Andrew Huberman· PhD
the one pheromone effect that I'm very aware of from the published literature is a paper that was published in 1998 by Stern and McClintock which was getting at this question of synchronization of menstrual cycles.
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
the one pheromone effect that I'm very aware of from the published literature is a paper that was published in 1998 by Stern and McClintock which was getting at this question of synchronization of menstrual cycles.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
what they did actually was they took females, they charted their cycles, and then they had other females wear pads in their armpits and they collected sweat from those females, and then they took the sweat from those pads in those female's armpits, and they introduced them to women who had never had contact with the people who had sweated, they only had contact with their sweat, in fact, they swabbed it underneath their nose