You may have figured that I love Marvel's Captain America. Of note, I recently watched the latest Captain America movie. Hence, the inspiration for this post.
What can I say? This movie made me think about a few things... of note, this movie showed the Captain American character before and after the radical change. The before version of Captain America was short and scrawny; never made it in life; would not even be selected for normal duties even though he offered himself for service... This before version of Captain America made me think about how there were times when my self-esteem was lower during which I felt out-of-depth, uncool, silly et cetera. On the other hand, the after version of Captain America was taller, better looking, successful (in getting his girl), slightly happier and certainly more confident. This after version of Captain America made me think of the times when my self-esteem was more robust during which I felt like nothing could get me down.
There was another part of the movie when Captain America's new sidekick said something along the lines of "Don't look at me. I just do what he does, just slower". It made me think about the times when the spotlight reluctantly fell on me not because I was good but I was needed then. At that moment, I felt like I was playing second fiddle and I was there just to make up the numbers. And, perhaps, uncomfortable about playing second fiddle.
I like the aging process more for the mature perspective that age brings. I currently feel more comfortable in my own skin. In our own lives, we always play the lead character to our immediate families, our friends and others. In some other people's lives, we may just play second fiddle -- or a less important role -- but that's okay because I do not feel that we need to be everyone to everybody. There is no need to feel that you are born to meet everybody's needs and, importantly, you are not 100% responsible for picking up the pieces because someone else had made a poor decision. I constantly need to remind myself that we cannot keep playing the lead roles because it will simply exhaust us. We cannot give more of ourselves when we are simply exhausted. We should just be happy about all the roles we play because it may seem insignificant but it is not non-significant. (The words may seem identical but the meanings cannot be more different.)
There is a saying, "Not enough when compared with others who are better than yourself but more than enough when compared with others who are worse off than yourself." It is merely a matter of perspective. But is that self-comfort? I don't know. Regardless, I know that it is a fact. Nevertheless, will such a saying foster a sense of complacency? I don't know. All I know is that we should learn to give ourselves a break. If we can be kind to ourselves, life can be less stressful and we can all be happier.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Parapsychology
I would have been a parapsychologist if I was less practical about how I could put food on the table. Who would pay for my services? Many years ago when I was at the crossroads working out how to live out the rest of life, I found psychology -- in particular parapsychology -- and law to be my top two interests. I did not make it in law... I also did not make it to become a parapsychologist... I am definitely not qualified to tell you about what it is... However, I am qualified to say that even if I passed the hurdle of "food on the table", I would probably die of a heart attack while on the job. My heart is too weak for parapsychology work.
Let's see what Wikipedia has to say...
So, readers, what is your religion? What is your cultural background? Do you believe in afterlife? Do you believe that there are ghosts? If you do not believe in ghosts, what do you do if you meet one? Do NOT, for a second, equate absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
Years ago, when I did my research about parapsychology as a possible career choice, I did think really hard about the questions I had just asked you. Of course, I asked more questions (like "who pays a parapsychologist?"). As much as the questions turned me away from the such a career path, it helped pushed me towards safe choices. I guess I am forever playing the "safe choices" (we'll talk about that later).
For me, I believe that there is a god or maybe a higher power... One who yields greater power than I do... And I also believe that, for every positive power, there has to be a negative power -- this way, our world/universe is close to neutral with slight inclination to the positive side. Back to childhood talk about good vs bad... a little in line with the Marvel comics which are starting to gain some interest.
In my culture, we believe in reincarnation, we believe in afterlife... How do we commit to these beliefs? I have heard stories about it... Such beliefs are passed on from generation to generation. Do I believe these absurd stuff (being a modern individual). I DO even though I had never seen any evidence (i.e., absence of evidence) of the same. Maybe you think that I am just easily suggestible, easily swayed/hoodwinked, etc...
Why am I so committed to these beliefs? Going along the lines of forensic psychology, maybe I will be less committed to these beliefs if there is evidence of absence. I shall give you another reason but this is a longwinded explanation... I remember a psychiatrist talking about how he had attended a workshop about Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Now, most people agree about how irrational some of these OCD anxieties can be. In order to illustrate the "irrational" point, the workshop presenter challenged all workshop attendees to write on a piece of paper something ridiculous like "everyone in my family will die". Even though attendees understand that just by writing down does not mean that things will happen that way (much like I had written down "I want to be a millionaire" -- don't bother, doesn't work), most (if not all) attendees did not write it down. Does this mean that the attendees are superstitious? Silly? Ridiculous? Irrational? No. I think that it is only human to try to avoid these negative things whether or not believe they are there. I mean how many people would have the guts to buy a home near a cemetery (BTW, there is actually a new housing development in Nudgee QLD near the cemetery. Went to see it. Nope, did not place a deposit -- psychological barrier.)
I am only human to avoid parapsychology as a field of study and a career path because I know that I will have a heart attack whether or not I see a ghost. I am only human. I am not god. I fear the unknown. I get stressed by the unknown. Maybe that is why life is grinding to a halt because I opened the door that leads to "security" (and maybe also invited mediocrity into my life as well) which inadvertently closed the door to opportunities and excitement. Maybe when I am more comfortable in my own skin, I can venture into less safe options. My dear readers, sorry, I strayed from parapsychology (which is an ultra interesting field of study) in my bid to motivate you (definitely less interesting if you have a tendency to procrastinate or choose safe options).
Let's see what Wikipedia has to say...
Parapsychology is a field of study concerned with the investigation of paranormal and psychic phenomena. Parapsychologists study telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, near-death experiences, reincarnation, apparitional experiences, and other supernatural and paranormal claims.
(For the full article, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology.)
So, readers, what is your religion? What is your cultural background? Do you believe in afterlife? Do you believe that there are ghosts? If you do not believe in ghosts, what do you do if you meet one? Do NOT, for a second, equate absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
Years ago, when I did my research about parapsychology as a possible career choice, I did think really hard about the questions I had just asked you. Of course, I asked more questions (like "who pays a parapsychologist?"). As much as the questions turned me away from the such a career path, it helped pushed me towards safe choices. I guess I am forever playing the "safe choices" (we'll talk about that later).
For me, I believe that there is a god or maybe a higher power... One who yields greater power than I do... And I also believe that, for every positive power, there has to be a negative power -- this way, our world/universe is close to neutral with slight inclination to the positive side. Back to childhood talk about good vs bad... a little in line with the Marvel comics which are starting to gain some interest.
In my culture, we believe in reincarnation, we believe in afterlife... How do we commit to these beliefs? I have heard stories about it... Such beliefs are passed on from generation to generation. Do I believe these absurd stuff (being a modern individual). I DO even though I had never seen any evidence (i.e., absence of evidence) of the same. Maybe you think that I am just easily suggestible, easily swayed/hoodwinked, etc...
Why am I so committed to these beliefs? Going along the lines of forensic psychology, maybe I will be less committed to these beliefs if there is evidence of absence. I shall give you another reason but this is a longwinded explanation... I remember a psychiatrist talking about how he had attended a workshop about Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Now, most people agree about how irrational some of these OCD anxieties can be. In order to illustrate the "irrational" point, the workshop presenter challenged all workshop attendees to write on a piece of paper something ridiculous like "everyone in my family will die". Even though attendees understand that just by writing down does not mean that things will happen that way (much like I had written down "I want to be a millionaire" -- don't bother, doesn't work), most (if not all) attendees did not write it down. Does this mean that the attendees are superstitious? Silly? Ridiculous? Irrational? No. I think that it is only human to try to avoid these negative things whether or not believe they are there. I mean how many people would have the guts to buy a home near a cemetery (BTW, there is actually a new housing development in Nudgee QLD near the cemetery. Went to see it. Nope, did not place a deposit -- psychological barrier.)
I am only human to avoid parapsychology as a field of study and a career path because I know that I will have a heart attack whether or not I see a ghost. I am only human. I am not god. I fear the unknown. I get stressed by the unknown. Maybe that is why life is grinding to a halt because I opened the door that leads to "security" (and maybe also invited mediocrity into my life as well) which inadvertently closed the door to opportunities and excitement. Maybe when I am more comfortable in my own skin, I can venture into less safe options. My dear readers, sorry, I strayed from parapsychology (which is an ultra interesting field of study) in my bid to motivate you (definitely less interesting if you have a tendency to procrastinate or choose safe options).
Monday, April 14, 2014
The irony of behaviour management...
I am a victim of my circumstance...
A few months ago, I tried to train my guinea pigs. I wanted to get down to basics. So, I did some Pavlovian conditioning. I would ring the bell, then leave some nice fresh food for my pigs. But, I am obviously not doing any psychology experiments. Thus, the lazy me left the bell in their apartment (read cage). So, what is happening now?
They are taking turns to ring the bell whenever I am home to communicate to me that I need to get them some fresh food.
The irony of the behaviour management is this... in order to control effectively, both parties must be controlled. Why? Think about the scenario of a dog trainer teaching a dog a new trick. Dog does the trick, dog trainer will give the treat. Thus, over time, the dog will continue to do the trick contingent upon being given the treat (by the trainer). Of course, the dog trainer does not have to do this for 10 years. The dog trainer merely needs to do it till the behaviour has been learned.
**Note: This post does not go into the complexities of conditioning. Maybe next time...
A few months ago, I tried to train my guinea pigs. I wanted to get down to basics. So, I did some Pavlovian conditioning. I would ring the bell, then leave some nice fresh food for my pigs. But, I am obviously not doing any psychology experiments. Thus, the lazy me left the bell in their apartment (read cage). So, what is happening now?
They are taking turns to ring the bell whenever I am home to communicate to me that I need to get them some fresh food.
The irony of the behaviour management is this... in order to control effectively, both parties must be controlled. Why? Think about the scenario of a dog trainer teaching a dog a new trick. Dog does the trick, dog trainer will give the treat. Thus, over time, the dog will continue to do the trick contingent upon being given the treat (by the trainer). Of course, the dog trainer does not have to do this for 10 years. The dog trainer merely needs to do it till the behaviour has been learned.
**Note: This post does not go into the complexities of conditioning. Maybe next time...
Affluenza - Has it struck you (yet)?
I have been having a problem -- a case of mild affluenza. Interestingly, I do not think that one needs to be affluent to suffer from affluenza because I am not affluent by a long shot. My definition of measure of affluence is, as dictionary.com has it, "having an an abundance of wealth, property, or other material goods; prosperous; rich". I have debts -- not mounting but enough to suffocate me at times.
According to Wikipedia, the book Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic defines affluenza as "a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, debt, anxiety, and waste resulting from the dogged pursuit of more."[1]
So, is it painful? Yes and No. There is something nice about it depending on what you buy.
Is it contagious? Can be. Have you ever bought something so good that you wax lyrically about it to someone else? What happens the next minute? That person buys it. The thing is that, by talking about it, it creates a desire for someone to own it or maybe even own something similar (better or worse is irrelevant). This is the power of advertising -- word-of-mouth or whatever is also irrelevant. I am thinking about how many people around had bought a Kambrook BlitzToGo or similar. Thus, this condition of affluenza is definitely a socially transmitted condition.
Overload? Of course.
Debt? Not always. There are always people who choose to buy not on credit card. But having said that, surely the purchase price can go into the home loan or a donation.
Anxiety? No. My purchases only bring me joy. At times, it also makes life easier for me (think smartphones, think phablets). I never get anxious about how to use something. I was born with a microchip in my brain to use these gadgets -- no anxiety there...
Waste. Oh yes, definitely. Bought a phablet when my smartphone was working. Bought a tablet when my laptop was working. Oops! Duplication in my life, no wonder my wireless modem network router is not working properly -- it is overloaded. So, because I go out and buy so many doodads, I need to now buy a new wireless modem network router. BTW, you need to know that affluenza is not only financially draining, it can also wear you down emotionally (think the agonising over which specific model of doodad), intellectually (think about the analytical research about what will best meet your needs) and physically (notice the bag is heavier and, maybe, it's time to entertain the idea of a new bag).
Arrrgghhhhh.... Worse of all, I do not want to waste the working devices by throwing them away... so I keep them.... Now, what does this make me? Think what can possibly be worse than someone who has affluenza? An affluenza sufferer who HOARDS.
Okay, I need to change for the better... Decrease my hoarding... then attempt to sneeze hard at all the new gadgets that I want BUT DO NOT NEED. I am struggling with the concept of want because it can easily be changed to a need. BTW, I can always convince myself that I need a thermomix to be healthy. If I do not use it, I am sure that the pressure cooker in the garage (which I had only bought two months ago) can use the company. See, no waste!?
According to Wikipedia, the book Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic defines affluenza as "a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, debt, anxiety, and waste resulting from the dogged pursuit of more."[1]
So, is it painful? Yes and No. There is something nice about it depending on what you buy.
Is it contagious? Can be. Have you ever bought something so good that you wax lyrically about it to someone else? What happens the next minute? That person buys it. The thing is that, by talking about it, it creates a desire for someone to own it or maybe even own something similar (better or worse is irrelevant). This is the power of advertising -- word-of-mouth or whatever is also irrelevant. I am thinking about how many people around had bought a Kambrook BlitzToGo or similar. Thus, this condition of affluenza is definitely a socially transmitted condition.
Overload? Of course.
Debt? Not always. There are always people who choose to buy not on credit card. But having said that, surely the purchase price can go into the home loan or a donation.
Anxiety? No. My purchases only bring me joy. At times, it also makes life easier for me (think smartphones, think phablets). I never get anxious about how to use something. I was born with a microchip in my brain to use these gadgets -- no anxiety there...
Waste. Oh yes, definitely. Bought a phablet when my smartphone was working. Bought a tablet when my laptop was working. Oops! Duplication in my life, no wonder my wireless modem network router is not working properly -- it is overloaded. So, because I go out and buy so many doodads, I need to now buy a new wireless modem network router. BTW, you need to know that affluenza is not only financially draining, it can also wear you down emotionally (think the agonising over which specific model of doodad), intellectually (think about the analytical research about what will best meet your needs) and physically (notice the bag is heavier and, maybe, it's time to entertain the idea of a new bag).
Arrrgghhhhh.... Worse of all, I do not want to waste the working devices by throwing them away... so I keep them.... Now, what does this make me? Think what can possibly be worse than someone who has affluenza? An affluenza sufferer who HOARDS.
Okay, I need to change for the better... Decrease my hoarding... then attempt to sneeze hard at all the new gadgets that I want BUT DO NOT NEED. I am struggling with the concept of want because it can easily be changed to a need. BTW, I can always convince myself that I need a thermomix to be healthy. If I do not use it, I am sure that the pressure cooker in the garage (which I had only bought two months ago) can use the company. See, no waste!?
Friday, April 11, 2014
Sharks teaching us about "Survival of the Fittest"
There is something about sharks that I dislike. Possibly because I was traumatised by "Jaws" the movie when I was a kid but, watching it as an adult, I don't understand why I was traumatised by it. The plot was believable, the acting was poor and unrealistic... BTW, I did not watch "Sharknado" either because the plot is too unrealistic and, yes, the acting was poor... I would rather watch "Game of Thrones" than "Sharknado" any day.
In this post, I would like to draw your attention to sharks... not because I am trying to conquer my trauma... but rather because I find them fascinating on many levels...
Firstly, in many living species, the female chooses to mate with the best male around. However, the female sharks in the following article (http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/30/shark-dads-lose-babies-to-unborn-cannibal-siblings/) actually mates with different males; then "chooses" (I don't know how they do it) which sperms will fertilise her eggs. Now, she may well choose the sperm of more than one male. That being the case, the offspring will have to fight for survival or, some may read it, nature makes its selection of the winner. Now, this fight involves cannibalism -- so please move away from "Hunger Games" type storyline because there is only one victor for each womb (there are only two wombs).
It fascinates me that these adult male sharks that mated with the adult female sharks obviously had fought their way from embryo to adulthood. Yet how interesting that some of these males may somehow become excluded from the future gene pool because they are deemed by the female sharks and nature to be less fit (if not unfit).
Next leap of thought: "Does that mean that the gene pool over time will be quite restricted?" If the gene pool is restricted, does that not mean that the specie will really be better or worse?
While scientists are busy with genome and other associated research, the intellectuals are battling out the ethics. In the midst of it all, there has been much talk about creating the perfect human. As humans continue to push the scientific-medical frontier for a chance to play god and away from nature, will we one day have a limited gene pool in which some of us will completely be exterminated while the best of us remains? If this restricted gene pool comes about, does that not also mean that in the event of a flurry of viral or otherwise mutations, the human specie may be wiped out? Maybe I am straying too far from my topic... but no harm thinking... afterall, all my thoughts can co-exist because no one thought can cannibalise my other thoughts... Oops, another thought is whether some mother sharks may suffer from antenatal depression?
You may also like to read:
In this post, I would like to draw your attention to sharks... not because I am trying to conquer my trauma... but rather because I find them fascinating on many levels...
Firstly, in many living species, the female chooses to mate with the best male around. However, the female sharks in the following article (http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/30/shark-dads-lose-babies-to-unborn-cannibal-siblings/) actually mates with different males; then "chooses" (I don't know how they do it) which sperms will fertilise her eggs. Now, she may well choose the sperm of more than one male. That being the case, the offspring will have to fight for survival or, some may read it, nature makes its selection of the winner. Now, this fight involves cannibalism -- so please move away from "Hunger Games" type storyline because there is only one victor for each womb (there are only two wombs).
It fascinates me that these adult male sharks that mated with the adult female sharks obviously had fought their way from embryo to adulthood. Yet how interesting that some of these males may somehow become excluded from the future gene pool because they are deemed by the female sharks and nature to be less fit (if not unfit).
Next leap of thought: "Does that mean that the gene pool over time will be quite restricted?" If the gene pool is restricted, does that not mean that the specie will really be better or worse?
While scientists are busy with genome and other associated research, the intellectuals are battling out the ethics. In the midst of it all, there has been much talk about creating the perfect human. As humans continue to push the scientific-medical frontier for a chance to play god and away from nature, will we one day have a limited gene pool in which some of us will completely be exterminated while the best of us remains? If this restricted gene pool comes about, does that not also mean that in the event of a flurry of viral or otherwise mutations, the human specie may be wiped out? Maybe I am straying too far from my topic... but no harm thinking... afterall, all my thoughts can co-exist because no one thought can cannibalise my other thoughts... Oops, another thought is whether some mother sharks may suffer from antenatal depression?
You may also like to read:
- http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/07/science/in-shark-womb-fetus-cannibalizes-rivals.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_(zoology)
Rethink on mental health funding...
Things run in cycles... fashion comes, goes then returns (e.g., think polka dots, bell bottoms)...
The following article about rethinking mental health funding makes me wonder about how a budget issue can be so poorly managed -- http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/2014/04/10/11/00/small-changes-a-big-help-for-dementia. The answer is obvious -- politicians do not know, they may not care and/or they simply do not understand.
One of the biggest issues I have with modern and civilised world is that a majority of people give away a lot of their rights (including money) so that a minority of people can govern the majority (if not everyone). Governing includes activities such as legislating (hopefully for the benefit of everyone, but possibly only benefits some if not most) then budgeting how to spend the money contributed by the majority.
Politics is really the art of governing... In the modern era and true democracies, if you govern well (according to the perceptions of the majority), you will hopefully get another term in the government.
My biggest problem with politicians is that they are expected to the moderators of everything about their respective countries -- ranging from economy to foreign policies etc. My other problem is that politicians work for their political party. Yet, in psychology, we know that the biggest leaps are almost always made when we COOPERATE rather than COMPETE. When we cooperate, we achieve more. In the animal kingdom, predators hunt in packs while preys stick together. Think Google, how much has Google achieved as a group of tech wizards!
Now, the case in point is that us, as a majority, elected the minority (the government) that will decide on budget of health care and the specifics of what goes where. My problem is that I don't expect politicians to know exactly where the money should go... but I wish they would consult the health practitioners before making such decisions.
Everyone knows that short-term cuts can lead to long-term future debts. Early intervention rarely attracts any money because every government tries to fix the mess left by the previous goverments. However, if ever, there is a progressive society that is willing to fork out more for early interventions plus current treatments, I hypothesise that future debt may well. Having said that, maybe there may be more modern day illness not previously seen.
Other health care issues in political spotlight include:
The following article about rethinking mental health funding makes me wonder about how a budget issue can be so poorly managed -- http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/2014/04/10/11/00/small-changes-a-big-help-for-dementia. The answer is obvious -- politicians do not know, they may not care and/or they simply do not understand.
One of the biggest issues I have with modern and civilised world is that a majority of people give away a lot of their rights (including money) so that a minority of people can govern the majority (if not everyone). Governing includes activities such as legislating (hopefully for the benefit of everyone, but possibly only benefits some if not most) then budgeting how to spend the money contributed by the majority.
Politics is really the art of governing... In the modern era and true democracies, if you govern well (according to the perceptions of the majority), you will hopefully get another term in the government.
My biggest problem with politicians is that they are expected to the moderators of everything about their respective countries -- ranging from economy to foreign policies etc. My other problem is that politicians work for their political party. Yet, in psychology, we know that the biggest leaps are almost always made when we COOPERATE rather than COMPETE. When we cooperate, we achieve more. In the animal kingdom, predators hunt in packs while preys stick together. Think Google, how much has Google achieved as a group of tech wizards!
Now, the case in point is that us, as a majority, elected the minority (the government) that will decide on budget of health care and the specifics of what goes where. My problem is that I don't expect politicians to know exactly where the money should go... but I wish they would consult the health practitioners before making such decisions.
Everyone knows that short-term cuts can lead to long-term future debts. Early intervention rarely attracts any money because every government tries to fix the mess left by the previous goverments. However, if ever, there is a progressive society that is willing to fork out more for early interventions plus current treatments, I hypothesise that future debt may well. Having said that, maybe there may be more modern day illness not previously seen.
Other health care issues in political spotlight include:
- In America, the emerging issues with the contraversial Obamacare. See http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24370967.
- In Australia (Queensland), the ongoing issues of state government trying to reign in health budget by cutting jobs. See http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-08/loss-of-thousands-of-queensland-health-jobs-condemned/4249934.
- The people who may suffer as a consequence of ill-informed political financial decisions. See http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cystic-fibrosis-sufferer-paul-mckean-fears-being-caught-in-queensland-doctor-saga-20140405-365f5.html.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Pheromone what? Pheromone Party....
It was interesting this afternoon as I was driving in to work, I was listening in to my favourite radio station 612 ABC. It was a brief segment about Pheromone Party. Studied a little about pheromones while in university... grown up in a culture that believes in arranged marriages... thrown myself into the modern 2014 bombarded with heaps of promises about love via speed dating, and now internet dating... So, what's next? Pheromone party, of course...
So, what is pheromone? No need for me to reinvent the wheel, ps read this Wikipedia article for more information -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheromone.
Now, more research are being conducted about pheromones. You may wish to read the following for some research in this area -- http://www.naturalattraction.com/research.html.
Research or not aside... I know of people who do talk about how scent can be attractive. This scent is not about the smell of that aftershave, eau de toilette or eau de parfum or whatever... It is that pheromone "scent" if you know what I mean. For some, this "scent" can be attractive or repulsive.
As much as I personally believe that pheromone attraction is natural, I also think that there are other factors at play. Thus, in short, if you are considering buying a pheromone spray (oh yes, they are being made as we speak -- just google it), I would suggest that you do not do so. Because pheromones are not the only consideration when it comes to long term relationships. There has to be more to it than pheromones to keep relationships together and alive.
Nevertheless, for those who are interested to ditch the speed dating or internet dating scenes, you may wants to check this video out -- http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/pheromone-parties-19928010.
So, what is pheromone? No need for me to reinvent the wheel, ps read this Wikipedia article for more information -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheromone.
Now, more research are being conducted about pheromones. You may wish to read the following for some research in this area -- http://www.naturalattraction.com/research.html.
Research or not aside... I know of people who do talk about how scent can be attractive. This scent is not about the smell of that aftershave, eau de toilette or eau de parfum or whatever... It is that pheromone "scent" if you know what I mean. For some, this "scent" can be attractive or repulsive.
As much as I personally believe that pheromone attraction is natural, I also think that there are other factors at play. Thus, in short, if you are considering buying a pheromone spray (oh yes, they are being made as we speak -- just google it), I would suggest that you do not do so. Because pheromones are not the only consideration when it comes to long term relationships. There has to be more to it than pheromones to keep relationships together and alive.
Nevertheless, for those who are interested to ditch the speed dating or internet dating scenes, you may wants to check this video out -- http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/pheromone-parties-19928010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)