The results area includes the

facts, the discussion section includes the scientists conclusions. If you're confused, stick with the facts

(A in your little comparison). The second statement seemed to include both pheromones in one statement,

which is strange to do when you have differing results that contradict what you're saying.

As for the -mones

having more impact on the attractive...I'd say that that has a lot to do with the "nothing to lose" factor. If

you're not attractive, you'll still have that stigma going for you no matter what. You can't really move down

too much, and -mones are just an "edge" to get someone to like you more. However, when you're attractive, there's

a lot more room to move. The stakes are higher. The difference between, "Wow, he's hot..." and, "I want to @*#$

him now!" is very small. Also, many things can turn a woman off... "I can't go out with someone shorter than me,"

for instance (recent post, of course). The tables can go against you if she just gets the thought into her head

that you're not all that (i.e. you look like a snobby prick when wearing -none...who'll want you then?). It's

like rating sports superstars. When you suck, you suck. There's no, "Well, he sucks, but if he hit a homerun

tomorrow he'd be pretty good." No, you'd consider it a fluke and still think he sucks unless he kept doing it.

(big movie reference helping me out here) However, if you're judging the great from the best in the world...

"Well, he has 3,000 hits, he's a hall of famer!!!" to not the best... "Well, he only had 2,997 hits. He had

nothing else going for him besides his hits, so now he was a great player but not hall of fame worthy." Three hits,

and *snap* it's gone.

I hope that explains the potential reasoning behind that part of the article. Any

thoughts?