If you had two people, one smart guy who had an intelligent answer for everything, and another who was only 1/3 rd as intelligent but wore pheromones who would be less likely to get picked on / bullied , in an argument/debate?

Backtrack for me a bit. A relationship exists between intelligence and who gets picked-on/bullied in an argument/debate?

I don't think Pheromones would make much of a difference. Subject matter and public perception would probably have a greater influence.

Just a comment: in intelligence as measured in IQ there is nothing like 1/3: the average is 100 scores, with 70% so less than a third below a person is nearly incapable of participation in the normal life. Think of Forrest Gump. If you are 1/5 better thanks a average your already belong to the top minority, and I think only like 1000 people of 7 billion are above 140 or 150.
So a small advantage can make a big difference. I think the same principle is true for mones. They give you a small some percentage benefit but that's all you need to make the run.
If you allow me to add to your setting: One guy is really smart but has no social intelligence, bad subcommunication (all from eye contact, body language, mone signature, dressing,personal hygiene, tonality, selection of words ...) and one is less smart but has good social intelligence and good control of the subcommunication: the second one wins, imho.

You don't think pheromones could help with the intimidation factor? Think A314 in its prime years. I've defeated some very smart deca-millionaires in debates with it due to the fear/respect factor. When I say defeat I didn't mean they walked out as pussies.. I mean they went along with my perception and my side of the argument when they could of easily picked a RICH and SMART associates whose opinion was of difference to mine. Lots of money was at stake and they took my side... Some mones induce fear, jealousy etc.. think even original m3x as a sexual... when you're getting all the attention from women some smart rich guys get jealous angry (call women sluts in corporate world) and even get FIRED from their jobs if they're out of line... when people feel fear/jealousy or other human weaknesses they don't think properly.

Remember how Kasparov lost to Deep Blue? The reason was his intimidation factor was gone.

I see a debate and an argument as distinctly different things. A debate entails point-counterpoint, mutual respect and consideration, and honor. In a formalized and honorable debate, pheromones, only adding a few percentage points to perceptions, won't make up for a person being more qualified to answer, having superior points, better knowledge, and putting their points forth in a better fashion.

But, as you also used the term argument, and then added picked on / bullied, and then mentioned intimidation factors in a subsequent post, I think you were referring to what I would define as an argument, and a hostile one at that. In an argument, where the goal is to voice one's displeasure of another, their views, or their actions; and convince or browbeat them into adopting your preferred outlook or course of action, then pheromones would help with (or to lessen) the intimidation factor, the perception of the other party feeling they could run, roughshod, over the other, etc.

However, with your statistics given: 100 % versus 33%, the 1/3 party won't be given that much of an advantage in the 1/1 party's perceptions of them. In addition to that, you also have the fact that a debate is about the topic and arguments tend to be about, or ultimately boil down to, the people in question. One is about point of view and the other is about perceptions. If somebody perceives another in a certain fashion, pheromones aren't going to instantly alter that perception.

(11-03-2019 8:00 PM)Marcus Antonius Wrote:  and I think only like 1000 people of 7 billion are above 140 or 150.

Dont mean to be rude but this isn't just wrong, it's wrong of a huge magnitude.I hope you haven't scored that high because I can't imagine how it would be to believe you are in the 1000 smartest people on earth

Also those online tests, Mensa's included give higher IQ results than 'reality', you can easily subtract 10 points or do an official test.
I agree with everything else.

Do pheromones win out over being more contextually and immediately correct than someone else?

Pheromones sometimes carry with them a very highly important immediacy. A high none intimidating blend is very stressful for both the wearer and those around the wearer, and brings the attention of all parties to the immediate moment, the tension in the air. This can distract people from the greater context of the experience, resulting in a momentary contextual ignorance that can be exploited.

Thinking about this though, I dont know how much high status sigs really do for people. If you dont have the wealth or knowledge or ability to back up the sig to a significant degree, people ghost. A lots been said about this. To me pheromones here are going to be net destructive to the whole experience, but will they overwhelm someone else in conversation whose actually building off a better sense of things than the wearer? occasionally.

Winning an argument/debate/discussion is mostly about perception and has little to do with truth. Being congruent with a status pheromone is probably the best way to win.

(Yesterday 8:21 PM)arrhenius Wrote:  Pheromones sometimes carry with them a very highly important immediacy. A high none intimidating blend is very stressful for both the wearer and those around the wearer, and brings the attention of all parties to the immediate moment, the tension in the air. This can distract people from the greater context of the experience, resulting in a momentary contextual ignorance that can be exploited.

Great way to put it.

(Yesterday 10:46 PM)metaltree Wrote:  Winning an argument/debate/discussion is mostly about perception and has little to do with truth. Being congruent with a status pheromone is probably the best way to win.

This is true but the OP question is a very black and white question while in reality a lot of parameters play a role.
If the difference in intelligence is that much as dsouza describes then my vote is on the intelligent one, because there is too much difference for mones to cover.

But the way the less intelligent one carries himself plays a big role, if he is wearing an intimidating formula and he is tall, muscular, masculine face, threatening he could shortcircuit the intelligent one if he is the stereotypical smart guy eg no muscles, no indimidation etc.
That doesn't necessarily mean that he won the argument because of what arrhenius is describing, the tension could ruin the moment for everyone, so they may see it as a bad moment.
If it was only the 2 of them then probably the smart one would feel that he lost the argument.

On the other hand you could have that stereotypical smart guy but for some reason he may not get indimidated at all, then if he pushes intellectually on the non intelligent one he is likely to 'win'.

The argument is won mainly by how you carry yourself and your words, but what you say and the objective truth plays a role too.You can't say 100% bullshit and expect to win an argument with a smart guy, but that requires that smart guy to be focused and confident, otherwise he wouldn't be able to fully access his resources.

So, yes, a good formula, congruence with it and a generally good debate attitude can cover for some lost intelligence but nothing is absolute.