View Full Version : Human Pheromones: Fact and Fiction
jvkohl
01-10-2007, 10:57 PM
This
is from colleagues at
Monell
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/526427/
JVK
WorkingMann
01-11-2007, 07:27 AM
“We still
have much to learn about pheromonal communication in humans. However, based on what we do know, human pheromones do
not act as sex attractants,” says Wysocki, a behavioral neuroscientist. “Effects of pheromones on adult human social
behavior have never been documented in a controlled peer-reviewed setting.”
hehe so many people that's
not gonna like this and agree.. :lol:
“The general term pheromone is often linked to images of
specific, rapid response and sexual attraction,” notes Preti, an organic chemist. “Actually, pheromones are divided
into classes that are defined by characteristics of the responses.”
Here I agree because not all mones
do give a sexual hit..
However, the chemical identities of human pheromones remain
elusive. Preti comments, “To date, no scientifically rigorous study using human secretions has led to the isolation
and chemical identification of a true human pheromone.”
On the other hand, detailed studies have demonstrated
pheromonal responses in humans, implying that humans do in fact produce and respond to pheromones. For example,
Preti and Wysocki established that unidentified chemicals in human male underarm extracts can affect female
reproductive hormone secretion (primer pheromone effect) and mood (modulator pheromone effect).
Isn't
this first saying there haven't been proven that there's human responses for pheroes in the same way as in insects
and animals?
And then in the lasts part sayin it is proven anyway..?
This confuses me a bit..
:think:
But Wysocki notes, “Because human responses to pheromones and other chemical signals
are influenced by our past experiences, context and other sensory inputs, it is unlikely that pheromones can cause
the same type of involuntary attractant response in humans that is seen in the silkworm moth.”
By this
statement I believe that they shouldn't evaluate pheromones for humans in the same way as for insects and animals
and therefor they can't say that pheromones for humans aren't proven right because they don't give the same
results as these pheromones do in other species.. Humans are far more complex than animals and insects and if you
see at studies on the brain were much more complicated and also because we don't rely so much on your instinks only
as animals and insects in a much higher degree does.. And therefor it can't give the same results and thereby you
can't put up the same criteria to say "this is a pheromone" because you can't evaluate on the same things for
humans as you do for animals/insects.. Because we don't give the same result there shouldn't be evaluated on the
same criterias..
jvkohl
01-11-2007, 10:01 AM
By this
statement I believe that they shouldn't evaluate pheromones for humans in the same way as for insects and animals
and therefor they can't say that pheromones for humans aren't proven right because they don't give the same
results as these pheromones do in other species.... Because we don't give the same result there shouldn't be
evaluated on the same criterias..
This is where a mammalian model for the effect of pheromones on
human hormone levels and thus, most likely, an affect on human behavior becomes useful. We can directly measure
pheromonal effects on human hormone levels. But, due to the number of influences on human behavior that must first
be eliminated, we currently can only indirectly measure pheromonal affects on behavior--as you have indicated.
If we use a mammalian model (e.g., the one that I have detailed) it is easy to predict the affect of human
pheromones on behavior. If we were talking about the development of therapeutic drugs, instead of products for
"cosmetic" use, there would already be many clinical trials in progress to determine precisely what claims could be
made regarding the affects of human pheromones on behavior. This is because pharmaceutical companies could increase
their revenues by developing pheromones that had similar effects to "drugs."
What's missing? In a word:
money (and lots of it). So, what we have is a model that shows hormonal effects and predicts behavioral affects of
human pheromones (affects that many Forum members have repeatedly evaluated, anecdotally), in the absence of enough
money to scientifically "prove" that human pheromones affect human behavior.
It seems to me that the lack of
money should not be part of the consideration for defining the term "human pheromone." But, it
is!
JVK
WorkingMann
01-11-2007, 12:03 PM
This is where
a mammalian model for the effect of pheromones on human hormone levels and thus, most likely, an affect on human
behavior becomes useful. We can directly measure pheromonal effects on human hormone levels. But, due to the number
of influences on human behavior that must first be eliminated, we currently can only indirectly measure pheromonal
affects on behavior--as you have indicated.
If we use a mammalian model (e.g., the one that I have detailed) it
is easy to predict the affect of human pheromones on behavior. If we were talking about the development of
therapeutic drugs, instead of products for "cosmetic" use, there would already be many clinical trials in progress
to determine precisely what claims could be made regarding the affects of human pheromones on behavior. This is
because pharmaceutical companies could increase their revenues by developing pheromones that had similar effects to
"drugs."
What's missing? In a word: money (and lots of it). So, what we have is a model that shows hormonal
effects and predicts behavioral affects of human pheromones (affects that many Forum members have repeatedly
evaluated, anecdotally), in the absence of enough money to scientifically "prove" that human pheromones affect human
behavior.
It seems to me that the lack of money should not be part of the consideration for defining the term
"human pheromone." But, it is!
JVK
(http://)
Okay I
see the point but still it's kinda crazy to use the same model to evaluate on humans as on animals.. Because we
don't react on the same things and are not similar in many points as fx. complexity..
But I guess it's because
there's nothing else to use.. Nad this is because there's no money to bring the dokumentation for it to make the
model so there would be something else to use..
slickracer
01-12-2007, 12:24 PM
To date, no
scientifically rigorous study using human secretions has led to the isolation and chemical identification of a true
human pheromone
i tihnk i know what is a true human pheromone is...... its call CHC, also knone as, cold
hard cash!
Archetypical Hybrid (HEC)
01-12-2007, 04:35 PM
JVK/anyone:
What do you know of pregnadienones / pregnadienols for as far as pheromonal activity?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.