Evolutionary Psychology and Pheromones - LONG POST

Caution: LONG POST - Put the coffee on!!!

I\'m going to shake up the Copulin discussion a little

by trying to apply what we know about evolutionary psychology to pheromones. Remember, however, that it\'s just a

THEORY, so it hasn\'t been proven to be 100% correct. It\'s just a scientific guess. Also, the theory may need

to adapt because of such things as contraception and medical care (which, IMO, would allow people with less

desirable characteristics to reproduce more and those with more desirable characteristics to reproduce less). There

is one study that I find particularly interesting, and after some background info I\'ll get into it:

Natural

Selection: Traits contributing to survival most likely to be passed on through generations

Also known as

\"Survival of the Fittest\"

Translation: Whatever traits allow you to live long enough to reproduce are passed

on to your offspring; those traits that lead to death before reproduction are not passed on

Sexual Selection:

Traits contributing to reproduction are most likely to be passed on through generations

Also known as \"Survival

of the Sexiest\"

Translation: The hotter you are, the more likely you are to have sex, the more likely you are

to have children, the more likely you are to have many children; the uglier you are, the less likely you are to have

sex/children/many children

Evolutionary psychology explanations of sexual desire:
-Psychological

characteristics/behaviors can be transmitted via natural selection
-Person does not consiously follow this, but the

ones who exibit certain behaviors are more likely to lead to reproduction

Translation: Sexually desirable

psychological characteristics also get you more sex, which also makes it more likely for you to reproduce and pass

on your psychological traits

Evolution of Desire
-Males seek sex with multiple partners in order to maximize the

likelihood of passing on their genes
-Women seek someone who will aid in the raising of a child
-\"In love\"

feeling lasts 1 1/2-2 years because it\'s the most crucial time for child development
-Both seek good health,

good genes

Gender differences in Sexual Desire
Men
-Seek fertility and fitness
-More jealous of sexual

infidelity
-Seek women 2.7 years younger

Women
-Seek ambition, success, resources
-More jealous of emotional

infidelity
-Seek men 3.4 years older

Okay, so you say, \"SO WHAT? That\'s old news...\" Well, here\'s an

interesting finding:

Women generally prefer \"softer, safer\" faces, but during ovulation they prefer

\"rugged\" faces
-Evolutionary psychology: \"rugged\" suggests stronger, fitter genes (healthier child), but

\"softer\" suggests more nurturing qualities (more help raising the child)

My old professor used Leonardo

DiCaprio and Josh Hartnett, but a more distinctive difference would probably be...
Boy Bands vs. Indiana Jones (aka

Harrison Ford ~ 1980+)

Now, the example would say that girls like the boys from NSync, 98-degrees, Backstreet

Boys, and even New Kids on the Block most of the time, but during ovulation need Harrison Ford to crash through

their doors with a whip and fedora to get ready for some hot, sweaty, rugged sex...

Applying this to pheros

(FINALLY): Well, this would show why -mones get inconsistent hits and also show why they seem to work best during

ovulation (women want a \"man\'s man\" during that time over all others). My question to everyone is: what can

work the rest of the time? A couple of people say that copulins might work, but the rest say \"No, women want

manly men.\" Well, then what about the boy band phenomenon? The truth is, a lot of women want \"pretty

boys\"... What -mone would you say promotes that image? WAGG/SOE? Who knows?

I realize that
a. many people

(*cough*Elana*cough* [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) will say, \"That\'s not true for me!!!

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]), which is both true and fine. Nothing wrong with being

special.
b. We all know that everyone is different (really, is there anyone like Elana???) and there are no hard

and fast rules.

All that said, it\'s just some food for thought.

Note: According to this theory, if you

could just make a ton of money, boldly strive for achievement, and give emotional support to someone ~3 1/2 years

younger than you, you may not need -mones... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

The two theories, survival of the fittest and of the sexiest have both been invalidated in large

part by medical science and society. In a primative society the fittest would be more likely to survive and

reproduce but with our medical science even the poorest specimen has a good chance of surviving and of reproducing.

In fact, the poorer specimens are often times reproducing at a rate greater than the better ones. You could argue

that medical science is leading to a general degradation of the human species by making it possible for more, less

physically and mentally developed people to reproduce and survive.

The better looking people in a primative

society probably were able to reproduce more often but in our society where fidelity is mandated by government

regulation, the churches and public mores you see a stratification rather than a lack of reproduction. In other

words, the most attractive people are generally going to mate with one another while the less so will do the same.

You\'re completely right about everything except it being invalidated. Sure, it\'s been cut

off at the knees because of medicine, science, and society, but Darwin would\'ve argued that there\'s a new form

of natural selection. I don\'t want to cause a stir, so I won\'t go into inappropriate examples. Natural

selection still exists as long as a large group of a species with similar traits die before they can reproduce.

Have you ever seen the Darwin awards? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] J/K. I know you were referring to humans and not all species, but

there was a great example of a certain moth that consisted of mostly white-colored and a few black-colored moths.

Before the industrial revolution, the white moth was better able to survive...during the industrial revolution, the

black moth dominated because it blended in with the polluted air...and then the white moths came back when we

started to use cleaner fuels and \"save the planet\"...

Anyway, you make a great point and the old form of

natural/sexual selection as Darwin knew it is all but completely changed for the human race.

Of course, now we

have matching theory...you will most likely or will be happiest/best off if you pick a mate of similar

attractiveness as yourself. If that\'s true, how attractive of a woman will I end up with???

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Grrr... I just rambled and got way off the subject. My point,

though, of my first post was about what kind of traits women look for. The study done on it that said women go for

\"pretty boys\" (aka softer faces) most of the time and was fairly recent. How do you think you could use that

knowledge to your advantage with pheromones? Can you? Or since it works best during ovulation, should you stick

with stuff that makes you seem like an Alpha male? Hmmmm..........

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Grrr... I just rambled and got

way off the subject. My point, though, of my first post was about what kind of traits women look for. The study

done on it that said women go for \"pretty boys\" (aka softer faces) most of the time and was fairly recent. How

do you think you could use that knowledge to your advantage with pheromones? Can you? Or since it works best

during ovulation, should you stick with stuff that makes you seem like an Alpha male? Hmmmm..........

<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

If we can agree that the pretty boy type exudes a different set of

pheromones than the alpha type, all we need to do is look for the combo that best personifies the type we want to

portray. I think that is over-simplifying though. The pretty boy type is not looked at as a subject for procreation

where the alpha type is. If you want to be in a long term, friends relationship you would use a combo intended to

create the pretty boy mones. If you want to get laid frequently and by a wide variety you would use a combo

signafying that persona.

All this is assuming that the women you deal with can\'t think beyond the level of

basic instinct. As has been said before, mones are just an addition to your arsenal and personality, appearance etc.

play a major role in your actual results. Most women do respond to mones but they also think and observe.

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Applying this to pheros

(FINALLY): Well, this would show why -mones get inconsistent hits....

<hr /></blockquote><font

class=\"post\">

It\'s not the pheromones getting the inconsistent hits, it\'s the guys using them. I know

from my own experience that it takes more than pheromones to get a woman\'s interest going. If I dress casually,

put on pheromones, and stay relaxed, I can walk into one venue and have women turning the heads or even coming out

of the woodwork to talk to me. I can leave that venue and go to another one where I am just another guy who

doesn\'t get much attention.

What is the difference?

In the first venue the women are mostly single and

still looking and I am dressed better than the other men. In the second venue most of the women are married or with

steady boyfriends and the guys are dressed at least as well as me.

The pheromones do their thing just fine. You

just have to keep doing your thing consistently.

When I was a little kid, I had two mice, which I kept in a cage. Their names were Wally and Felix. But

Wally turned out to be a girl. They bred like, well, mice; and soon filled three cages. Then they were so densely

packed they began eating each other. Their instincts to self-preserve and procreate went out the window. Soon the

mice were reduced to ubiquitous cannibalism. It was gross, and I eventually fed them all to some birds of

prey.

The world is too overpopulated for the available resources. Starving people and species on the brink of

extinction emit pheromones, and these pheromones circulate in the earth\'s biosphere. Messages about nature\'s

needs are efficiently communicated this way, throughout the world of nature, between and among

species.

I\'ve long wondered whether the pretty boy type\'s success (Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp,

Keanu Reeves), along with the distinctively unfertile looking \"twiggy\" female look (almost everyone except Drew

Barrymore), is evidence of a group (nature) consciousness, where nature selects for those that won\'t breed as

much, but have the advantages in other spheres that childlike cuteness brings. The defensive trait of cuteness

serves the function of preserving something that is already alive, as it evokes protective instincts. Perhaps nature

now wants us to concentrate more on enjoying sex for reasons other than procreating, such as social

cohesion/sensuous aesthetics, and sort of \"tread reproductive water\", while the population returns to

equilibrium.

If so, all bets are off. Being the alpha type might not be the only option. If this theory was

correct, in more heavily populated urban areas, being more pubescent in appearance would be relatively more

advantageous, while in less populated, rural areas, fitness for breeding would remain more singularly advantageous.

Accordingly, people in urban areas would be more environmentally conscious (ironically); and favor abortion and

contraception as methods of reproductive planning. Those in rural areas, on the other hand, would want to preserve

the existing procreative mechanisms (i.e., would be conservative).

Of course, all this would have

implications for the study of pheromones.

The world is really not overpopulated for the available resources, it is mismanaged. Many tons of food

goes to waste daily in affluent areas while people starve in others. Often abundant food is available in areas

within a day\'s travel of a famine area. Much of the problem is due to corruption and political games. Still more

is due to ineffective methods of food production. All that is political but the end result bears on the human

reproduction issue.

Under normal conditions a population with minimal resources will breed to excess due to a

high infant mortality rate. Population growth is kept low and often decreases due to the high mortality. However,

the more advanced civilizations have spread medical and sanitation skills greatly reducing the mortality rate and

increased the number of years a person remain fertile. That has resulted in a massive baby boom in undeveloped areas

that are poorly prepared to feed the increased population. The end result is famine. Again, that is perfectly

natural, when a population of game animals increases in a given area, the number of predators also increases. As the

number of game animals decreases predators cannot find sufficient food sources and the mortality rate increases

reducing the population. We have disrupted that cycle with humans by reducing the mortality rate. But we have not

done much to increase available food supplies at comparable rates. So these undeveloped areas grow their population

yet are unable to feed themselves.

All the while, highly developed nations have plenty of food and obesity

becomes a problem. Being fat is counter-survival as it reduces your likelihood of reproduction. Medical science

thwarts that issue to some degree by chemically supporting over-weight people. However, the closer a person is to an

ideal specimen, the more likely they are to mate with another ideal specimen producing high quality offspring. The

bad news is that the high end of the spectrum tends to reproduce far less frequently than the low end. As I said in

another post, this could arguably be causing a degeneration of our species.

Since the areas most underfed and

overpopulated are the ones reproducing at the greatest percentage rates it seems unlikely that there is some factor

inducing people to stop mating. In those areas you will probably find the alpha type still is the one most able to

find mates. I think it likely that there is some other factor that is contributing to our changing taste in mating

partners but I don\'t know what it is.

I agree resources are woefully mismanaged.

B, before we go any further, I\'m not making a

political argument, but a biological and pragmatic one -- an important distinction. It doesn\'t matter whether

it\'s mismanagement or not, in other words. The scarcity is there, and the world is overpopulated, given

current and recent historic human behavior. Neither the starving person nor the animal facing extinction cares

why it is cursed that way. The biological reaction is the same, as if it were overpopulation by necessity.



I have in mind a complex set of dynamics. You are quite right to point out the tendency of an individual

subpopulation that is facing immediate, acute mortality threats to counter with increased breeding. I wish I would

have thought to mention it. But we are facing no such threat here. We\'re fat and satiated. Yet the biosphere

still contains the overpopulation information. Like any system where equilibreum is at stake, there are forces and

counter forces in our natural environment(e.g., global warming together with unusual cold spells). \"Underfed\"

and \"overpopulated\" are two different, though related problems, for example. Perhaps we have to tease out more

than one force at work when thinking of third world situations (the good ol\' scientific practice of isolating

effects). What about situations where populations are pathologically overcrowded but relatively well fed? Urban

situations seem to provide the cleanest examples here. What is happening in Tokyo or Hong Kong? Perhaps Mexico City

isn\'t quite so clean (no pun intended) an example, because of the Catholic influence. I still think it\'s an

interesting possibility.

However, if the \'overpopulation\' signal was in the air it also would be affecting the

underdeveloped people, probably to a greater extent than we who pay so little attention to our senses in the first

place. That should result in reduced births in the areas most facing population pressures. That\'s my problem with

it, the effect would be greater in the areas where population pressures are the biggest problem..

Sorry, B, I think I edited in my reply already, above. --Nasty habit, as Franki reminds me. Didn\'t

realize you were on line! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] But you are definitely onto some of the

the crucial issues. But there still could be competing dynamic forces. The acute immediacy of the starvation

response might mask the overpopulation response, which is more of a response to a chronic, creeping problem. It\'s

hard when you can\'t isolate things in the lab. That\'s why I\'m curious about urban situations.

It is likely there are competing forces. The question is which has supremecy? It is a shame that in so

many cases our survival insticts actually result in harming us as in the case of a starving people.

It is also

worth looking for other causes of our changing taste in mates. Or maybe tastes aren\'t so much changing as with

the lack of survival pressure we are allowing other drives to supercede those most needed for frequent reproduction.

Nice post and interesting thoughts. I\'ll think about your comments more. My one observation is that

there are different levels of survival pressure, depending on whether one is inner city (higher), suburban (lower),

farm-rural(lower), or is in an Appalacian-type of situation (higher). So we\'d have to try to tease it out like

good anthropologists.

Which forces have momentary supremacy depend in part on the situation, I would guess,

as I started to explain. Which has \"ultimate supremacy\" is still to be determined, I suppose.

What other

drives do you have in mind, B?

Thanks Doc. I always enjoy a good debate and this one beats working on my web site by far.

You

are right about momentary supremecy, it\'s an ever changing dynamic reacting to a huge number of variables. I

think it might be more accurate to view it as trend lines rather than as a set condition. Assuming that is correct,

is human behavoir responding to natural impulses, nature responding to human behavoir or a closed loop of action and

response or some combination?

Pheromonology lets us think of the biosphere as a huge \"pot of soup\", in which everything

biological mixes together and afffects everything else -- yes, with feedback loops galore.

-- Yes, trend

lines, each of which has a slope determined in part by factors intrinsic to the given effect, and in part by various

effect-strength multipliers, based on the situation. I guess one could try to model it algebraically, though I\'m

getting ahead of myself here. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Are you referring to the basic Chaos concept of the butterfly flapping it\'s wings in China stirring

up storms in Texas (figurative)?

I am having a hard time accepting a global view. With bacterial degradation,

possible other variables such as UV impingment and atmospheric chemicals, along with mixing or homogenization

(entropy in general) it seems like you would need to deal with it on a micro level rather than macro. Even if you

can work with macro, you would first need to define all the related micro levels and the impact of the items

mentioned above. And you thought weather forecasting was complex?

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Broad, sweeping statements don\'t have much validity without

the basic understanding of the primary elements.

So what part \"physical alpha\" is Johnny Depp, and what part pretty boy? We could rate the four on

my list and come up with an average ratio for today\'s \"sexiest men\", for kicks.

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
So what part \"physical alpha\" is

Johnny Depp, and what part pretty boy? We could rate the four on my list and come up with an average, for kicks.



<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

The ladies on the forum are much better for that question.

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Are you referring to the basic Chaos

concept of the butterfly flapping it\'s wings in China stirring up storms in Texas (figurative)?

I am having a

hard time accepting a global view. With bacterial degradation, possible other variables such as UV impingment and

atmospheric chemicals, along with mixing or homogenization (entropy in general) it seems like you would need to deal

with it on a micro level rather than macro. Even if you can work with macro, you would first need to define all the

related micro levels and the impact of the items mentioned above. And you thought weather forecasting was complex?

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Broad, sweeping statements don\'t have much validity without

the basic understanding of the primary elements.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> That\'s cool. I

don\'t need to start with a huge global view. That part was just taking things to their logical conclusion, like

reading the last page of the novel first. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font

class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Are you referring to the basic Chaos concept of the butterfly flapping

it\'s wings in China stirring up storms in Texas (figurative)?

I am having a hard time accepting a global

view. With bacterial degradation, possible other variables such as UV impingment and atmospheric chemicals, along

with mixing or homogenization (entropy in general) it seems like you would need to deal with it on a micro level

rather than macro. Even if you can work with macro, you would first need to define all the related micro levels and

the impact of the items mentioned above. And you thought weather forecasting was complex?

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Broad, sweeping statements don\'t have much validity without

the basic understanding of the primary elements.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> That\'s cool. I

don\'t need to start with a huge global view. That part was just taking things to their logical conclusion, like

reading the last page of the novel first. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

You know us engineering types; plodding along, step by step.

&lt;aghast&gt; Read the end of a book first, out of sequence? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Well, I dropped EG120 halfway through, with a \"D\" average --it conflicted with Partying 400

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Interesting. Sounds like the theory of every living thing\'s \"aura\" being similar to the theory

of gravity...meaning that every mass has a field of gravity that effects every other object in the entire universe,

and thus every aura effects every other aura in the entire universe... Interesting---Wait, I already said that.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I agree resources are woefully

mismanaged.

B, before we go any further, I\'m not making a political argument, but a biological and

pragmatic one -- an important distinction. It doesn\'t matter whether it\'s mismanagement or not, in other

words. The scarcity is there, and the world is overpopulated, given current and recent historic human

behavior. Neither the starving person nor the animal facing extinction cares why it is cursed that way. The

biological reaction is the same, as if it were overpopulation by necessity.



<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

It does matter whether the world is mismanaged or is over-populated if

you view it as dynamic, interlocking trend lines. In the mismanaged model some micro-populations would continue to

exhibit tendencies of excessive reproduction for survival while others continued to be fat and indulgent. Depending

on how the world as a whole addressed the problem, the under-fed societies would either move towards being well fed

and indulgent or would eventually die off. The fat and indulgent societies would tend to grow more fat and

indulgent.

In the over-populated model, as food scarcity grew, the tendency would be for the fat and

indulgent society to more resemble the famine population. In time that would lead to a crises situation where the

human population would exhibit a (relatively) sudden die off to balance the population against available resources.

You are correct that it matters. It didn\'t matter for the purposes of the point I was making.

On the narrow topic of movie star features, and pheros...

I think you will find most male movie stars to have a

mix of traits. The ideal attractive face is said to combine a mix of sexual maturity markers (the masculine T-driven

features such as square jaw, thin lips, distinct brow, etc.) plus a few childish traits thrown in (like perhaps

large eyes). This allows one individual to embody masculinity, sensitivity, and some tendency to evoke the

brood-tending maternal response.

You can notice similar mixes in female stars, with a blending of maturity

traits like high cheekbones and full estrogen-driven lips with a healthy dose of youthful traits such as large eyes,

small nose, delicate features, etc. For women the bias is toward youthful traits, since youth is a driving force in

female attractiveness. The ideal male can show a little more age and maturity features, since that idea doesn\'t

hurt him in terms of likely resources, stability, status - male attractiveness features.

Studies do show that

women (tested in groups, not individual polls) prefer men biased more toward the masculinized extreme when they are

most fertile, presumably a trait designed to procure the best genes for the next generation. The alpha impregnates

her, the nice guy raises the kids (kidding - that\'s an oversimplification but you get the idea).

The few stars

that completely embody one type or another (say John Wayne) are limited in the roles they can play and are

invariably stereotyped. Woody Allen would never be taken seriously as an action hero, John Wayne could never have

played a prissy ballet dancer. Most versatile actors have faces that allow them to fit in a variety of roles, and

their faces show a mix of masculine, feminine, and juvenile markers.

I have thought that mixing phero messages

could be accomplished much like the mixing of facial messages we send visually. Or perhaps to temper a too-dominant

facial message with the opposite phero message. Unfortunately we know so little of the language of pheros that we

are forced to experiment in a rather ham-handed manner.

Our western society demands a juvenile phero profile in

public - we dutifully scrub off the gender-specific scent of our bodies daily, and replace it with neutral or

substitute scents. Perhaps society needs this for us to work together closely without the aggression and constant

sexual overtones our unwashed adult profile would generate.

Good to see you back around, Irish.

Indeed.


Holmes

Thanks Doc - I\'m never far away. Since I dragged the thread a little off topic, I\'ll go ahead and finish the

thought before the nightly dose of scotch obliterates it.

I mentioned mixed facial signals, and the possibility

of mixed phero signals - or even contrasting phero and facial signals. But there\'s even more to add to the

complexity. Our demeanor, emotional tone, state of mind - people are quite adept at reading those signals in our

gestures, body language, and expressiveness of our faces. Those psychological signals are imposed real-time on the

canvas of our face and body. Some of those signals are read consciously, others sensed unconsciously. Smart people

who study such things say humans unconsciously read fleeting micro-expressions in others\' faces - too brief to be

consciously perceived. In addition to the fixed physicality of our facial structure, and to a lesser degree our body

scent, we are sending out ongoing signals of our personality and current psychological state. All these various

signals plus our speech content and tone add up to others\' perception of us - bio-signals that are read

consciously and unconsciously by our fellows. Sexual attractiveness is included somehow in that signal matrix.

So

you can have all sorts of possible signal harmony and contrast across the conscious and unconscious levels,

especially if you deliberately monkey around with your signals (makeup, bathing, phero use, phony behavior, etc.).

Considering how ignorant I am of the specific meaning of those various signals, and how difficult it may be to

control some of those signals anyway, it gets a little disheartening when I think about \'improving\' my

perception among \'women\'. E.g., I don\'t even know the constituents of my natural apocrine sweat, let alone

how to turn up its volume or adjust for deficiencies! I just smear stuff on and watch what happens.

Then

there\'s the problem of understanding the other end of the equation - the target. Are your signals getting

through? Is that a good or bad thing? (may want to repress some honest signals!). Perhaps one target is intrigued by

complexity and likes conflicting qualities in a man…perhaps another target likes things simple, and is frustrated

with contrast. Who knows? It begins to seem so complex that the adage to simply \'be yourself\' seems about as

good as anything. Who knows if you might be inadvertently repelling your perfect match with an ignorant botched

phero experiment?

We can\'t do a lot with our facial features, other than makeup or surgery. That\'s a pretty

honest signal that we all carry. We do as a society drastically alter our scent signals through hygiene, so maybe

olfaction is a good area to experiment in since no one is going \'natural\' anyway. The personality and

emotional signals are often unconsciously sent and received - the best you can do to control those honest signals is

probably to stay mentally healthy. Those perceptions may be hardest to fake.

My current concept of phero use is

to try to create a generic male blend, just at or below the level of conscious perception. From that baseline I

experiment to find certain mixes that enhance my attractiveness or compensate for deficiencies, if possible.

Unfortunately that answer may (and likely does) vary from target to target. Life seems too short and experimentation

too crude to get to the bottom of all this.

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Life seems too short and experimentation too crude

to get to the bottom of all this.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

What are the

alternatives?


Holmes

I don\'t really have any alternative other than the minimalist approach - if there\'s danger of screwing things

up with action then I try to be conservative in action. Unless the stakes are high, or there\'s noting to

lose.

Pheros may be a few simple notes that only convey simple meanings, or they may be a complex blend with a

sophisticated message. Since cracking the human phero code is probably generations away, I\'m stuck with my little

field experiments. Take what little I do know and look for practical results. Don\'t be frustrated when things

don\'t seem to work - there may be many factors unknown to us that are at play.