PheroTalk (
-   Pheromone Theory (
-   -   Evolutionary psychology: -Rone men and -None Men (

MHarris September 29th, 2005 11:06 PM

Evolutionary psychology: -Rone men and -None Men
In case anybody here doesn't know, Evolutionary Psychology PERFECTLY, and I mean PERFECTLY... outlines the rone and none relationship.

They just don't use rone and none by name. I doubt most evolutionary psychologists have ever heard of these two pheromones, despite the fact that I made the connection almost immediately... "that's a rone man they're talking about!" and "that's a none man they're talking about!".

Evolutionary psychology really does describe two types of men, one who is basically higher in -rone output, and the other higher in -none output. Of course, there's other pheromones that make a difference, but I'm talking about a predominant signature here, sort of the inverse of the 80/20 rule here.

You get a good text on evolutionary psychology and you'll learn far more about pheromones than you ever will reading the official pheromone researchers, who tend to be intellectually incestuous.

It's the cross application of ideas, theories and facts of other fields that leeds to genius. Isn't doesn't. This is as true in information and research as it is in genetic pools. Outbreeding rules, and inbreeding sucks


MHarris September 30th, 2005 09:10 AM

Re: Evolutionary psychology: -Rone men and -None Men
There's nobody here yet. I may as well chat with myself a little.

The two men are:

the wise, competent, long lived, nurturing, money-making fatherly type


the not so wise, often unreliable and short lived, not so caring, wild child "bad boy" type

The second, of course, often describes a young man, as well. Boys will be boys, and the more wreckless ones seldom have the chance to become men. Not that they all kill themselves off with wreckless behaviour - some merely grow physically, and not mentally.

For an easy pop culture example, think "Job" in the series "Arrested Development", although he's a little more of a loser scumbag than a full fledged Fonz or Colin Farrell badboy. Not good enough to be a full fledged "ahole". Probably the kid who dreamed of being a jock, but was never "good enough".

Now back to science (or something more scientific, anyway)...

According to David Buss' research, women historically settle down with the nurturer, and should she cheat... cheat with the "bad boy" when she's most receptive, when she's ovulating... and then have the nurturer raise the child as his own.

If you can really map this out in your head, it becomes apparent.

THAT'S why -none mostly gets women hot and bothered when they're ovulating, then generally repulses them when they're not (so they won't break it off with the nurterer).

THAT's why younger men have higher -none output, and older men generally have higher -rone output (so the 30 something child rearing women will cheat with the new generation of late teen/early 20s men - spreads the genes further)

If you can remove your emotions from the scenario for a moment, you can see that this isn't all bad. It does keep a "wild card" in the genetic mix.

And it's not to say that some of the offspring won't be the nurturers.

Now as soon as you put your emotions back in, you'll instantly feel the downside.

If you're the "good guy" you get to raise, unbenknowst to you, some bastard child born of the seed of some guy who had a brief, torrid affair full of hot, torrid, rollicking, insanely delicious bad boy sex with your wife!

You feel the downside because ... subjectively, it sucks!

Aurelie September 30th, 2005 05:57 PM

Re: Evolutionary psychology: -Rone men and -None Men
I can grasp this in theory. More than that even, I can see how that can happen. Women getting bored with their reasonable, nurturing spouse and choosing a "bad boy" to have a fling with. Not that I approve of it, to the contrary. I'm just saying I can see why some women would do that.

BUT! I really don't believe they will go as far as having offspring with the "bad boy" and then have the "nurturer" raise the child as his own. This might have happened in the Middle Ages, but nowadays they have contraceptives. From a psychological point of view I cannot even remotely imagine living such a lie day in day out with my spouse! I have never met a woman who was in that situation either.

MHarris October 2nd, 2005 04:39 AM

Re: Evolutionary psychology: -Rone men and -None Men

Originally Posted by Aurelie
I can grasp this in theory. More than that even, I can see how that can happen. Women getting bored with their reasonable, nurturing spouse and choosing a "bad boy" to have a fling with. Not that I approve of it, to the contrary. I'm just saying I can see why some women would do that.

While everything boils down to our conscious decisions... our minds being given the "final say"... it does seem that we have very STRONG impulses from our genes, and our 7 trillion + cells that express those genes. One conscious mind vs. 7 trillion cells often singing in harmony for food, sex and other basic things. It can be tough to override for some, I imagine.

Not me, though, I'm tough. My brain cells kick the ass of my bodily urges cells. I can't say I've EVER lost control, even once in my life.


Originally Posted by Aurelie
BUT! I really don't believe they will go as far as having offspring with the "bad boy" and then have the "nurturer" raise the child as his own. This might have happened in the Middle Ages, but nowadays they have contraceptives.

That's the beauty of evolutionary psychology.

Evolutionary psychologist is based on what is, rather than what people say. It's very subterfuge, very low BS. It's reality + psychology, and is probably the one of the first forms of psychology that's actually kind of useful since it has such a strong basis in fact.

In fact, in my experiences, I never remember any woman asking for me to wear protection in extremely heated situations where there was enormous sexual chemistry.

If my brain wasn't so good at ruining "heat in the moment" events for me, I'm certain they would've worked out different than they did.

I'm positive, from those experiences, that MANY (not all, just many) normal men and have some pretty intense, protection free sex when there's a high -none man and an ovulating, on the prowl woman.


Originally Posted by Aurelie
From a psychological point of view I cannot even remotely imagine living such a lie day in day out with my spouse! I have never met a woman who was in that situation either.


Plenty of my female friends admit to having protection free sex with men they absolutely hate the next day.

This is talked about in David Buss' work, and seems to be the typical high -none male / ovulating female interaction.

High -none guys, you get a mad rush, a mad thrill from, you do things with them that are extremely heated... very in the moment... and potentially irresponsible...

and then you often hate them and maybe even hate yourself a little, the next day. Typical pattern.

You see this a lot in popular culture, too. TV shows and movies. Seems to be a universal experience, it's just that David Buss took the time to put more didatic research into it, and write it out explicitly.

MHarris October 2nd, 2005 04:56 AM

Re: Evolutionary psychology: -Rone men and -None Men
Strategies of Human Mating by David Buss:

To me, this and some of the other texts of Evolutionary Psychology has everything the pheromone books are missing. David Buss is the Lucy of pheromones, the Missing Link. :)

Futurist October 4th, 2005 04:37 PM

Re: Evolutionary psychology: -Rone men and -None Men
I agree.... the challenge with this type of info is how useful is it, practically speaking, when using pheromones on a day in and day in basis.

Too much -none still repulses most. Perhaps we can unconsiously smell cycles, but it's not as if women where a sign.

At the same time, if you go heavy on the rone, you suddenly become less exciting but then again, attractive in a subtler way.

Both have their positives and negatives. I've always been at a loss as to how to apply it. I think LOOKING like a bad boy is probably most advantageous, for a number of different reasons (easier to get best of both worlds).

MHarris October 5th, 2005 12:48 AM

Re: Evolutionary psychology: -Rone men and -None Men
I know what you mean. Rone by itself has some serious issues.

I tried more closely to formulate the new A314 to the James Bond character (I'm sure it was in the back of my mind previously, too).

The experimental mix that ended up being A314, the one that "made it" in the tests, was based along the lines of something like a transmogrification of 80/20 principle... except the 80% part really does do something. The 20% wouldn't exist as effectively without the 80%.

Nonetheless, that 80% part is safe, perhaps too safe. That's where the other 20% comes in to play, and IMHO, is essential.

I would never use rone completely alone. It has some serious downsides. I've never liked the effects I've gotten from wearing rone alone.

I don't think there's a modern equivalent to James Bond, btw, which is really too bad. Many younger no idea what the heck I mean.

Everything now is "Metrosexuals", which I take to mean something akin to a Boy George that likes girls? In fact, I just saw a magazine, I think Details... that proclaimed the DEATH of the Alpha Male, and why this is good thing.

Doesn't matter, though, I think the James Bond type aura will always continue to succeed, much beyond any fad. It's almost an archetypical ideal, an image of permanent, sustained value.

When you strip Bond down to his essentials, his nickers... all you've got is someone who's stable, competent and stylish. That comes along with a dash of excitement, and the ability to get even more exciting and down and dirty at a moment's notice.

If you cross images - have the image of a bad boy, and the pheromonal image of someone competent, that may work. Sometimes "completeness" or playing the two sides is important. On the other side of the coin, sometimes congruency is very important.

With androstenone, for instance, I'd worry about the person who likes like a pipsqueek, maybe "Clark Kent" (superman was wussyboy), and the big muscle, strength & aggression aura that -none gives you. They're going to invite some very unfavorable aggression.

With -none, you really have to match the part with your dress and behavior or you could be LITERALLY asking for trouble.

With a mostly -rone mix, not sure it matters so much.

In fact, what I like most about A314 is that I can dress down, and still be treated like I dressed up. Taken very seriously, given respect, maybe even more respect than I deserve. Still deferred to (the "social right of way", letting me go first). Still treated, perhaps, like I was 10-20 olders than I am, rich than I am, and more important than I am.

Futurist October 5th, 2005 05:25 AM

Re: Evolutionary psychology: -Rone men and -None Men
Regarding conguency, I'm not sure if you've seen studies that basically said attractive men got more benefit from synthetic mones than average guys. At the same time, with women, I believe smell is less beneficial for attractive women, based on something I read.

Both make sense, it's really all logical. Attractive women are already attractive and won't invoke as great of a percentage change in attraction caused in the target as an average gal. I believe this study may not have involved synthetics, though.

As far as guys go, you smell good, she likes how you look, she's going to be attracted. Smell good, not her type lookswise, she's not necessarily going to get over that.

Regarding completeness, I think the best advice for someone starting from pheromones from scratch is to pick pheromones opposite of their natural persona/vibe. Experiment, and "work your way down" meaning, start shifting the balance of your mix toward pheromones that already signal what you signal. Just my thoughts.

MHarris October 5th, 2005 05:55 AM

Re: Evolutionary psychology: -Rone men and -None Men
Yes, that's an interesting study.

Of course, they haven't studied every pheromone in the same context. I don't have it in front of me, so I don't know which ones they used, but it's still very interesting.

It's also peculiar that women tend to wear what's basically a 'chatty' pheromone. Women tend to be friendlier and more open to chatting in the first place.... their vibe is basically very adrostenol-like in the first place.

If anything, you'd think the effects of androstenol would help the MORE attractive women. The women that make men so tongue tied, that it's the rare man that will speak with them.

I basically agree with your completeness observations, except when it comes to androstenone. I really think you need to match that with your attitude, clothing, etc., or you're in for trouble.

I'd rather see a biker wearing high levels of -none, than a computer nerd. I think the computer nerd would be far better off using microdoses of -none, at least until their set of social behaviors could be expanded.

Androstenone, I think, has to "make sense" to those around you in the context of who you appear to be. More than most of the other pheromones.

Futurist October 5th, 2005 06:20 AM

Re: Evolutionary psychology: -Rone men and -None Men
Androstenone is the tricky one, yet it's basically what drives a lot of attraction in phero mixes. It appears to me, because of this, and the ease of use of nol, that it's why women seem to have higher success rates with synethetics then men.

Regarding androstenone though, I'm anything but intimidating. I still draw respect and friendliness from men though, generally.

When I wear too much -none, I still get signs of respect from men, sometimes them supplicating. Very rarely have I had -none problems with men in terms of them getting agitated, except with some bouncers. But if anything, -none has made me the aggressive one, when I should be watching myself considering I'd probably get my ass kicked.

I'm just not sure the visual and the automatic fear factor -none produces always have to match (sometimes so quick, automatic, removed from logic) but that's just in my own experiences.

I still haven't figured out my natural none product. PI doesn't work for me well, AE either (too much none?) yet my more successful mixes in terms of ridiculous sort of attraction usually involve npa, using none levels that might match the ae or pi application.

All times are GMT +3. The time now is 04:09 PM.

(c) 2002-2015 Androtics Pheromone Research

All Rights Reserved Internationally

Page generated in 0.06184 seconds with 12 queries