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
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.
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.
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.
I simply presented you with “the evidence that begs to differ”. Whether or not it applies to humans was never the point I was making. I simply asked for your thoughts on uniformity regarding intra-species pheromones.
simply presented you with “the evidence that begs to differ”.
I think you are interpreting uniformity differently than the original claim. When he said uniformity he was saying that there’s a chance that one man could have something like pheromones when others did not, because genes make us all different.
My response was that a certain level of uniformity is expected in biology, and that we shouldn’t assume otherwise without evidence to support doing so.
I don’t really see anything in the article you linked that would really conflict with my rebuttal. Variables caused by something like environmental factors doenst imply an unexpected uniqueness within the species itself. No one is claiming that all members of a certain species are completely alike in every way.
“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.
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.
You responded with:
I simply presented you with “the evidence that begs to differ”. Whether or not it applies to humans was never the point I was making. I simply asked for your thoughts on uniformity regarding intra-species pheromones.
I think you are interpreting uniformity differently than the original claim. When he said uniformity he was saying that there’s a chance that one man could have something like pheromones when others did not, because genes make us all different.
My response was that a certain level of uniformity is expected in biology, and that we shouldn’t assume otherwise without evidence to support doing so.
I don’t really see anything in the article you linked that would really conflict with my rebuttal. Variables caused by something like environmental factors doenst imply an unexpected uniqueness within the species itself. No one is claiming that all members of a certain species are completely alike in every way.