in and wasting product. The idea of using a base oil just makes that boundary more constant over time. It changes the rate, not the reach, of the pheromone diffusion.
I hadn’t thought of the vertical diffusion due to body heat issue. The more I read here the more convinced I become that Tater is right that most pheromone effects are self effects. Effects on others would typically be from others reacting not to the peromones so much as reacting to the changed behavior of the wearer of pheromones.
hugging someone, caressing your girlfriend, moving around/next to someone, speaking with your hands or just asking what they think of your new perfume, having them smell directly…
doesn’t all that bring pheros up into their nose ?
I know my girlfriend’s dog is very intelligent but not so as to react to the way I’m behaving ! With A314, the dog gets energically huggy and funnily crazy !
Quit the same with TUTH.
And smelling me directly on the wrists !
There is highly traditional scientific theory, and there is also results on the field.
Both are complementary.
At the beginning I was convinced it was just a change in behavior that changed others behavior, and although this is true, it is not the only true element. It goes beyond that.
TAF is so subtle that I discovered what I wrote in the first post of this thread one week after the effects.
with subtle products, I think we mustn’t expect instantaneous results. That’s why patient and observative users see the results. That’s why people who are not patient think it didn’t work for them.
Like when finding an object you were looking for days before when you’re looking for another one.
The dog’s (or the girlfriend’s) nose may actually be closer to the A314 than your own nose. Certainly. The quandary for me involves people reacting from across the room, which they do. “Highly traditional scientific theory” as described by Catlord and Whitehall above makes it seem highly improbable that people more than a few feet away would be able to detect pheromones in significant quantities. The concentration of diffused pheros would decrease at the square of the distance. My physics is rusty – I would have thought it was the cube of the distance in three dimensional space. I can tell a big difference between two and three drops of A314, but from only three feet away another person is going to experience three drops as less than half a drop. From four feet it’s going to be less than a quarter of a drop…
You should have seen the dog doing addition, subtraction, multiplication and division on Oprah the other day! Dogs are primarily carnivores. They evolved as hunters. They need to be able to react to small changes in the behavior of their prey. And they hunted in packs so they need to be able to react to subtle changes in the behavior of their peers. Magicj76, I think you under estimate a dog’s intelligence… What’s the first thing a dog does when he greets you? He sniffs you up close. He knows he cannot smell you from across the room!
The best I can figure, without going supernatural, is that a person twenty feet away might detect several molecules of a pheromone – enough to alert her to something in her environment but insufficeint to cause an emotional response. Then she scans her surroundings visually (and/or auditorily) and picks out the person whose body language is congruent with [the self effects of] that pheromonal signature. It is by your self effects she would be able to pick you out of a potential crowd of nonpheromone users. I am assuming this is largely an instinctual rather than a conscious process – for the girl and the dog both.
You’re hungry. You detect the faint smell of freshly baked bread. You look around and spot a bakery in the next block. You also see a shoe store and a video rental on either side of the bakery. You cannot tell which shop the smell is coming from, but you confidently check the bakery first. Once you are inside the bakery, your mouth starts watering. When you put the bread into your mouth you can experience the satisfying flavor.
I think this is how pheromones work. At first you get more of a faint signal than an actual effect and you have to use your other senses to lead you closer to the wearer. Once you are within the wearer’s personal space you experience the same intensity as what we refer to as self effects.
In E.O. Wilson’s classic, “Sociobiology” he referenced a calculation that animals could communicate, theoritically, with a higher bandwidth by chemical means, ie pheromones, than with sight or sound.
Pheromones evolved very early for animals, and maybe plants too. It is little wonder that humans have a huge reportare of messages to send one another and highly sensitive receptors.
For diffusion on a plane in still air, concentration would be as the inverse of the distance. In a sphere, it would the inverse square law. Of course, when applied to a warm body, the chimney effect keeps concentrations from following the easy math.
Merry Lovely Christmas ! 