Technically, although this deals with variable payoffs, it isn\'t exactly like
Prisoner\'s Dilemma, because it\'s not a \"contest\" between two pheromone
users; it\'s not rock/ scissors/ paper. It\'s not genuine game theory, though it\'s
inspired by it (clearly, I\'m not a mathematician).

The effects of pheromones on intended recipients could be plotted on a range 10
degrees in either direction, centered on zero. To \"normalize\" the graph using the
most radical pheromone with the most potentially wide-ranging effects, let\'s start with
NONE. Since NONE is so volatile, its effects could range from -10 to +10,
depending on quantity applied to the wearer. Using this same graph, NOL would
range from about 0 to maybe +4 or +5, since its good effects are rarely as striking as
those of NONE, but (this is why I prefer it!) there\'s just about no potential
downside. The worst it can get is if you seem to be wearing no pheromones at all.
SOE acts like this, I\'ve found: I\'m certainly never worse off for wearing it, although
its effects are usually subtle when I do.

I\'ve used RONE only as an ingredient (in SOE, which is so far my favorite
pheromone product), so I don\'t know how it would \"chart\" all by itself. Same
with copulins -- there isn\'t enough in PCC for me to draw a conclusion.

When thinking about how A1 should be graphed, I realized that there\'s another layer
here, one that I\'ve posted about before: the potential effects on the wearer. Since
A1 seemed to work all right on women but made me distracted and anxious, a graph
illustrating merely the potential effects on others would be misleading. I hope some
of the more mathematically inclined board members can take it from here.

Comments?

HB_88