• TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    They may create a chemical signal that other men do not, due to their genetics.

    Any supporting evidence to this claim? I could just as easily claim that I have telekinetic powers that others do not because of my genetics.

    You can’t assume uniformity in biology.

    Yeah… You can. If there is an established norm, then there is no reason to assume extraordinary uniqueness unless presented with evidence that begs to differ.

    • BJW@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Any supporting evidence to this claim?

      Yes, plenty.

      Here’s a good read for you

      And no, you can’t assume uniformity. That’s like saying that cilantro tastes the same to everyone (it doesn’t). Or that everyone can smell when someone has eaten asparagus from their urine (some can, and can’t). Everyone is different. That’s the effect of genetics.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        “Here’s a good read for you”

        19.3. CONCLUSIONS In this chapter I have provided a snapshot of the history of the pheromone concept and examples of its common applications to humans. As described in detail elsewhere (Doty 2010), there is a lack of consensus as to what defines a pheromone, making it difficult to tie down as an objective scientific entity. Most definitions imply that a pheromone (a) is comprised of one or only a few chemicals, (b) is species-specific, © has well-defined behavioral or endocrine effects, and (d) is little influenced by learning. To date, no chemicals have been isolated in humans that meet such criteria.

        Apparently you did not choose to read your own source?

        And no, you can’t assume uniformity. That’s like saying that cilantro tastes the same to everyone (it doesn’t).

        Ahh yes, a matter of subjectivity is exactly like claiming an objective fact…

        Everyone is different. That’s the effect of genetics.

        Everyone has a range of expression that is influenced by their genes. Someone being able to attract all women with their specific smell would not be something we have previously observed in any human. Meaning it’s safe to assume that it is not something someone’s genes can express.

        Yes, plenty.

        Ah yes, a study consisting of 25 people… with no behavioural controls. Brilliant.

            • fervent_apathy@anarchist.nexus
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              You didn’t. It was an assumption based on you quoting the other commenters source asking had they even read it. I don’t see how anything else in that conclusion could be confused for confirmation of a uniform intra-species pheromone, which is the point you’ve been trying to make in this thread, and asked for sources that contradict your assertion.

              Did you check out the source I posted? Curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.

              • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                uniform intra-species pheromone, which is the point you’ve been trying to make in this thread,

                I don’t see how you made that assumption. My point in this whole thread was that there wasn’t any solid evidence that humans emit or receive pheromones.

                The uniform thing was an assertion made by the other person, claiming that there was no uniformity in biology.