I will also add that it was likely a mistake to reference any laboratory-observed phenomena whatsoever, replicable or otherwise, with regard to such a topic. I

I will also add that it was likely a mistake to reference any laboratory-observed phenomena whatsoever, replicable or otherwise, with regard to such a topic. It would seem likely for there to be a bias against such references extant prior to any given proposition, the conflict between the common notion of the 'sterile' lab and 'bountiful' nature. Also, as with the case of Calhoun's experiments, zoo observations of 'alpha' wolves, or prior unrecognized variances between male and female experimenters with regards to rat subjects and pheromone exposure[1], there are more than enough 'plot holes' to provide psychological ammunition for the automatic dismissal of inconvenient propositions. [1] https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/scent-man-235492 https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/scent-man-23549... EDIT: Even so, it would have helped even more if my original example hadn't been functionally useless.