Fellas, I hate to disappoint, says Esme Gordon Craig, but skipping a shower will not make you irresistible to women – no matter what the internet tells 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.
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.
Species-specific means they aren’t inter-species, not that they’re uniform across a species.
Intra-species variations of pheromone production has certainly been studied, the question isn’t really whether it occurs, but rather why intra-species pheromone variations occur.
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.
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.
“Here’s a good read for you”
Apparently you did not choose to read your own source?
Ahh yes, a matter of subjectivity is exactly like claiming an objective fact…
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.
Ah yes, a study consisting of 25 people… with no behavioural controls. Brilliant.
Species-specific means they aren’t inter-species, not that they’re uniform across a species.
Intra-species variations of pheromone production has certainly been studied, the question isn’t really whether it occurs, but rather why intra-species pheromone variations occur.
When did I make that assumption…?
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.