Update From The God Himself - Dr. Takashi Tsuji
- Thread starter kingjohn
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 334
that's not how hypergamy works. the top 80% of women look for the 20% top men.
average guys are invisible and the average girl wants them dead.
I thought this was a joke then I realized is the truth
lol the top 20% girls deny even model guys . My friend is a model and still gets rejected . Just shoot your shot . I’ve seen some smokeshows with some ugly *** dudes . Just shoot your shot . And stop being a pansy about it
- Reaction score
- 17
They haven't grown a single hair on a human head. What do you want to discuss exactly?
Here's one: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/coll...jZ3tyvWkQET7WgPSPN2TzoIPOafv9MMy-tqgoF9zw7WV6
There are many others, your anecdotes not withstanding. While self-confidence plays a role, there are exogenous factors that determine whether or not women find men attractive; again, there are many, many studies that prove conclusively that all of us - men and women of all colors and societies - have a hard-wired standard of beauty (that includes hair), as it is an indication of the quality of one's genes. Is physicality the only determining factor? Of course not, because there are other, more esoteric biological traits that are evolutionarily adventageous, and women look for those as well (intellect, income - which is a proxy for intelligence, etc.). To claim otherwise is absurd.
Last edited:
broski you serious ? You chose the 18-24 group , which as I quote “ Just over half of the women surveyed said it’s important to date a guy whose standards for hair are similar to their own, and 58 percent chose “short and clean-cut” as their favorite men’s hairstyle.” Nothing here talks about bald men . And even to go further it says in the article you posted how confidence is of most importance . Furthermore , short and clean-cut. WHICH with balding or hair loss can be pulled off with a buzz or a short number 1.
How does one have "short and clean cut hair" when one has no hair? Look, you're just going to continue to deny empirical reality no matter what evidence I provide; there's no point conversing with someone who debates in bad-faith, ever moving the goal posts. I'm not going to waste my time posting study after study, only to have you give a, "but muh shaved head" anecdote as if it were a legitimate data point or complaining that I ignored the 40-something-divorcee-mother-of-two demo, "broski."
Here's a wild, radical, bizarre concept. I know it sounds idiotic but just hear me out:
What if not every guy was exactly the same?
Maybe hair loss does NOT affect EVERY guy's attractiveness by THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT?
Whaddiya think? Could such a strange idea be possible?
What if not every guy was exactly the same?
Maybe hair loss does NOT affect EVERY guy's attractiveness by THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT?
Whaddiya think? Could such a strange idea be possible?
Oh, so the "broski" applying a straw man fallacy - where did I ever say hair was the only key to a healthy sex life?
There is none to discuss, so what else should we do? This is vaporware that's never coming to market - at least not in this generation.
- Reaction score
- 31
Christ, can you people take this to the "impact of hairloss" section already? Many of us are here to find solutions and read about up-and-coming treatments, not hear about your neuroticism.
It's sad watching tortured narcissists try to pull each other down instead of picking themselves up.
It's sad watching tortured narcissists try to pull each other down instead of picking themselves up.
- Reaction score
- 31
Cut the editorializing, would you? If you don't think it will work, fine. Obviously we're all here to learn about and share thoughts on efficacy... But save the incel whining for one of the many incel forums out there. This section isn't for that.
He's not, "editorializing," he simply stating facts, your dissonance cope not to the contrary. There are worthy treatments that will actually come out in the coming decade that are worth discussing - this isn't one of them.
He absolutely said I did.
LOL - sure, sure. If there was a reliable means to do it, I'd bet you $1000 hair cloning isn't available by the end of 2029. You read too much Kurzweil; there is no, "Singularity" right around the corner that's going to make everyone immortal full heads. Better treatments? Absolutely. Cure? Not until we're deep into the second half of the 21st century.
Follica is a legitimate game-changer, and it's about two years away from the point where you can actually walk into a derm's office and have it done.
- Reaction score
- 31
I'm not objecting to his thoughts on the viability of the treatment, but rather the hysteria about lost youth and the genetic lottery he slipped in. Can you guys make it one post without barfing your insecurities up on unrelated threads?
- Reaction score
- 287
People just want to show, how much they hate all the sciencists, cause they feel betrayed. Thats why they're flaming all those upcoming treatments and companies, like those sciencists are following this thread...
If there is no blood flow to all the new follicles you are back where you started, it is believe that hair follicles create angiogenesis in the haircycle (actually a study in collaboration with shiseido "Characterization of human dermal sheath cells reveals CD36-expressing perivascular cells associated with capillary blood vessel formation in hair follicles") and that is on top of that your immune system won't reject them all.
And if hair follicles are to be seen as an organ transplant, then we know from other organ transplants there can be problems caused by immune system where the body rejects new parts no matter how much the body needs it.
So there are still hurdles to overcome even though we could clone 30.000 hair follicles tomorrow, we would still need to be sure about that the human body wants to accept them and that the body can absorb it into its own natural cycles.
If its only was this simple.
Stem cells could regenerate organs – but only if the body won't reject them
Hurdles for using a patient's own stem cells
Stem cells generated from a patient's own cells—called autologous stem cells—are currently believed to be the most promising strategy for circumventing immune rejection. Autologous stem cells are generated directly from the patient seeking treatment and need to be differentiated into the cell type that needs to be replaced. Since the cells carry the same tissue antigens as the patient, they are tagged as "self," and immunologists believe these cells are accepted by the immune system.
However, this notion may not be correct. In a previous study, our lab had revealed that minor genetic mutations in the DNA carried by a special part of the cell's DNA, the mitochondrial DNA, can trigger an immune response.
Mitochondria are small structures inside cells that carry their own set of genes that are responsible for generating energy for the cell. Because every cell has many mitochondria, they carry many copies of the mitochondrial DNA. Spontaneous changes in mitochondrial genes, called mutations, alter the shape of the proteins they encode. These mutated proteins, which we call "neoantigens," re-tag the cells as "foreign," alert the immune system and target the stem cells for destruction.