Well you are. You are clearly in the wrong and can't see it. I can own my mistakes. You are not able to it seems. Your theory is not scientific, it has no scientific framework and saying that numbers don't matter is objectively wrong, the entire universe is based on numbers. You have no criteria that can be tested and checked but that's how science works. That's just a fact. Until then your theory has no scientific value and that's also a fact.
Early Closure Of The Cranial Sutures - The Cause Of Male Pattern Baldness
- Thread starter Mitko1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 298
and there is a big difference btw. Look how as the list goes on everyones faces gets more horizontal, Amir Khan is at the bottom of the list. Joe keery isnt even on the list and you are below him too. JFK is at the higher end, amir khan the boxer for example is on the lower end and there is a big difference between the higher end and lower end and you do not even look like the men on the lower end tbh.It was, I'm not a mythical being that is never wrong, but I said that one time and all the other times I said "I think the difference isn't that high", and I was right.
And even then.. that does not dismiss all the other things I just said. Let's not change topics here. My claim from yesterday has nothing to do with your theory not being scientific
-------> 
---------------------->
--------->
--->
------------->
I have not ever been this delusional in any of my posts. You said there is not a big difference. There was a massive one.
Last edited:
Well there wasn't a massive difference. That's factually wrong. The numbers proved it. What are you trying to do? It's pointless. Again.. until you work with the scientific method your theory has no claim to validity and can be dismissed. My face could be as narrow as a rat's face and it still wouldn't change that fact (besides, why not use a pic that is forward facing like this one). Your trying to change the conversation now. That's not the point. You are being dishonest here.
Make your theory scientific, testable and palpable. Until then it's pointless. End of story.
Attachments
- Reaction score
- 298
i edited it, the front facing picture put you a tiny bit closer to Joe Keery. Like i said, numbers will not make a difference. You say according to numbers your face is horizontal, but you do not have the appearance of a square horizontal face at all. You have provided numerous pictures to show this. So this shows numbers dont matter in this case. And also like i said before the shape of the jawline also makes a difference. I aint saying your jawline is weak. But it isnt very wide and broad. By broad i dont mean ron perlman or thanos like you sarcastically said.
Calculate the ratio and you can say that. It's just your subjective opinion right now. For me that doesn't look that different.
And sigh.. again my face could be a wooden stick and it would not change the point I'm making. Why do you try so hard to change the topic? Your theory is not scientific, you have no framework, no criteria with what your theory can be tested. It's just subjectivity. Until then your theory has no validity get that in your head. No matter the amount of pictures you post, that will not change. I can also post hundreds of pictures of the horizon and just say the earth is flat because it seems so. That's not how science works. I would have to make a model that can be judged.
You do not make a model that can be judged. That allows you to not get debunked but it also holds you back from any kind of validity and as a result your theory can never be widely accepted and will never be widely accepted. That's just the truth.
Attachments
Again.. appearance. That does not matter. The facts matter. The number of pictures are mostly with lens distortion. You literally deny facts here. And btw. It's still not even on topic.
- Reaction score
- 298
No this is on topic. I am telling you numbers do not matter in this case. You say according to numbers your face is horizontal and close to kennedy's. But you do not have the appearence of a suqare horizontal face, it is narrower. No matter the lens or the angle your face cannot have a shape like that of kennedy's or babar azam's. We are also not taking into account the top of your head which you have said it is not a normal galea and not smooth either. These men with horizontal faces have either very flat galea like steven quezada or just a normal galea like jensen ackles. This is on topic as this conversation started after you said you debunked the horizontal face thing. Mr. CuckCuckCuck accused me of adding rules along the way. But I have stated so mamy times that if you have a horizontal face and an average galea and decent bone structure you will not bald. If someone like Russell Brand had a galea like Jensen ackles he would probably recede according to my theory. Having a horizontal face means that you do not even need the smoothest and flat galea to keep a norwood 1.
Attachments
whatintheworld
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 1,231
Niki99 are you even balding and how old are you? You look like a teenager I think you haven't even finished puberty yet, I wouldn't even worry about hair loss in your position, your hair seems great.
And again.. you are talking about appearance, btw while still changing the subject. My face could be as narrow as a pencil and it wouldn't change a thing. It does not make your theory scientific.
Let me show you how you sound (that's just a demonstration):
https://images.app.goo.gl/W2KM5Zer6mkv7h7g6
Numbers do not matter in this case. The earth is not a spheroid it has not the appearance of a ball. You can clearly see that it is flat.
The end
So yeah that's the reason why numbers are important. We have to calculate things to make a tangible system that can then be judged and tested for validity. Otherwise it's pointless and has no worth. So until you make that your contributions are pretty much insignificant. You also don't seem to get that I try to help you. The galea thing can maybe have some validity and I want to help you to make that theory scientific so it has actual worth. Right now it's just subjectivity. And if you can prove that horizontal faces also do matter.. even better! But, yes right now your theory is not even close to be proven. To be exact, you don't even have a scientific hypothesis right now as there is no framework to judge it upon. We just have your word and your "criteria" that can't be tested and that hangs in the air. There is basically no difference between the bible, that says "god exists, because it's written here" and your claims.
I'm 21, I'm on finasteride and I had great regrowth. You can check my threads if you want to^^.
whatintheworld
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 1,231
The facial structure theory holds water but not as causation by any means. It just means that certain genes that are expressed via cranial development share expression with male pattern baldness.
It does not follow the If A -> then B causation approach. Rather, in the greater probabilistic picture, if you are balding of the B variety, you're genetic expression will likely also include facial and cranial features from the A subset.
OP has made threads like this before and he isn't making any groundbreaking discoveries. He is merely finding more data points which assertion the polygenic expression of male pattern baldness. He made no progress for explaining how the genes are activated, how it can be mutated and inherited if neither parents have it, etc.
I am positive that if you showed the posters on this forum a dataset of 100 faces, with the top of their heads cropped off, they would be able to with statistical significance, predict the men which are balding and which are not.
No one has done this study yet because there has been no reason to, but if someone wants to take the time to make the dataset and the tests, they can freely do so.
It does not follow the If A -> then B causation approach. Rather, in the greater probabilistic picture, if you are balding of the B variety, you're genetic expression will likely also include facial and cranial features from the A subset.
OP has made threads like this before and he isn't making any groundbreaking discoveries. He is merely finding more data points which assertion the polygenic expression of male pattern baldness. He made no progress for explaining how the genes are activated, how it can be mutated and inherited if neither parents have it, etc.
I am positive that if you showed the posters on this forum a dataset of 100 faces, with the top of their heads cropped off, they would be able to with statistical significance, predict the men which are balding and which are not.
No one has done this study yet because there has been no reason to, but if someone wants to take the time to make the dataset and the tests, they can freely do so.
Exactly.
- Reaction score
- 493
He was definitely balding. At least receding. Theres a noticeable difference in his hair ever since he started treatments. I envy his results tbh.
whatintheworld
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 1,231
Ah I just saw them, they seem miraculous from finasteride alone. I have never seen such good temple and hairline regrowth from only finasteride.
- Reaction score
- 493
I disagree. I really do. Not to the point where I want to take 100 photos and crop out the top and have them take the test. But I really do not think they would be able to deter.
whatintheworld
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 1,231
You're an excellent responder to treatments and I doubt that you'll ever go fully bald, worst case scenario you can get a transplant with an elite surgeon, but I doubt you'll need it.
I use minoxidil too. I think minoxidil has done more when it comes to regrowth. I also had a telogen effluvium after my operation on my knee last year. The medication made my hair shed at incredibly high rates. At least for my standards.
- Reaction score
- 493
Nah, hes on minoxidil too. Thats prob where all his regrowth came from. Makes me wanna jump on it so bad (never topical, probably just oral). But I don’t wanna complicate my regime and health any further if Im maintaining.
whatintheworld
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 1,231
The OP, who seems quite interested in this topic, can make a bigger dataset and maybe his findings to some research doctor or professor and discuss them.
But there is no doubt in my mind he will find correlated facial and cranial features with significant androgenic alopecia genetic expression. We already know this condition is polygenic, it is a matter of connecting the dots to find the most common expressions. Empirical observation is a poor way to do it, but I doubt OP has any background in genetics/biology to do it scientifically like a Cotsarelis would.
That would be a start. And I would be very interested in the findings. There seems to be correlation even tho that doesn't mean there is causation. Like you said.. it comes in packages so to speak. If you are balding you most likely have other "undesirable" genetic traits. But yeah who knows what we would find tbh.