I finally got around to reading the thread you linked (got sidetracked by some other threads linked in them)
Assuming the wording is correct, Dr. Dodd tested ~50 pheros, but only used a palette of ~20 in his products – that is to say, all of them together. MHarris uses about 30 in his palette, which I find to be surprisingly high, but he’s the expert, not me.
If I factor in cost (perhaps a larger aliquot of a less effective, but comparable phero, differing only by an atom or two, can be cheaper than a smaller aliquot of a more potent version – if you wanted the maximum possible impact from each component of a mix, you wouldn’t use smaller amounts of any!), gender- and orientation- specific pheros, and other factors like ethnic range and OD risk in mixing, a palette of 30 (some only used in specific mixes) starts to make more sense.
Even so, I am surprised by the 14 pheros (13 steering) once reported for A314. This product has been widely tested (possibly hundreds of man years in public and private reports) in a diverse range of subjects, with undergone empirical refinement through 32 versions. Still, I think A314 v32 can best be described as starting with a solid mix and seeking local maxima by informed guess. As I’ve said: this is probably the best we can do with the current state of human knowledge (hey, it built the cathedrals before Europe had a real grasp of statics/mechanics or the math to model them)
We should also consider that there is probably a finite limit to the absolute effect of pheros (if humans had a “have sex with me NOW” phero, it would have quickly spread through the population, through mating preference – and ultimately become ineffective. A narrowed lineage [the descendants of the phero-endowed] has strong negative effects: diversity favors survival. Indeed, studies suggest that pheros, HLAs, etc. are used as markers for desirable genetic diversity in mate choice.
What does the future hold, if we’re [reasonably] near the limit of phero efficacy? Well, exactly tailorable effects (or more specific targeting) could be possible – not just in the terms commonly seen today (it’s ironic, but inevitable, that most phero users target their pre-existing preferences), but perhaps qualities we should be seeking: not ‘hot blondes’ or ‘Asians’ but ‘contemplative’, ‘kind’, ‘fair’, ‘feisty’. To some small extent we can already target ‘family minded’ vs ‘out for a good time’
Self-effects may well be another important benefit. I hadn’t noticed many obvious self-effects, personally, except immediately after application (in my journal, I speak of effects on driving, but I generally apply my pheros just before I leave, and let them ‘temper’ to final levels in the car), but I’m beginning to feel that I’d overlooked some self-effects because they were within my normal range of behavior – but it would certainly have been useful to better choose my mood, when I was younger.
Speaking of mood: that could be another fantastic use. I know that my family life has been markedly smoother than it was before I began using pheros, even with my parents (and there’s a lot of history there). I’ve also been in relationships that could have been saved (or saved sooner or ended sooner but more civilly) if we could have halted a counterproductive cycle.
Pheros are capable of a great deal more than just promoting pairing/sex. I suspect that even at our current state we might be be able to use them as the first steps to a new communication/interaction modality. Though no one know exactly how long it took spoken language to achieve its current expressive nuance and range, I think it is safe to say that our distant forebears would be amazed at what we can do with it now