In re-reading your article at http://evolution.humb.univie.ac.at/institutes/urbanethology/pdf/NEL220501R01_.pdf it appears you\'re saying that the research shows androstenone to have negative effects on women, while androstenol has positive effects. In fact, you say that androstenone has \'repellent\' effects.
I wonder if you can comment on whether this is a fair interpretation of what you\'re saying. If so, what do you make of the people here who report \"hits\" and sexual behavior directed towards them when they wear androstenone?
Also, my own anecdotal experience is that androsterone has negative effects on women. Some others have also said this here. Can you comment on that?
This came up once before. It\'s not that I\'m saying androstenone has negative effects, it\'s that one study showed it to have negative effects (and in the article we cite that study). Actually, the co-authors included it with their input. However, this negative effect of androstenone does seem to correlate well with effects reported in other studies. For my purposes, androstenol has been shown to influence luteinizing hormone levels, and I believe that androsterone also will be shown to exert a positive influence on LH. Androstenone, on the other hand, should exert a negative effect; it\'s odor is described as urinous. I can\'t explain why so many folks on this Forum have reported positive effects of androstenone, but that\'s because no one knows yet what the complete story will be on human pheromones. Obviously, there\'s no one product that will work for everyone.
Thanks for the response.
What about the androsterone issue? Are you certain it has positive effects? What about those of us who seem to find it has negative effects?
Also, any thoughts on some others like:
androstenol (3alpha) versus androstenol (3beta)
[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: xvs ]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by James V. Kohl:
Obviously, there\'s no one product that will work for everyone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But JB#1 seems to work for most. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
If I remember the protocol for the \'none test, women were asked to smell a bag and then to verbally comment. These are not the brain circuits of interest!
Is a DIHL or a hair flip a VERBAL, conscienous opinion? No. When I wear pheromones I\'m usually hoping to inspire a limbic brainstorm in a female of the species, not solicit her verbal opinion on my aroma.
Just as a woman is more attracted to a cigar-recking, rude and cocky alpha male whom she derides as a pig compared to praising the Allen Alda wimp that smells of lavender water, so will a woman tell you none stinks while hair-flipping and moistening. A true alpha male stinks and is proud of it!
Sorry JVK, the methodology does not minic the real world - when yo ask for an opinion, you\'re measuring the wrong parameter.
JVK is one of the top experts in this field. Read his article which I linked to above.
One of its first points is that pheromones evoke responses which are not conscious.
Also, he goes into some detail on the studies concerning various pheromones.
His reverences list is pages long... I don\'t think he\'s missed anything that\'s very obvious... [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
The people working in the field, including JVK, have my respect and gratitude. However, I think it a realistic assessment that our understanding is in its infancy.
I am critical (constructively, I hope) because SOME of the preliminary results are counter to the field experiences I have had personally and that have been reported extensively by myself and others on this forum. In other words, they don\'t meet a real world test.
For example, SoE is a fine product but I think it is of marginal utility as a sexual attractant. It does have considerable use and value as a socializing adjunct. Research that predicted rone as a superior pheromone over none for sex appeal is, in my educated experience, wrong.
How did it go wrong? I\'ve offered one critique of one study that has been cited on this forum in the past. I don\'t pretend or intend to be a pheromone scientist. But one tenet of the scientific method is that a theory is correct only if it can predict the results of a test.
I pay for my pheromone products and I put them to the test. The theory that rone is sexy failed that test. Bring me a theory that makes sense in the real world and delivers useful products.
The document links look like have problem.
Itry to download it many times but failed
The link works for me.
You have to have acrobat reader installed to use it, however, because it\'s a PDF.
You can get acrobat reader here:
[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: xvs ]
Thanks, now working after few times trying.
When I try to download it, it always reset at 90%.
I have the acrobat reader. so the problem maybe my connection or their server.
Now I also upload the unprotected version at http://love-scent.freeservers.com/unprotectednel.pdf
In case somebody here need the unprotected version (you can edit it using Adobe acrobat) [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
Whitehall makes a good point; personal experience is the winner. Doesn\'t matter what I say, or what the science says--if you get better results with one product over another, you\'ll stick with that product. Why not?
Until pheromone science reaches a higher plain (perhaps where we can match a particular pheromone combo to body type), all we can do is experiment. Some results are predictable--like with -rone and -ol; some are not--like with -none. Where the different chemicals are mixed, predicting responses gets trickier.
I know I typically come off as being against -none, but that\'s only because I think it is unlikely to work. But then I continue to read that it does work for quite a few of the contributors to this Forum. I doubt that my opinion will change, but my opinion should never be the means by which to judge effectivness.
Thanks JVK... what about my other question:
Any opinions on 3a vs 3b -nol,
what about androstadienol as a pheromone?
Something that interested me about one \'negative none\' study was that they tested none at chem-set concentration: 1mg/ml. They put 0.1ml of that on a pad and shoved it under women\'s noses. If we on this forum consider .02mg about the max total applied dose of none before od, then these ladies were being tested at 5 times that od dose, and shoved directly under their nose to boot! No wonder it was aversive!!
The real interesting part of that study was that women at peak fertility didn\'t mind none so much, giving a more neutral rating at that point in their cycle. As ratspeaker noted, maybe in nature none is like a negative gate, being repellent to women except when they are actually capable of reproduction, at which time it doesn\'t repel them so badly.
Then again, you gotta remember we\'re applying these pheros at much higher levels than would ever occur in nature. One spray of Andro 4.2 deposits on your skin about 300+ times the none skin distribution that would be found on the average male armpit skin. So we\'re really cranking up the dose when we use these products, and the testers in that one paper anyway were going several times stronger than that. Not sure aversion at high concentration necessarily tells the whole story on none. In fact, experience tells me it can have sexual effects…
There\'s no doubt none stinks at high concentration - we\'ve found that out on this forum and obsess about od\'s. But could it have other effects at low concentrations, closer to what occurs in nature? Two possibilities for your consideration: 1) unconscious effects, and 2)pattern-blend signals.
1) If our noses/brain can process unconscious phero signals, then weak concentrations of none (or masked w/cologne) may carry messages to the target and have effect without being consciously perceived as an odor.
2) Several writers have noted that many animals have the capability to interpret proportional blends of pheros. That is, the same compounds in different proportions have different meaning/effect. Perhaps the none level in your phero signature, blended with other compounds, has hidden and variable meaning. I\'ve read studies where humans can successfully detect fear or happiness in tests done on underarm sweat. Perhaps the compound blend we emit tells more about us than we know, and none is a variable part of that for different contexts or conditions of the sender.
In any case, unless you\'re smearing it on directly out of the chemset you\'re probably not as adversive as some would imply…I\'d like to know more about none tested at weak concentration, masked, or in combination with other odorants if anyone has info.
Irish, I totally agree with every word of your post, having read the literature. The argument in itself should encourage JVK to try -none at low concentrations on himself for a week!
I wonder what the -none concentration of Boarmate is. If someone can demonstrate that even in pigs, OD doses of -none is a repellant, then our theory is really supported. -none is clearly a pig pheromone in the currently used concentrations in Boarmate.
For free-ranging wild pigs, do the adult males and the females (sows) socialize generally of do they just come together during mating season when the sows are in heat? I suspect that the males\' continuous production of -none is the signal that causes this.
Many species have this pattern and maybe we are seeing a hint of this ancestorial behavior in humans.
I\'m already negatively biased about -none, so I remain reluctant to try it despite the positive effects reported. Besides, I don\'t think -none would compliment my normal body chemistry, since I\'m sure I already produce lots of it.
My thoughts on androstenol (3alpha) versus androstenol (3beta) and androstadienol are limited by my lack of experience. As some of you know, I focussed a lot of effort for many years on -rone experimentation. So, it\'s not so much that I don\'t think other compounds work, as it is the fact that -rone does seem to work quite well. My interest typically is not in getting laid, nonetheless, so working well is subjective. The -ol/-rone combination with the fragrance of SOE that the talented perfumer came up with is better than I could ever have expected. I suspect I\'ll be happy with SOE for quite some time. However, that\'s not to say that I have not considered adding -none to SOE and marketing a second product (SOE+), perhaps. Will see what happens after the book is available in paperback, my article on sexual orientation is published, and a few other projects are in advanced stages of completion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)