How much do you think nationality might impact your taste in fragrance?

[slpfrsly]

I was thinking about this earlier, over a mouthful of brussels sprouts (link relevant). Aside from cultural familiarity, how much does one's ethnicity play a part in shaping what you like and dislike in a perfume?

The reference to food is an obvious one to make. The trade of herbs and spices away from where they are cultivated has been taking place for thousands of years. Yet different regions - with different people, of course - use these ingredients in different proportions and for different purposes. Of course, it is easy to fall back on a social, historical, and even economic argument - people cooked with what was available, affordable, and already common. Yet it's undeniable that difference has occurred, to the point we have recognisable cuisines that can be categorised by continent, country, and region. Even without an understanding of the role in genetics, and how that can be used to explain differences in taste, we can see that groups of people share similar tastes within that group relative to other groups. There is a meme about British food being dull despite the Empire, which is mostly fallacious and ignores both religious temperance and genuine austerity for most people in the C19th and early C20th. Yet Britain is in fact a great example for this, as having conquered large parts of the world for several centuries, they had access to near enough every ingredient imaginable at the time. With that access, the local cuisine - and local ingredients - were often used to create dishes that were more appealing to the British palate. The Brit abroad did not naturalise his tastebuds to the local cuisine as much as he fused what was available to his existing sensibilies. A great example of this is curry; the creamy and rich gravies that are used in dishes that are notorious to large parts of the western world are a creation of the British Raj (before being transplanted back to Britain itself; tikka masala being the very definition of 'fusion' food, where curry was mixed with tomato soup). Even ignoring matters of imperialism, all spice is a common ingredient in British cooking, used in both sweet and savoury dishes: it is known as the 'English herb' in Polish. I'm sure there are many more examples for different places and peoples, and I would be interested in reading them - so please don't shy away from sharing them.

The point is, despite the cultural mixing and homogenising that has taken place in recent decades, we still maintain our preferences, diversity, and distinctions - for all sorts of reasons, including individuality. My question is: what role does nationality/ethnicity, if any, play in this when it comes to fragrance? Of course I am not demanding expert responses - thoughts, questions, and estimations are all welcome.

I suppose there is also a way to break the question down further, in to both wearer/buyer of the perfume, and the perfumer/house creating the perfume.
- How much does nationality impact the taste of the perfumer?
- How much does nationality impact the taste of the wearer?

For reference, consider the example of herbs and spices by nationality:

 

[ToughCool]

I like your post. Good discussion but overall I never think of any of this when buying. But I also am in my own world and don’t buy from say Middle Eastern brands or others where they might have a style. Not saying I’m purposefully excluding ME…just an example. Honestly I always assumed many houses try to add different “flavors” and that the hobby is world wide where no matter where you are you see different styles. Maybe I’m naive

 

[Ken_Russell]

Thank you for sharing this post.

And while recognizing or at least not fully excluding some notes and/or spice profile at least consistent with my region/country of birth and origin incidentally overlapping with some of my fragrance choices, strangely or not the personal fragrance hobby and the scents did own have helped even before joining BN, to further explore, wear, enjoy fragrances from a variety of countries, regions, cultures etc.

All or at least most quite different from the "default settings/preferences" of mine -being from a nation with not many cologne ladies/guys in the first place. And if scents are routinely worn as well as becoming designer/niche bestsellers, they differ a lot from the personal current selection.

 

[Pippin06]

Not at all.

 

[Bonnette]

Scent is a realm of its own to me, transcending considerations of this kind. Apart from having a general familiarity with the regions and botanical/biological groups where perfume ingredients are found, this question has never entered my mind.

 

[Pippin06]

Scent is a realm of its own to me, transcending considerations of this kind. Apart from having a general familiarity with the regions and botanical/biological groups where perfume ingredients are found, this question has never entered my mind.

Beautifully said. I completely agree.

 

[hednic]

To answer the thread question - in choice of fragrance origin and whether I buy it - everything. Otherwise, not important at all.

 

[Diddy]

My question is: what role does nationality/ethnicity, if any, play in this when it comes to fragrance?

Directly? None whatsoever. In fact, I would need to have a serious talk with myself should I ever conclude that the color of one’s skin gives me definitive insight on what fragrance that individual would like or dislike.

Indirectly? Likely. Our likes, dislikes, beliefs etc are all shaped by each of our life experiences. That can certainly be influenced by where we grew up and with whom we associated.

 

[Marty McFly]

I suspect minimally, but certainly >0. Clearly there are some regional differences in tastes which impact fragrances. The most obvious, in my mind, would be the prominence of oud in Middle Eastern fragrances. While oud has certainly grown in popularity in the Western world, it is undeniably more present (and has its origins in) the Eastern world. Perhaps the same is true for cumin. And maybe 'churchy' accords like fir/vanilla/tobacco combinations which many tend to associate with Christmas season, are more predominate in Europe and North America.

Brand marketing looks to exploit regional differences, and probably influences product placement. For some reason, Dior Homme Original and YSL Babycat are not available on the primary market in North America, but they are in Europe (though the rationale for this leaves me scratching my head.)

But it seems that many, if not most very popular fragrances are sold and appreciated everywhere in the world, so I would guess that a large proportion of what is "likeable" in fragrances is more universal and caters to the human animal in general, not just specific tribes of us.

 

[SixCats]

Hi Slp. You may find this thread I did a few years ago of interest.

SixCats! weird theory/hypothesis. Possible correlation between Food and Fragrances ?

Hi all, This theory/hypothesis of mine hit me like a bolt of Lightning tonight! I have no idea if there is any correlation between Food and Fragrances but, just for fun...... Many here at Basenotes know of my love of "Challenging/unique/strange/weird/odd/ off beat/stinky Fragrances...

basenotes.com

1. SixCats! weird theory/hypothesis. Possible correlation between Food and Fragrances ?​

   Hi all, This theory/hypothesis of mine hit me like a bolt of Lightning tonight! I have no idea if there is any correlation between Food and Fragrances but, just for fun...... Many here at Basenotes know of my love of "Challenging/unique/strange/weird/odd/ off beat/stinky Fragrances...
   • SixCats!
   • Thread
   • Mar 13, 2018
   • Replies: 33
   • Forum: Masculine Fragrance Discussion
   Regards,
   SixCats! (aka Tom in Maine)
   
   

 

[Renato]

Cuisines arose from what people grew in their regions, plus what spices they could get from the Spice Islands. Different soil types led to different plants and animals dominating certain regions. Over the centuries, the well known cuisines came about.

While most of the world has hooked onto European style perfumes, and they are now ubiquitous, there are still regional type perfumes which aren't ubiquitous around the world. When I'd visit Deira City Centre shopping mall in Dubai, one end of it has a very large number of shops selling solely Middle Eastern perfumes. They had very interesting rich smells - but I didn't buy any of them, as they were too wildly different from what I'm accustomed to.

Similarly, India has a big local perfume industry which I doubt has big sellers in the West.

So, I wouldn't say nationality and ethnicity per se has much to do with it, rather the bigger regions where the nationalities and ethnicities come from.
Regards,
Renato

 

[N.CAL Fragrance Reviewer]

Nationality has no determining factor in what fragrances I enjoy.

 

[Varanis Ridari]

People raised in isolation from their native cultures often instead grow to assimilate the cultures of those around them, as is something most often seen with orphans adopted into families of differing ethnicity. People who move around a lot (like Army brats) also tend to develop a composite taste and cultural identity too.

This goes from manner of speaking, to tastes in art and cuisine, and even religious beliefs. In fact, there is something to be said for people coming to the Americas (whether by choice or force), and developing their own unique culture and tastes separate from their ethnic origins as a result.
You needn't look further than places like Quebec, Louisiana, Texas, Baja Mexico, and others to find this.

Of course, there are beliefs antithetical to this idea (like odalism), that would have you think your entire existence can and should only be of the culture associated with your ethnicity and its origin place (where such beliefs would have you remain), but that kind of race and region based prescription sniffs of an altogether different and more sinister kind of bias unrelated to perfume.

 

[Ifti]

Have me feet in two worlds!

Not sure how much an effect it has had on me. Maybe some negative though. I noticed a period in younger life, when for whatever numerous reasons, I was averse to smells that would distinctively identify me as of a different heritage to the local. Big florals, nag champas, musky and that thing I still don't know what it is but comes across camphorous and a bit moth Bally!

I remember some relatives, wearing something strong like VCAPH, Trussardi Uomo and Leonard PH, along with fags lol and I didn't like it as a child. But kinda love em now!?

There likely are influences, perhaps more than any of us would like to admit, and all this nationality, heritage and culture talk is often a bit uncomfortable nowadays maybe?! I still hold that we're simple creatures who like to think ourselves complex and special 😮😬😊🤯

 

[ClockworkAlice]

Nice graphs, but whoever did the Northern/Eastern Europe one messed up badly. Caraway and sourcream are right, but the third one should be either garlic, onion, horseradish or some kind of animal fat, definitely not chili. No spicy food in the region historically/culturally, black pepper is the hottest spice in the cuisine and even that does not grow there naturally. It's very similar and closely knitted with European Jewish tbh. I wonder what else they did get wrong.

As for the question, I think people in the same region might tend to choose similar scents as a whole, but as individuals everyone's taste will differ. When you pick just one person from the group you don't know if their taste is more typical to the group or an outlier.

 

[Ifti]

. I wonder what else they did get wrong.

Oh yes can be quite dangerous and irksome generalisation. I just read something that made me cringe on another thread, along the lines of "some persons of a certain faith could wear this to xyz and ABC occasion". So many things wrong in that sort of statement and the only comfort is that it is an "innocent ignorance". Yikes.
Could we just all get to know each other actually and in real life. Corr! ranty ranty!

 

[Nastka]

Northern/Eastern Europe one messed up badly. Caraway and sourcream are right, but the third one should be either garlic, onion, horseradish or some kind of animal fat, definitely not chili. No spicy food in the region historically/culturally, black pepper is the hottest spice in the cuisine and even that does not grow there naturally.

They may have lumped Hungary into the Eastern European category, and I think they are partial to spicy paprika. But I do agree with your statement otherwise.

I have Polish / Silesian roots, and the cuisine in this region traditionally uses things like lard, onions, garlic, smoked meat (bacon and sausage), sour cream, caraway, marjoram, bay leaf and black pepper to add flavour to food.

 

[FOXHOUND]

I was thinking about this earlier, over a mouthful of brussels sprouts

I've never been hungry enough that I've had to eat Brussel Sprouts.

Hopefully I never will be.




That being said, I think you made an excellent post regarding this subject and the questions you asked regarding the perfumer and wearer of fragrances.

I didn't think about it until I read your post, but I can't help but wonder if certain herbs & spices affect how a perfumer decides to use them in a fragrance. In particular, a perfumer in a country/region that uses a lot of those same herbs & spices in the preparation and seasoning of their food on a regular basis. I wonder if that has a direct relation to how much or any at all of a particular herb or spice is used in a fragrance versus someone in another country/region who doesn't smell/use that particular herb or spice on a regular basis.

As far as the wearer, I don't think it would be as much of an issue. Saffron is one example I keep thinking of due to its widespread use in the Middle East and that general area, but not so much in the US, particularly in the southern US where I'm from.

 

[cheapimitation]

It is interesting to think about, the problem is, with none of us really being researchers in this field, we would purely be speculating on topics that we don't really know about. First, we would have to prove there is a correlation between the food we eat and how we like to smell. While it sounds plausible, there are often cases where things sound correct but turn out not to be (the correlation equals causation trap).

I study music so I can say more about that with authority. I was trying to think of an analogy, do the sounds around us influence the music we like/create? Possibly, but probably not definitively. Some studies have been done to correlate the sound of languages with the music produced by that culture but I'm not sure they've been definitive. I tend to think that in the origins of a cultural practice there is likely a connection to the environment explaining why things are the way they are. But over time as cuisine, music, or fragrance practice becomes its own thing, it may no longer have that simplistic correlation to other elements of the culture/environment. In music, for example, the sound of the violin is often likened to the closest instrument to the human voice. So the origins of the violin may have been something to do with trying to mimic the original instrument, the voice. But as violin repertoire builds on itself it is referencing previous violin repertoire and branches out along its own stream of development uncoupled from that original association to the voice. Go ahead and try to sing this. 😂

I mention this because I think it's relevant to fragrance. Let's take H24 for example, I feel it is a reaction against (or in the lineage of) blue fragrances, followed by musky ambroxan fragrances that dominated mainstream releases. An attempt to find a new freshness that feels different from what came immediately before yet still capturing the mass appealing qualities of those fragrances, which I don't think has anything to do with the modern culinary palette of French people. But, it is also billed as a "modern fougere", it is possible the fougere scent profile is related to what grows in the region, the smell of lavender being familiar, the types of herbs used in French cuisine. But now the development of the genre is many times removed from that.

Maybe this is getting off topic, but I think my point is because of this removal I suspect most everyone will report the answer is "no" that their culture's taste in cuisine does not effect their taste in fragrance. It is also such a global world now it becomes increasingly pointless to try to make any generalization based on cultural exposure when we are exposed to elements from a variety of cultures at all times. I know I am especially lucky living in NYC to have access to every possible cuisine I could imagine, so I don't even know what I'd consider "my cuisine". The amount of "American food" (if such a thing exists) I eat is maybe 5% of my diet. I suppose we could bring it back to your point and say the variety I experience with food is reflected in the variety of fragrances I enjoy 😂 , but I think that would be a tenuous correlation.

I am curious how people from more culturally homogenous areas feel. I would think the more important cultural element would be what kind of fragrances people around you wear/what is socially acceptable to wear in your area and what kind of fragrances you grew up smelling on people. It is likely that none of us consciously think about this when choosing what fragrances we like and we would need several sessions with a psychoanalyst to unpack it all.

 

[saminlondon]

Nice graphs, but whoever did the Northern/Eastern Europe one messed up badly.

France is messed up too. Basil? It's used but is hardly a defining ingredient.

(PS not exactly on-topic - apologies)

 

[PStoller]

Never mind the chart and its errors and/or biases. Our tastes are shaped by our experiences, which are in turn shaped by our surrounding cultures. I say “shaped” rather than “determined,” because there are so many random factors that keep our preferences individual, and so not entirely predictable.

My particular tastes in foods, for example, are not necessarily what one would assume based on my nationality and ethnicity, but there’s a certain cosmopolitan aspect to them as a whole that’s attributable to my growing up in NYC, and then having had the opportunity to travel. When so much is readily available to you, you think of it differently than if your local choices are more limited—in which case you might explore a narrower range more deeply.

Nationality? I wouldn’t generalize about what Americans like. I might have more in common in some respects with Londoners or Parisians than with denizens of rural Idaho or small town Alabama. Still, nationality is part of our environment, our culture, some aspect of our identity. We’re products first of our influences, and then of the way we process them.

Dumbing down regional cuisine to three spices, or regional fragrance to three notes, is simplistic. Still, it’s going to have an effect if everyone around you eats McDonald's and wears Brut. Even if the effect is to turn you into a vegan who wears Guerlain Héritage.

 

[festung_montblanc]

Nice graphs, but whoever did the Northern/Eastern Europe one messed up badly. Caraway and sourcream are right, but the third one should be either garlic, onion, horseradish or some kind of animal fat, definitely not chili. No spicy food in the region historically/culturally, black pepper is the hottest spice in the cuisine and even that does not grow there naturally. It's very similar and closely knitted with European Jewish tbh. I wonder what else they did get wrong.

As for the question, I think people in the same region might tend to choose similar scents as a whole, but as individuals everyone's taste will differ. When you pick just one person from the group you don't know if their taste is more typical to the group or an outlier.

I assume that is a reference to Hungarian cuisine?

 

[Zenwannabee]

I was born in the country of Brut and have been a lifelong fougere resident. 🙂

 

[ClockworkAlice]

I assume that is a reference to Hungarian cuisine?

Maybe, but they most often use sweet paprika instead of actual chili, too.
But yeah, Hungary is a little bit different from the bunch

 

[baklavaRuzh]

Wasn't there research done showing that vanilla and some other scent notes are more or less universally liked?

There are for sure regional trends and cultural norms and preferences that affect fragrance purchasing behavior, also when and how it's acceptable to wear fragrance. I don't think nationality, as in the passport(s) you hold, has any significant bearing.

Here are some random numbers to show regional and cultural differences:

U.S. Black and Hispanic consumers wear more fragrances than others, found NPD

 

[Ifti]

Ah.. I suppose therein also lies modernity's problem. Everything has to be formalised somewhat, data-fied, numerised, statistically-fied, codified...
"Data" and meaning I guess are two different things?

Maybe data and graphs which we hold up in high esteem are perhaps divorced from reality somewhat and thus skew our ideas.

I'm taking an idea from the utmost need to formalise and "bullet point" mostly theological stuff say 1800+ that skewifed the actual reality if these things.

Lol we've weaved and meandered far from the starting blocks!!

 

[sjg3839]

The only impact would probably be Memory Lane impact.

 

[PStoller]

The only impact would probably be Memory Lane impact.

Many perfumers talk about the influence of smells from their past, and how that drives them to create certain scents. I would think their customers are driven to purchase/wear by similar impulses, even if subconsciously.

It’s not the only impulse, but it’s not an insignificant one.

 

[AndyL]

A glance at the shopping patrons from the local department store fragrance counter would tell me no.

 

[PStoller]

Commercial perfumery is predominantly driven by major players from just a few countries: France, Italy, Spain, the UK, the US, maybe one or two others. Influences (ouds, ambers, etc.) and perfumers from other places abound, but unless you're local to those places—and perhaps even then—the influences likely arrive to you filtered through a relative handful of gatekeepers. So, that's going to skew the whole "nationality/taste" thing.

 

[AndyL]

Not meaning to get into semantics, but maybe culture instead of nationality. A culture can be identified by the language they speak, foods they eat, clothes the wear, customs carried out, etc… pleasing scents would probably fall into place within the same culture to some extent. But… I‘m 2nd generation Norwegian American yet I still love Taco Tuesdays… and thats just fine with me.

 

[baklavaRuzh]

Not meaning to get into semantics, but maybe culture instead of nationality. A culture can be identified by the language they speak, foods they eat, clothes the wear, customs carried out, etc… pleasing scents would probably fall into place within the same culture to some extent. But… I‘m 2nd generation Norwegian American yet I still love Taco Tuesdays… and thats just fine with me.

Norwegians seem to love tacos!

https://thenorwayguide.com/taco-friday/

 

[HMan]

A huge part of it for me is exploring things outside my experience, but there's another aspect that's rooted in those deep memories of childhood and youth. For sure that's influenced by the time and place where it happened.

 

[slpfrsly]

Scent is a realm of its own to me, transcending considerations of this kind. Apart from having a general familiarity with the regions and botanical/biological groups where perfume ingredients are found, this question has never entered my mind.

Interesting. You don't think fragrance and sense of smell has a close connection to taste and food/drink?

Hi Slp. You may find this thread I did a few years ago of interest.

SixCats! weird theory/hypothesis. Possible correlation between Food and Fragrances ?

Hi all, This theory/hypothesis of mine hit me like a bolt of Lightning tonight! I have no idea if there is any correlation between Food and Fragrances but, just for fun...... Many here at Basenotes know of my love of "Challenging/unique/strange/weird/odd/ off beat/stinky Fragrances...

basenotes.com

1. SixCats! weird theory/hypothesis. Possible correlation between Food and Fragrances ?​

   Hi all, This theory/hypothesis of mine hit me like a bolt of Lightning tonight! I have no idea if there is any correlation between Food and Fragrances but, just for fun...... Many here at Basenotes know of my love of "Challenging/unique/strange/weird/odd/ off beat/stinky Fragrances...
   • SixCats!
   • Thread
   • Mar 13, 2018
   • Replies: 33
   • Forum: Masculine Fragrance Discussion
   Regards,
   SixCats! (aka Tom in Maine)
   

Yes, I do find it interesting, thanks SixCats. I will post my response to it in your thread instead of in this one. 👍

I suspect minimally, but certainly >0. Clearly there are some regional differences in tastes which impact fragrances. The most obvious, in my mind, would be the prominence of oud in Middle Eastern fragrances. While oud has certainly grown in popularity in the Western world, it is undeniably more present (and has its origins in) the Eastern world. Perhaps the same is true for cumin. And maybe 'churchy' accords like fir/vanilla/tobacco combinations which many tend to associate with Christmas season, are more predominate in Europe and North America.

Brand marketing looks to exploit regional differences, and probably influences product placement. For some reason, Dior Homme Original and YSL Babycat are not available on the primary market in North America, but they are in Europe (though the rationale for this leaves me scratching my head.)

But it seems that many, if not most very popular fragrances are sold and appreciated everywhere in the world, so I would guess that a large proportion of what is "likeable" in fragrances is more universal and caters to the human animal in general, not just specific tribes of us.

Yes, good response. Your comment mirrors many of my own thoughts on the matter. Like others have said, it is not likely to be one of the most pressing or conscious of concerns for someone buying a fragrance. But in terms of influencing decisions and tastes? It has to be less than zero. Lacking an awareness of (or not being willing to admit to) such an influence does not mean it isn't an infleuntial force in forming someone's tastes.

As you say, regional differences are proof enough of the diversity of preferences that exist across the world. I find the subject of incense an interesting one - worthy of more thinking on my part before I write anything else about that, although it's very interesting to think how 'incense' has such reach in worship, yet the scents and ingredients differ greatly. CdG's incense range is a great reference for that in modern/synthetic perfumery alone!

But it's oud that I find most interesting. To my nose, I don't sense the appeal (and I say this having smelled the real thing: which is important, I think). There is something intriguing about it but, especially when there is even the slightest hint of a faecal or cheesey note in there, it can be outright disgusting. Yet oud has been treated as an olfactive delicacy in the Middle East for a long time. The assumption up until the very recent past was that most Americans especially - and by extension Brits and other north western Europeans - liked clean, fresh fragrances: citruses, bright florals, perhaps some aromatics, but with cleanliness and freshness being key. This was reflected in just about every cleaning product as well (with dreadful consequences for lemon-heavy perfumes, of course!). Yet that has changed in the last 10 years. Why? To my mind it is conceptual, one of branding, and a huge cultural shift that drives this.

America being such a (formally, relatively) insular country and culture, the last 20 years has shaken its footing; one of the results is part of the citizenry display an open preference for the external, rather than internal. Given the importance placed on what one consumes in fashioning contemporary ideas about 'identity', it's unsurprising that you get a reaction against clean, fresh, and inoffensive, which partly explains the oud trend. Which is to say that I'm not sure that American/northern European tastes have fundamentally changed in that short space of time; nor were they secretly longing for faecal fragrances for centuries, a desire that has only recently been satisfied. It's more the case that one's tastes and consumer choices can be influenced by marketing and concerns about status and other social markers. I definitely think that some people are more influenced by the social side of perfume choice than others - to the point where the fundamental aroma of the perfume diminishes in importance. Having said that, oud is still an extremely niche and polarising perfume ingredient; we probably have about half of the American oud-lovers on this site!

Your points about regional differences for product availability is another great point but it's your final point, about the wider appeal of modern (often designer) fragrances, that has me wondering if this topic becomes difficult to address in a world of synthetics. Artificial/manufactured aromas interfere with the notion of taste because they are not ingredients - they are imitations, synthetic constructions, parts or replicas of something real. Or in some instances, they are smells so alien, it becomes difficult to know how to relate to them. What is calone, what is ambroxan? What do these smell like independent of the popular fragrances they are used in? What real world aroma do they smell like: the ocean breeze and ambroxan? Really?

There are a few plausible explanations for why western designer fragrances in particular seem to have attained an almost universal appeal among the people of the world. One would be the headstart that European houses had on the competition; the French in particular were leaders in this regard. Being the first to transition from naturals to synthetics, and then fund development of new aromachemicals, they are simply further down the line. But I wonder if the clue could be hiding in the synthetic itself, as is (often) the case with food. Being able to isolate and boost the appealing aspect of a smell, or taste, simply blows the natural equivalent out of the water. We know this is a factor in taste, where your palate adapts to (and craves) synthetic flavours over real ones (artificial sweetners over natural sucrose, fructose). Could the real mass appeal of modern synthetic fragrances be less to do with finding universally appealing fragrance 'notes' (or real ingredients, real smells found in nature), which goes someway to flattening any ethnic/national differences in taste, and more to do with simply obliterating all differences through modern technology? It's interesting to consider how pre-synthetic western perfumery might stack up to a global market, compared to, say, a modern Chanel or Dior? Given the choice of a natural eau de cologne or Sauvage, what would people choose/how would they respond? And if you repeat the process with other regions e.g. the middle east and orientals versus their modern synthetic equivalents/replacements? I fear you have already landed on a problem here haha - but then again, the synthetic issue applies near enough equally to food, where even fresh food is genetically modified to reduce certain traits and increase others. That's without mentioning the artificial and synthetic additives in processed food; how much do takeaways (takeouts) have MSG to thank for the custom they receive?

Anyway, thanks for your reply. Plenty to think about. Food for thought, you might say...🙈

Directly? None whatsoever. In fact, I would need to have a serious talk with myself should I ever conclude that the color of one’s skin gives me definitive insight on what fragrance that individual would like or dislike.

The question is about matters of taste as they relate to people of different nationalities and ethnicities, so it is directly connected to biology, yes (genes and, more obviously, phenotypes - which are how genes are expressed e.g. observable behavioural traits). As the original post shows, our preferences in taste have an (important) genetic component. It's not a problem to not have a definitive or even robust answer, as mentioned I'm not expecting that. I do think it's slightly unhelpful to start hand-wringing about skin colour, which is not what is being asked: the topic is much broader and less trivial than that. I understand some people may be uncomfortable discussing a topic like this, for all sorts of reasons, which is why it's best not to pre-emptively enflame the conversation by taking the convo 'there'. Thanks anyway for your comment. 👍

Have me feet in two worlds!

Not sure how much an effect it has had on me. Maybe some negative though. I noticed a period in younger life, when for whatever numerous reasons, I was averse to smells that would distinctively identify me as of a different heritage to the local. Big florals, nag champas, musky and that thing I still don't know what it is but comes across camphorous and a bit moth Bally!

I remember some relatives, wearing something strong like VCAPH, Trussardi Uomo and Leonard PH, along with fags lol and I didn't like it as a child. But kinda love em now!?

There likely are influences, perhaps more than any of us would like to admit, and all this nationality, heritage and culture talk is often a bit uncomfortable nowadays maybe?! I still hold that we're simple creatures who like to think ourselves complex and special 😮😬😊🤯

Interesting, thanks for your comment. How would say having one feet in each world has impacted your individual taste? Outside of social judgement, of course. I suppose it's difficult to isolate that when you consider everything else, like getting older, taste changing (hopefully improving!) over time, and also the development/changes in fragrances as well. So maybe not an easy question to answer, but I think it's an interesting one. How do the two interact within you?

I think you may be right about the discomfort, it's not something I really thought too much about when posting, but maybe it requires a clarification from me. I will do this in a bit. I hope people take the discussion in the spirit it is meant, where no value judgements are expresed or expected. Differences, as and where they exist, are not ethical distinctions. Purely on my own everyday experience of different people, especially in the last 6-12 months or so (before which I rarely smelled a fragrance out in public due to covid), there are not only individual differences but group differences when it comes to fragrance preference and use. These group differences are so obvious to the point of being a mundane observation. The wider or deeper reasons for this are interesting to me - but as you say, it's a potentially awkward topic. I am prone to forgetting this from time to time.

 

[PStoller]

I would need to have a serious talk with myself should I ever conclude that the color of one’s skin gives me definitive insight on what fragrance that individual would like or dislike.

It might tell you something, but, as you say, not enough to conclude anything:

Sense of smell is a unique product of genes and experience

Mouse study finds genes may dictate types of smell receptors in nose, but environment alters their number, giving each individual a unique sense of smell.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Genetics explain certain baseline sensitivities. From there, you can plot some general probabilities, but not individual preference, because environmental factors are too significant for that. And “genetics” is a lot more complex than “brown people like spicy food.”

 

[Diddy]

The question is about matters of taste as they relate to people of different nationalities and ethnicities, so it is directly connected to biology, yes (genes and, more obviously, phenotypes - which are how genes are expressed e.g. observable behavioural traits). As the original post shows, our preferences in taste have an (important) genetic component. It's not a problem to not have a definitive or even robust answer, as mentioned I'm not expecting that. I do think it's slightly unhelpful to start hand-wringing about skin colour, which is not what is being asked: the topic is much broader and less trivial than that. I understand some people may be uncomfortable discussing a topic like this, for all sorts of reasons, which is why it's best not to pre-emptively enflame the conversation by taking the convo 'there'. Thanks anyway for your comment. 👍

I suppose I misunderstood what you were originally trying to say. Living near New Orleans, which is a melting pot of people, when you bring up nationality and ethnicity it many times implies a specific group which ties into skin color and certainly becomes a slippery slope. For clarity, I wasn’t trying to enflame anything but rather took your post as the spark and responded from that viewpoint. As a white male married to someone of minority, and as someone who grew up as the actual minority in my area. as a white male, I’ve seen cultural issues through a different lens than many of my white relatives. Thus my somewhat defensive mindset when I responded to your post. I now understand that it wasn’t your intention to go there about and that’s great. I see you are thinking broadly, and to the world. And certainly things will be read differently based on local cultures.

Broadly speaking, I still would say that tastes are less about being pigeonholed into an ethnic or national group as opposed to the collection of one’s life experiences… ‘the pigeons you flock with.’ Ethnicity and nationality will likely play an indirect role. But I can tell you that my tastes in things (in part or greatly) have been influenced and shaped to some appreciable degree by other ethnic groups equally or perhaps more than it has by white America. My ideas and beliefs and tastes have been shaped less by my genetic code and more by the culmination of my social experiences. I also understand that my viewpoint isn’t a one-size-fits-all.

Thank you for your clarifying response!

 

[slpfrsly]

Nice graphs, but whoever did the Northern/Eastern Europe one messed up badly. Caraway and sourcream are right, but the third one should be either garlic, onion, horseradish or some kind of animal fat, definitely not chili. No spicy food in the region historically/culturally, black pepper is the hottest spice in the cuisine and even that does not grow there naturally. It's very similar and closely knitted with European Jewish tbh. I wonder what else they did get wrong.

As for the question, I think people in the same region might tend to choose similar scents as a whole, but as individuals everyone's taste will differ. When you pick just one person from the group you don't know if their taste is more typical to the group or an outlier.

They may have lumped Hungary into the Eastern European category, and I think they are partial to spicy paprika. But I do agree with your statement otherwise.

I have Polish / Silesian roots, and the cuisine in this region traditionally uses things like lard, onions, garlic, smoked meat (bacon and sausage), sour cream, caraway, marjoram, bay leaf and black pepper to add flavour to food.

France is messed up too. Basil? It's used but is hardly a defining ingredient.

(PS not exactly on-topic - apologies)

I assume that is a reference to Hungarian cuisine?

Yes good spot on the chilli. My thought was Hungary and paprika but that has a separate entry. I suspect they may be drawing from the Balkans and the south east of Europe, where you get a distinct Muslim/Ottoman influence on the cuisine. Which is a bit clumsy to conflate that with northern Europe but there you go. As for France, they have Provence separately, and although parsley would probably be better I don't have an issue with basil being used for the purpose of the chart (which is really just a starting point for cooking, and a visual demonstration of a wider truth). They couldn't cheat and count bouquet garni as a single ingredient after all. 😄 The first chart is more useful in demonstrating the point about cuisine and national taste.

People raised in isolation from their native cultures often instead grow to assimilate the cultures of those around them, as is something most often seen with orphans adopted into families of differing ethnicity. People who move around a lot (like Army brats) also tend to develop a composite taste and cultural identity too.

This goes from manner of speaking, to tastes in art and cuisine, and even religious beliefs. In fact, there is something to be said for people coming to the Americas (whether by choice or force), and developing their own unique culture and tastes separate from their ethnic origins as a result.
You needn't look further than places like Quebec, Louisiana, Texas, Baja Mexico, and others to find this.

Assimilation is an interesthing topic to bring up. Up until 10 years or so ago, some kind of ("mostly peaceful") cultural assimilation was the accepted mainstream theory for what happened in Britain after the Romans left. Despite the mythology and written history (probably for contemporary political purposes more than anything else) the idea of replacement and prolonged and bloody warfare was heavily warned against. That's until genetic studies were released, and they aligned with both the mythology and the archaeology. The Saxons were replacers and displacers - not totally, as the existing Britons mixed with them to create England, but significantly moreso than was at that point the accepted history. The Britons/Celts retreated to the west and the north of the islands once the fighting was lost; those that remained contributed to the ethnogenesis of England. This is quite different to assimilation; in fact, this kind of ethnogenesis is relatively rare as well, where there is a mutual sharing and mixing that lasts well enough to elide the differences in to one coherent group and culture. Genocide, tragically, is more common, as is subservience of the defeated population (which happened in Britain with the Normans, who contributed almost no genes to the modern British). Where assimilation may occur is at the individual and specific: the best example that comes to mind is of the native Americans, who would take young children (but not babies) and sometimes women, killing the rest, as they were the most adaptable. Brutal stuff, but a demonstration of how difficult assimilation is - and that was in a world of relative isolation, as you point out. Given the ability to move around and encounter so many similar (and different) people in the modern world, it becomes even less likely that actual assimilation is possible outside of isolationist groups (including cults).

At a group level, assimilation (i.e. one group dissolving itself in to another) doesn't occur - primarily because of the shared similarities between members of those different groups. What can and does happen is different groups can be united under an overarching civic infrastructure (again, Rome being a good example as it spanned most of Europe and beyond; modern America being another good example of this; or even something simple, like a school, workplace, or prison 😄), yet it is easy to contest the idea that these systems are equally beneficial/equally influenced by the component groups. This can flatten or bend differences for the sake of unity, however innate differences do not disappear, even accounting for epigenetic change. Twin studies on adoption have blown most social constructionist claims out of the water. Genetic similarity (and by extension people grouped by ethnicity) can predict outcomes in twins on temperament, intelligence, propensity to disease, and even more minute details, like preferences in music and colour. In reality, this is obvious. After all, we've known such things for a long time before discovering genetics. We know that parental traits pass down to children, we know that family histories provide insights in to the future.

There is the additional factor of timeframe as well and multingenerational similarity. There's an idea in economics that generational wealth returns to the mean i.e. when someone makes a lot of money, within a few generations, their descendants will have returned to the mean/norm that preceded the wealth increase (usually this refers to the mean of the family line but could also mean wider society/class). Linking this back round to Roman Britain, when the Romans departed (having brought the Saxons in as a divide and conquer strategy), the native Britons didn't maintain the Roman cities. They retreated back to what they knew - regression or return to the mean lifestyle of the population prior to imperial rule - which was living in much simpler villages. It's not just what they knew, it's what they had become adapted to, despite several centuries of imperial subjectivity. Of course, Rome also fell, but when the Italians had their Renaissance, what did they do? They built like the Romans did. There is something in them to create architecture in this way; it didn't just spring from the ground, it came out of the people. The Anglo-Germanic imitations of Roman/Italian architecture cannot compete; Gothic structures are more in keeping with the spirit of northern Europe, and the glass and metal structures of late 20th/early C21st are spiritually aligned with the culture of contemporary elites. Talk of spirit of a people is easy to dismiss on material grounds but its existence is evident in the output of different people.

I'm getting away from the topic a bit haha but I suppose the question is important to reiterate in light of this. It's true to say that mixing and assimilation can and does occur, even in the modern world perhaps - although contemporary similarities are heavily reliant on trust in institutional validity. But this doesn't explain everything. We are not just imperial subjects; we are not all the same, nor are we unique individuals that cannot be categorised in between individual and universal. Therefore, considering the modern perfume market as a kind of overarching hegemony (call it Rome, call it Egypt, call it America - it doesn't matter haha), what differences can we see at the group level (beyond the individual, which we are all well able and used to expressing)? Do these align to different preferences in cuisine, for example? Maybe I will explain this point better in a separate post, to try to make the question clearer. On food in the Americas, it is interesting to see where new cultures generate - perhaps best seen in South America rather than the north, where you have people of three continents. Maybe some Brazilian posters, if they are here, can share their insights in relation to perfume?

Nationality? I wouldn’t generalize about what Americans like.

Really? You've given us a double whammy with food and perfume here. 😄

I was born in the country of Brut and have been a lifelong fougere resident. 🙂

Isn't that Coneheads? 😆🎄

I've never been hungry enough that I've had to eat Brussel Sprouts.

Hopefully I never will be.



That being said, I think you made an excellent post regarding this subject and the questions you asked regarding the perfumer and wearer of fragrances.

I didn't think about it until I read your post, but I can't help but wonder if certain herbs & spices affect how a perfumer decides to use them in a fragrance. In particular, a perfumer in a country/region that uses a lot of those same herbs & spices in the preparation and seasoning of their food on a regular basis. I wonder if that has a direct relation to how much or any at all of a particular herb or spice is used in a fragrance versus someone in another country/region who doesn't smell/use that particular herb or spice on a regular basis.

As far as the wearer, I don't think it would be as much of an issue. Saffron is one example I keep thinking of due to its widespread use in the Middle East and that general area, but not so much in the US, particularly in the southern US where I'm from.

Thanks very much. I was inspired to write this post because of a perfumer, Lorenzo Villoresi. I will explain further in a separate post maybe. It seemed so obvious that there was a particular smell to his fragrances that seemed harmonious with Italy. This is a man who is undoubtedly influenced by the middle east and oriental notes, yet his fragrances retain a distinct Italian quality to them (at least to me). If there is something to genetic predisposition towards enjoying certains tastes (and smells), then it must extend beyond just the consumer and to the perfumer as well? And, again, it's not just familiarity or ease of access - to say that a perfumer like Villoresi, for instance, is simply using what's on his doorstep would be ridiculous! I think saffron is a great example of something that has regional importance/appeal that hints at ethnic/national preference. I never found saffron to be a particularly useful ingredient when cooking, even the expensive and much more flavoursome variety of it. Yet, as you say, it is popular in parts of the middle east and south Asia. On saffron, the synthetic aromechamical used in the likes of YSL's La Nuit de l'Homme and Armani's Prive Oud are rubbery/plasticky and synthetic; they are not good representations of the real thing, so perhaps not a good analogy for liking it in food/drink.

Our tastes are shaped by our experiences, which are in turn shaped by our surrounding cultures. I say “shaped” rather than “determined,” because there are so many random factors that keep our preferences individual, and so not entirely predictable.

We’re products first of our influences, and then of the way we process them.

Any industry that uses biometric data - most notably health, especially insurance - rests on the opposite being true. Genetics are used to predict life outcomes with good accuracy and that is only improving. It's not random. It's great that people share their opinions but sweeping statements posing as facts need to at least be in the ballpark of truth. To say that the primary part of a human is external stimuli is a total inversion of reality. We are our biology, a creation of our parents and their genetics at the very least, before we are shaped by phenomena. The concept you've put forward of a human is one that is fundamentally passive, reactive, and subordinate - an unpleasant consideration, but thankfully not true. 😄

It is interesting to think about, the problem is, with none of us really being researchers in this field, we would purely be speculating on topics that we don't really know about. First, we would have to prove there is a correlation between the food we eat and how we like to smell. While it sounds plausible, there are often cases where things sound correct but turn out not to be (the correlation equals causation trap).

I understand why you'd say this. It seems like a sensible idea but I'm reluctant to encourage this for a couple of reasons.

1. Demanding robust data to support/justify an opinion would be asking a higher standard than all but a small minortiy of people are used to doing to form/state an opinion.
2. Academic research is opaque to perhaps ~80% of people. It excludes a portion of people from contributing, which is the opposite of what I'd want in a thread like this. I want people to reply, I want to hear what other people think. They don't need to have a certain level of education or credentials to get involved.
3. Many of the replies have already made non-factual arguments based primarily on ideology. To respond to each and every fallacious or non-factual viewpoint with an external reference would be annoying to everyone reading, to say the least. People are allowed to be wrong otherwise it puts them off contributing. As mentioned in the original post, I encourage people to speculate!
4. Given the state of parts of the academy, it's not hard too difficult to find junk data from an academic/research institution to 'defend' just about any fantasy belief (forfty percent of people know that). Linked to this is the tendency for 'research' used in online discussion to be little more than some sort of flat design infographic, which does more harm than good.
5. Worst of all is the invitation given to someone who might be motivated by shutting down/derailing a conversation; deliberately vague assertions combined with pseudo-academic jargon are an excellent rhetorical device to filibuster a thread in to oblivion.
6. This isn't a topic that requires niche scholarly insight. There is much that can discussed simply through anecdote and common knowledge (I'd refer back to the popular wisdom of inherited traits, for example, being a useful piece of common knowledge that could be relevant to the discussion). If anyone brings more specific understanding to the conversation then that is an additional benefit - but I'm not asking that to be a requirement to participate.

This is why I'd encourage people to wonder aloud. Rather than putting limits on the conversation, I want to hear the constructive points people have to say. Your post is very interesting, particularly with regard to music, and I wouldn't have wanted you to limit yourself for fear of being 'wrong' or anything like that.

 

[slpfrsly]

It is also such a global world now it becomes increasingly pointless to try to make any generalization based on cultural exposure when we are exposed to elements from a variety of cultures at all times. I know I am especially lucky living in NYC to have access to every possible cuisine I could imagine, so I don't even know what I'd consider "my cuisine". The amount of "American food" (if such a thing exists) I eat is maybe 5% of my diet. I suppose we could bring it back to your point and say the variety I experience with food is reflected in the variety of fragrances I enjoy 😂 , but I think that would be a tenuous correlation.

I am curious how people from more culturally homogenous areas feel. I would think the more important cultural element would be what kind of fragrances people around you wear/what is socially acceptable to wear in your area and what kind of fragrances you grew up smelling on people. It is likely that none of us consciously think about this when choosing what fragrances we like and we would need several sessions with a psychoanalyst to unpack it all.

My particular tastes in foods, for example, are not necessarily what one would assume based on my nationality and ethnicity, but there’s a certain cosmopolitan aspect to them as a whole that’s attributable to my growing up in NYC, and then having had the opportunity to travel. When so much is readily available to you, you think of it differently than if your local choices are more limited—in which case you might explore a narrower range more deeply.

These testimonies are useful to the discussion. You're both basically describing the relatively recent phenomenon of metropolitan globalism. As globalism is still such a recent and dramatic change to what preceded it, the human impact can be presented as a dichotomy: the majority of people are still "citizens of somewhere" on the one hand, while there are "citizens of everywhere" (or nowhere) created by globalisation on the other. The latter tend towards xenophilic tendencies, universalising what existed as prior particulars of, say, America ("what even is that?" being an expected response after universalisation of American norms/values/civics/laws/culture/language/technology) while being fine to acknowledge the distinct particulars of someone or somewhere else.

You both describe the dominant or shared culture of globalism well: as cosmopolitan, something spanning different continents, defined by consumerism, with its participants having proximity to/employment within large multinational companies and financial districts. It has the appearance (and claim to) total inclusion - the clue is in the name - but the differences and distinctions are often superficial and the points of difference (the cosmopolitanism) is partly a facade. To return to the topic of food, it may seem that metropolitan districts serve the food of the world, but globalism is the hegemonic force that bends subjects in to some sort of unity rather than an open plan meeting place where everyone gets a place at the table. It is the Roman Empire of our day yet most people don't even realise it exists. In that sense, the American model of fast food has come to dominate and apply itself over all other cuisine; what is sold as exotic street food is something adapting to the American economic and civic model of service (speed, efficiency, profitability, customer choice, fleeting taste over health concerns). You have variety - that's an understatement - but it is effectively the same thing in a million different flavours. Over time, of course, homogeneity occurs; the aforementioned blending (melting pot) leads to similarity through efficiency. What starts out as celebrating distinction and difference ends in sameness: a great example of this would be the hipster trend, which coincided with the first decade of globalism and the early years of social media. It is not a mistake/chance that that happened.

Having talked about the overarching dominant culture, I'll now bring it back to the opposite of that: what exists outside or against that. The question I am asking is outside of this globalised consumerist culture, which in perfumery terms is probably best evidenced by the niche perfume boutiques and the big European fashion houses tending towards sameness and homogenised perfume products already. As of today, more people exist outside of a globalised enviroment than within one, and many within them resist the 'melting' process by retaining or seeking distinction from the dominant cutural demands, expecatations, and incentives.

It's fair to say that globalism seeks to flatten and merge people - as most empires has tended to do, albeit this one makes it a major priority. Differences, where they are admitted to, tend to be trivial (and still part of the flattening framework e.g. permitted distinction through what one consumes, like food or clothes or music or perfume). The reality (however inconvenient) is that individuals and groups are of course distinct in more important ways than what they consume (and even then, what they consume, how, in what quantities, can also reflect those differences - which really adds another spin on things).

There are numerous ways an individual might avoid or react against being absorbed in to this but my question is about one specific area: that of nationality and ethnicity in relation to perfume preferences/taste. Related to this is food/drink. But I will develop this question further in a separate post as I think it is worth doing that.

I study music so I can say more about that with authority. I was trying to think of an analogy, do the sounds around us influence the music we like/create? Possibly, but probably not definitively. Some studies have been done to correlate the sound of languages with the music produced by that culture but I'm not sure they've been definitive. I tend to think that in the origins of a cultural practice there is likely a connection to the environment explaining why things are the way they are. But over time as cuisine, music, or fragrance practice becomes its own thing, it may no longer have that simplistic correlation to other elements of the culture/environment. In music, for example, the sound of the violin is often likened to the closest instrument to the human voice. So the origins of the violin may have been something to do with trying to mimic the original instrument, the voice. But as violin repertoire builds on itself it is referencing previous violin repertoire and branches out along its own stream of development uncoupled from that original association to the voice. Go ahead and try to sing this. 😂

I mention this because I think it's relevant to fragrance. Let's take H24 for example, I feel it is a reaction against (or in the lineage of) blue fragrances, followed by musky ambroxan fragrances that dominated mainstream releases. An attempt to find a new freshness that feels different from what came immediately before yet still capturing the mass appealing qualities of those fragrances, which I don't think has anything to do with the modern culinary palette of French people. But, it is also billed as a "modern fougere", it is possible the fougere scent profile is related to what grows in the region, the smell of lavender being familiar, the types of herbs used in French cuisine. But now the development of the genre is many times removed from that.

Thanks for this, it's an interest post. It makes sense. It's interesting to think how, rather than experience being linear, a cyclical development might see the innate preferences/biology dovetail with more rational or conscious tendencies towards openness, new experiences and so on. I wonder if this could in some way explain those who cycle through fragrances, going from complex to simple, foreign to familiar? You're right to say that there is development occurs over time, and external influences become minor compared to, say, individual genius or some other inward compulsion towards creativity. I'd imagine that is true for the best perfumers (of the past, if not the present) as it is for music, even if they're not quite operating as aesthetic/creative equals. But the idea of the dovetailing between experience and biological compulsion and instinct seems to make sense to my mind. When exhausted, there is always the innate substrate to fall back upon. As something of an aside, I am particularly fond of the attempts to recast Beethoven due to his use of rhythm - all good fun, of course.

On development and creativity, the H24 example is obviously applicable to Dior Sauvage as well. It's like stripping down the fougere in to the most abstract, synthetic scent possible while still being considered a fougere. I wonder if this is a good example of degeneration, rather than creativity; an example of the methodology and instinct of the 'mind' of the machine, the contemporary way of creating perfume? In that sense, we are entering something detached from taste and biology - it is machinery, not human beings, that are driving change. The input humans have will, perhaps, decrease as the machinery develops; yet the machinery is creating for a human customer. Something is lost in this process - something fundamental, no less. There is a disconnect between perfumer and wearer where the algorithm and synthetic aromachemical and gas chromatography sits. Artisanal and indie niche perfume is reconnecting/closing that gap (although I am sure they are still donwstream from this larger process).

I think I am coming to the conclusion/idea that, when it comes to modern perfumery, it simply obliterates some/many differences via the anosmic appeal of synthetics, and can therefore be seen as culturally/philosophically harmonious with globalism. By flattening distinctions between people - using synthetically altered materials that have greater appeal to the sense than the equivalent of natural origin - the technology is not only economically coherent with the present, but it fits the wider overarching cultural and philosophical system as well.

Sauvage is the ghost in the machine... 😆🤪

 

[PStoller]

Nationality? I wouldn’t generalize about what Americans like.

Really? You've given us a double whammy with food and perfume here. 😄

What, with an Elvis fragrance reference? Or a beefcake reference? I’m not sure what anything in that thread says about Americans’ taste in food and fragrance in general, or about me personally.

Any industry that uses biometric data - most notably health, especially insurance - rests on the opposite being true. Genetics are used to predict life outcomes with good accuracy and that is only improving. It's not random.

Apples and oranges. Health outcomes are substantially different from fragrance preferences. You might be able to predict preferences in fragrance with enough relevant data, both genetic and experiential—as the science says. But, as I said above, “genetics” isn’t just broad assumptions based on ethnicity, much less nationality.

I’m one of three siblings; genetically and experientially similar. You wouldn’t know it from our preferences in fragrance or food. Now, if you had our DNA, and you knew how to interpret it, you might well be able to winnow out our individual preferences with a fair degree of accuracy. But, just from our nationality and ethnicity? No. Because there are important genetic and experiential differences between us, as well.

That’s a failure of genetic similarity to be determinative of taste within one generation of a single family. It’s a ludicrous oversimplification to propose genetics determine personal preference by nationality or ethnicity.

To say that the primary part of a human is external stimuli is a total inversion of reality.

Sure. Except that isn’t what I said. I was referring to the narrow aspect of humans that is preferential taste in fragrance.

Genetics determine what you can smell, not what you want to smell. There is, of course, crossover, but it’s not as predictive as you make out. Even with specific regard to what you can smell, experience plays an important role.

Of course, I don’t expect you to take my word for it. If only there were a prominent human genetics/genomics institution that had carried out a study on precisely this issue, and published the results.

Oh, wait—there is:

Genetics and environment combine to give everyone a unique sense of smell - Wellcome Sanger Institute

Researchers have shown that receptors in the noses of mice exposed to certain smells during life are different to genetically similar mice that lived without those smells. It is this combination of genetics and experience that gives each individual a unique sense of smell.

www.sanger.ac.uk

tl;dr: Different experience determines different smell sensitivity despite genetic similarity.

That’s before we consider the relatively complex filters humans have with regard to preferential judgment.

Or, to put it another way: To say that the primary part of individual human olfactory sensitivity and preference is genetic is a total inversion of reality.

We are our biology, a creation of our parents and their genetics at the very least, before we are shaped by phenomena. The concept you've put forward of a human is one that is fundamentally passive, reactive, and subordinate - an unpleasant consideration, but thankfully not true.

No concept is more passive than that humans are just genetic programming with a frisson of experience. Of course, “we are our biology,” but not only that. Biology is, for example, the primary determinant in whether you can hear, and probably with what frequency response. That’s nature. But it hasn’t anything to say about whether you prefer Celine Dion or the Sex Pistols. That’s nurture. And that’s pretty much what we’re talking about with preference in fragrance.

 

[slpfrsly]

There are for sure regional trends and cultural norms and preferences that affect fragrance purchasing behavior, also when and how it's acceptable to wear fragrance. I don't think nationality, as in the passport(s) you hold, has any significant bearing.

Here are some random numbers to show regional and cultural differences:

U.S. Black and Hispanic consumers wear more fragrances than others, found NPD

Yeah I don't mean civic nationalism e.g. legal status. Ethnicity would a be more applicable consideration for people in countries like America, for example, or wherever nationhood no longer pertains to an ethnically similar population. A lot of people have access to ancestry tests now, whether personally or via a direct relative, so it is not too difficult to do this (allowing for the limitations of some ancestry testing companies).

For instance, I think the most interesting qustion to ask in relation to America would be whether African Americans have perfume preferences closer to West Africans or European Americans (overwhelmingly Anglo, Scots-Irish, and Scandi-Germanic)? Considering modern immigration numbers from e.g. Nigeria to the US, that should be easy to test with a decent sample size. From there, you can go in to more granular detail i.e. where do they differ, and so on. At a certain point, the group differences for perfume preference will become statistically insignificant: but I wonder what that point is? The idea that it is a universal one, i.e. there is no testable difference at all in between the unique individual and every single person in the world, is absurd given how many other genetic/phenotypical differences exist (and can be repeatedly tested) between groups. As you say, there's already data out there that shows otherwise.

Wasn't there research done showing that vanilla and some other scent notes are more or less universally liked?

On vanilla being universally appealing, the question that follows would be: if it tends to have a universally positive response, is it enjoyed equally between different groups of people?

Tea is a good example to think about. Middle Eastern/North African tea is often extremely sweet, with loads more added sugar than other people around the world use. As this is something that precedes synthetic additives, it's more useful to the discussion about generational formation of taste than, say, something limited to a single generation or more recent evidence that includes synthetic/altered stuff.

I suspect there are broadly universal likes and dislikes, however the differences lie in the small details. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm intrigued about. And I suspect the big perfume houses know this (the food industry definitely does), to the point where they cater their products with such considerations in mind. Something like universal appeal is undoubtedly an important aim for a new fragrance and can be understood as part of globalisation, but the western/Eurabic oud/oriental trend of the last 10-15 years jars with this, as it is so obviously particular rather than universal. If all of a sudden a new market demographic becomes lucrative, do you cater to them or not? Do you include them as a trial group as part of your research and development, or do you just assume/assert that everyone can be taught/shaped to like near enough any fragrance you put to market based on individualism and/or the surrounding cultural/geographical/civic ether?

Except that isn’t what I said.

Yeah, ok. 😂

As for the question, I think people in the same region might tend to choose similar scents as a whole, but as individuals everyone's taste will differ. When you pick just one person from the group you don't know if their taste is more typical to the group or an outlier.

Yes, very true, which is why it is more telling to ask this question about group preferences over individual preferences. We know that the individual can be altered or influenced in all sorts of ways that would alienate them from instinct and nature - with consequences like cognitive dissonance, repression, self-sabotage and so on. There are numerous ways this is relevant to perfumery, where someone can be influenced by advertising, and more recently the social pressure that comes from being online ("influencers" being aptly named for the social role they play). The phrase I use in relation to this is something like "judge fragrances as fragrances, not as ideas". In other words, put aside the conceptual and social considerations (as best as one can, which is obviously not as easily achieved for some people compared to others) and evaluate the fragrance as a sensory/olfactive experience. There are many, many reasons why I think this is an all round superior way to approach fragrance enjoyment, with perhaps the most important one being it makes you a better judge of fragrances as you're more honest about the scent itself (and not prone to excuse flaws/brush over strengths for conceptual reasons). Ultimately, what it can do is reveal just how significant self-doubt can be when it comes for (supposedly) authoritative sources, and by extension how flimsy branding/marketing/influencing seems when you step over it.

The group is a more useful reservoir for testing ethnic/national tastes than individual/personal testimony alone. But that said, it shouldn't stop people sharing their thoughts and impressions just because they cannot speak for a group/bring group data to the discussion.