The latest Readers Digest notes that everybody rates strong smells differently. A bad smell to one person may be a nice smell to another and vice versa.
Has this ever been tested scientifically with a wide range of smells?
The article claims that how we rate smells depends on our emotional state when we first or usually smell that smell. For instance, the smell of petrol mentally associated with motor racing would be more positive than that associated with an overturned oil tanker. The smell of burning wood from a bonfire would have a more positive influence than that from our house burning down. The smell of our first born’s first nappy could be associated with a nice smell despite it being poo. A mouthful of foul-tasting perfume could put us off the smell of that perfume for life. The same emotional positive and negative connotations could apply to virtually all strong smells: coffee, tobacco, lilies, roses, peppermint, chocolate, garlic, onion, limburger, sweat, gunpowder, etc. The smell of the sea associated with rotting seaweed and fly-blown molluscs would add negative connotations to that smell.
So, does Hamlet Act 2 Scene 2 “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”, while a lousy moral philosophy, hold true for smells?
I suppose there’s a “socially accepted” separation of smells into nice smells and bad smells. But everybody would find certain smells nice and bad that oppose what is “socially accepted”. Personal experiences? Scientific tests?