83
The manosphere has a new dating hack: stop showering and let yourself stink (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 3 days ago by to c/usa@lemmy.ml
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

They may create a chemical signal that other men do not, due to their genetics.

Any supporting evidence to this claim? I could just as easily claim that I have telekinetic powers that others do not because of my genetics.

You can't assume 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Any supporting evidence to this claim?

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    "Here's a good read for you"

    19.3. CONCLUSIONS In this chapter I have provided a snapshot of the history of the pheromone concept and examples of its common applications to humans. As described in detail elsewhere (Doty 2010), there is a lack of consensus as to what defines a pheromone, making it difficult to tie down as an objective scientific entity. Most definitions imply that a pheromone (a) is comprised of one or only a few chemicals, (b) is species-specific, (c) has well-defined behavioral or endocrine effects, and (d) is little influenced by learning. To date, no chemicals have been isolated in humans that meet such criteria.

    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.

    Yes, plenty.

    Ah yes, a study consisting of 25 people...... with no behavioural controls. Brilliant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Species-specific means they aren't inter-species, not that they're uniform across a species.

    When did I make that assumption.....?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (1 child)

    You can't assume uniformity in biology.

    You responded with:

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 22 hours ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent