Looks are majorly environmental factors and your behaviours

[simules]

Based on my experience, I think looks are majorly determined by environmental and your behaviours in growth years.Both my parents have wide jaw while I have some recession compared to them.Both have high bone density and insane forward growth but still because of my habits when I was a kid I am recessed. I was destined to be a htn.

 

[femoidannihilator]

Based on my experience, I think looks are majorly determined by environmental and your behaviours in growth years.Both my parents have wide jaw while I have some recession compared to them.Both have high bone density and insane forward growth but still because of my habits when I was a kid I am recessed. I was destined to be a htn.

water

 

[eternarei]

mouthbreathing as a kid is the ultimate perma debuff

 

[cometohaunted]

Based on my experience, I think looks are majorly determined by environmental and your behaviours in growth years.Both my parents have wide jaw while I have some recession compared to them.Both have high bone density and insane forward growth but still because of my habits when I was a kid I am recessed. I was destined to be a htn.

Retarded point and retarded reasoning for the point. Everything is genetics, environmental factors only make up a small amount of development.

Obviously if you do everything completely wrong it'll make you look worse. But given that everything is done right it doesn't mean you'll look good it's still all up to genes.

Now for the reasoning you gave, absolutely low iq. Just because your parents have good jaws or development it certain areas it doesn't mean you just didn't develop properly due to environment even if you DID have bad habits. It's always all genes unless they were chronic and really bad.

Siblings that are close in age are always the best example of disproving this, I have a brother who's only 3 years younger than me, it's a lot but not too much. However we grew up eating the same food we were raised the exact same way naturally. We're black so we eat a lot of meat obviously, that's all we really ate with carbs like pasta or fries or rice.

I have much better features than him even though I arguably grew up worse, was fat throughout my teen years didn't go outside and room rotted for a while and all my bones cranofacially developed much better. He's slighty recessed in the lower jaw (not too crazy but still noticeably) whilst I'm not.

I have more prominent zygos, hooded eyes and a more forward grown dimorphic brow ridge. However that's not fair to compare because the brow ridge does develop in puberty. In the next year or so he should be finished developing and we'll see who has a better brow ridge.

This isn't saying he's ugly either, he's a handsome kid, definitely MTN. He has thicker brows and a smaller waist than me so he gets a plus for that. I got the shitty waist genes but got the really good upper frame genes from our dad. He's 6'2 broad shoulders.

TLDR; It's obviously not true that environment is the main thing, everything is genetics boyo that's what bp is about and it's true, I had a worse pubertal upbringing than my brother and I still have much better features than him. We had an equal child upbringing tho. Also he's 15!

 

[simules]

Retarded point and retarded reasoning for the point. Everything is genetics, environmental factors only make up a small amount of development.

Obviously if you do everything completely wrong it'll make you look worse. But given that everything is done right it doesn't mean you'll look good it's still all up to genes.

Now for the reasoning you gave, absolutely low iq. Just because your parents have good jaws or development it certain areas it doesn't mean you just didn't develop properly due to environment even if you DID have bad habits. It's always all genes unless they were chronic and really bad.

Siblings that are close in age are always the best example of disproving this, I have a brother who's only 3 years younger than me, it's a lot but not too much. However we grew up eating the same food we were raised the exact same way naturally. We're black so we eat a lot of meat obviously, that's all we really ate with carbs like pasta or fries or rice.

I have much better features than him even though I arguably grew up worse, was fat throughout my teen years didn't go outside and room rotted for a while and all my bones cranofacially developed much better. He's slighty recessed in the lower jaw (not too crazy but still noticeably) whilst I'm not.

I have more prominent zygos, hooded eyes and a more forward grown dimorphic brow ridge. However that's not fair to compare because the brow ridge does develop in puberty. In the next year or so he should be finished developing and we'll see who has a better brow ridge.

This isn't saying he's ugly either, he's a handsome kid, definitely MTN. He has thicker brows and a smaller waist than me so he gets a plus for that. I got the shitty waist genes but got the really good upper frame genes from our dad. He's 6'2 broad shoulders.

TLDR; It's obviously not true that environment is the main thing, everything is genetics boyo that's what bp is about and it's true, I had a worse pubertal upbringing than my brother and I still have much better features than him. We had an equal child upbringing tho. Also he's 15!

Na lol

 

[Peco]

Obviously if you do everything completely wrong it'll make you look worse. But given that everything is done right it doesn't mean you'll look good it's still all up to genes.

Now for the reasoning you gave, absolutely low iq. Just because your parents have good jaws or development it certain areas it doesn't mean you just didn't develop properly due to environment even if you DID have bad habits. It's always all genes unless they were chronic and really bad.

Siblings that are close in age are always the best example of disproving this, I have a brother who's only 3 years younger than me, it's a lot but not too much. However we grew up eating the same food we were raised the exact same way naturally. We're black so we eat a lot of meat obviously, that's all we really ate with carbs like pasta or fries or rice.

I have much better features than him even though I arguably grew up worse, was fat throughout my teen years didn't go outside and room rotted for a while and all my bones cranofacially developed much better. He's slighty recessed in the lower jaw (not too crazy but still noticeably) whilst I'm not.

I have more prominent zygos, hooded eyes and a more forward grown dimorphic brow ridge. However that's not fair to compare because the brow ridge does develop in puberty. In the next year or so he should be finished developing and we'll see who has a better brow ridge.

This isn't saying he's ugly either, he's a handsome kid, definitely MTN. He has thicker brows and a smaller waist than me so he gets a plus for that. I got the shitty waist genes but got the really good upper frame genes from our dad. He's 6'2 broad shoulders.

TLDR; It's obviously not true that environment is the main thing, everything is genetics boyo that's what bp is about and it's true, I had a worse pubertal upbringing than my brother and I still have much better features than him. We had an equal child upbringing tho. Also he's 15!

All you did here is give us an anectode which doesn't prove anything on its own.

The position of your mandible,maxilla and teeth is determined entirely by your habits. Your genes can determine wheter you will have a bigger/wider mandible or maxilla but the relative position of the bones which is the most important part is determined by your habits.

This is true for every bone in the body, genetics can determine how long or wide bones will be but not the position of those same bones relative to one another, which is really the most important thing for appearance.

If like you claim looks were determined mostly by genetics it would be hard to find examples of good looking kids coming from a family of unattractive people, but I'm sure you would agree it's not hard to find examples of that even in your personal life.

Also the most important habits are those related to how you move your body while performing different gestures like standing sitting or walking. Habits like your diet, how much you exercise or go outside are much less important because they will only have an effect on your soft tissue so like your skin, bodyfat percentage etc... but these health indicators aren't as important.

 

[simules]

All you did here is give us an anectode which doesn't prove anything on its own.

The position of your mandible,maxilla and teeth is determined entirely by your habits. Your genes can determine wheter you will have a bigger/wider mandible or maxilla but the relative position of the bones which is the most important part is determined by your habits.

This is true for every bone in the body, genetics can determine how long or wide bones will be but not the position of those same bones relative to one another, which is really the most important thing for appearance.

If like you claim looks were determined mostly by genetics it would be hard to find examples of good looking kids coming from a family of unattractive people, but I'm sure you would agree it's not hard to find examples of that even in your personal life.

Also the most important habits are those related to how you move your body while performing different gestures like standing sitting or walking. Habits like your diet, how much you exercise or go outside are much less important because they will only have an effect on your soft tissue so like your skin, bodyfat percentage etc... but these health indicators aren't as important.

Mirin

 

[cometohaunted]

All you did here is give us an anectode which doesn't prove anything on its own.

I didn't say the anecdote gives an exhaustive justification of the point. However it is an example of what I'm saying. There's no anecdote that serves as an exhaustive justification for a point lol

The position of your mandible,maxilla and teeth is determined entirely by your habits. Your genes can determine wheter you will have a bigger/wider mandible or maxilla but the relative position of the bones which is the most important part is determined by your habits.

This is true for every bone in the body, genetics can determine how long or wide bones will be but not the position of those same bones relative to one another, which is really the most important thing for appearance.

With all due respect this is another really low iq take. If it was entirely habits, then it would be a universal truth. But it isn't universal as it doesn't apply to the anecdote so it's particular like I said.

My brother and I had the same exact habits. We literally have the same parents lmfao and they raised us the exact same way, It's funny because I asked my mother if she made me and my brother nose breathe as toddlers because I recognised this difference we had. She said she didn't have to because we naturally just did it.

We literally don't have any other different habits lmfao diet was the same so was sleep if anything he slept more than me. literally everything in our development was the same and he's still recessed slightly in the jaw. So it is true that it's not just habits.

If like you claim looks were determined mostly by genetics it would be hard to find examples of good looking kids coming from a family of unattractive people, but I'm sure you would agree it's not hard to find examples of that even in your personal life.

Also the most important habits are those related to how you move your body while performing different gestures like standing sitting or walking. Habits like your diet, how much you exercise or go outside are much less important because they will only have an effect on your soft tissue so like your skin, bodyfat percentage etc... but these health indicators aren't as important.

lol?? this is also so low iq because you're just talking out of your ass. You don't know what genetics means and so much people in this community and life in general don't know. It takes 2 seconds of comprehension and basic searches to know this.

Genetics doesn't mean "hereditary" or inherited traits. Heredity is simply one aspect of genes. Genes are unique and no one else has your genetic code. Genetic code is completely random outside of certain inherited traits.

It literally explains why we have PSL Gods that have parents that do not have those features at all. YOU think that's due to habits when thats completely retarded.

Most of the facial features that make people attractive aren't even inherited features like the maxilla infras supras or eye muscle tension and skin elasticity like oprys eyes. You think his fucking habits gave him that feature

 

[Peco]

I didn't say the anecdote gives an exhaustive justification of the point. However it is an example of what I'm saying. There's no anecdote that serves as an exhaustive justification for a point lol

Examples are useful for explaining a concept not for proving a point, so just leave it out of the conversation

With all due respect this is another really low iq take. If it was entirely habits, then it would be a universal truth. But it isn't universal as it doesn't apply to the anecdote so it's particular like I said.

My brother and I had the same exact habits. We literally have the same parents lmfao and they raised us the exact same way, It's funny because I asked my mother if she made me and my brother nose breathe as toddlers because I recognised this difference we had. She said she didn't have to because we naturally just did it.

We literally don't have any other different habits lmfao diet was the same so was sleep if anything he slept more than me. literally everything in our development was the same and he's still recessed slightly in the jaw. So it is true that it's not just habits.

Like I said the most important habits are those related to how you move your body when performing different gestures like walking sitting or standing, things like diet and sleep don't matter much

lol?? this is also so low iq because you're just talking out of your ass. You don't know what genetics means and so much people in this community and life in general don't know. It takes 2 seconds of comprehension and basic searches to know this.

Genetics doesn't mean "hereditary" or inherited traits. Heredity is simply one aspect of genes. Genes are unique and no one else has your genetic code. Genetic code is completely random outside of certain inherited traits.

It literally explains why we have PSL Gods that have parents that do not have those features at all. YOU think that's due to habits when thats completely retarded.

Most of the facial features that make people attractive aren't even inherited features like the maxilla infras supras or eye muscle tension and skin elasticity like oprys eyes. You think his fucking habits gave him that feature

You are right, my point about attractive kids with ugly parents doesn't make much sense. Still though we can see that all attractive people have good functional habits, because these habits have an effect on how the different bones are positioned relative to one another, and that's something we can observe and measure. On the other hand you have no way to prove someone has good genetics: you cannot say that someone has good genetics because they are attractive because that would be circular reasoning, so how do you prove someone has good genetics ?

 

[cometohaunted]

Examples are useful for explaining a concept not for proving a point, so just leave it out of the conversation

This is case-dependent on the point being proven. Also by examples I'm talking about real examples not a hypothetical one, those are called analogies. I'm not simply explaining a concept I'm giving a real state of affairs.

Additionally, the point being proven is that it isn't just habits. and if we take a case where there are identical habits and still differentiation, this leads to the point that it's genetics also. This doesn't prove it's ALL genetics but that wasn't the aim.

Like I said the most important habits are those related to how you move your body when performing different gestures like walking sitting or standing, things like diet and sleep don't matter much

Lol? sleep definitely matters?? That's where all your physiological processes and hormones are regulated lmao which are necessary for growth. This includes cranofacial growth. Same with nutrition. "Habits" in terms of things like gestures do not matter much when we have things like sleep and diet that have a much more direct impact on your bones.

You are right, my point about attractive kids with ugly parents doesn't make much sense. Still though we can see that all attractive people have good functional habits, because these habits have an effect on how the different bones are positioned relative to one another, and that's something we can observe and measure. On the other hand you have no way to prove someone has good genetics: you cannot say that someone has good genetics because they are attractive because that would be circular reasoning, so how do you prove someone has good genetics ?

I can say that though, it wouldn't be circular as the necessary bi-condition for attraction is genetics. The cranofacial areas on the face for attraction are genetically stimulated not habitually stimulated lmfao

You cannot stimulate maxillary growth. You cannot stimulate infraorbital growth. You cannot stimulate certain ratios on your face. The only thing I'd say you can stimulate is the mandible but that's the only bone that's very different to all the other bones in the face as it actually uses endochondral ossification for it's growth in length. (Similar to the height based bones)

Also if someone doesn't have extraordinary habits but they have extraordinary looks, we can conclusively deduce that habits do not determine attractiveness as the only other possible factor would be genetic determinism. It's a simple disjunctive syllogism lmao

 

[simules]

This is case-dependent on the point being proven. Also by examples I'm talking about real examples not a hypothetical one, those are called analogies. I'm not simply explaining a concept I'm giving a real state of affairs.

Additionally, the point being proven is that it isn't just habits. and if we take a case where there are identical habits and still differentiation, this leads to the point that it's genetics also. This doesn't prove it's ALL genetics but that wasn't the aim.

Lol? sleep definitely matters?? That's where all your physiological processes and hormones are regulated lmao which are necessary for growth. This includes cranofacial growth. Same with nutrition. "Habits" in terms of things like gestures do not matter much when we have things like sleep and diet that have a much more direct impact on your bones.

I can say that though, it wouldn't be circular as the necessary bi-condition for attraction is genetics. The cranofacial areas on the face for attraction are genetically stimulated not habitually stimulated lmfao

You cannot stimulate maxillary growth. You cannot stimulate infraorbital growth. You cannot stimulate certain ratios on your face. The only thing I'd say you can stimulate is the mandible but that's the only bone that's very different to all the other bones in the face as it actually uses endochondral ossification for it's growth in length. (Similar to the height based bones)

Also if someone doesn't have extraordinary habits but they have extraordinary looks, we can conclusively deduce that habits do not determine attractiveness as the only other possible factor would be genetic determinism. It's a simple disjunctive syllogism lmao

How to stimulate mandible then I'm 16 and I want to grow it

 

[ThomasDeutsch]

All you did here is give us an anectode which doesn't prove anything on its own.

The position of your mandible,maxilla and teeth is determined entirely by your habits. Your genes can determine wheter you will have a bigger/wider mandible or maxilla but the relative position of the bones which is the most important part is determined by your habits.

This is true for every bone in the body, genetics can determine how long or wide bones will be but not the position of those same bones relative to one another, which is really the most important thing for appearance.

If like you claim looks were determined mostly by genetics it would be hard to find examples of good looking kids coming from a family of unattractive people, but I'm sure you would agree it's not hard to find examples of that even in your personal life.

Also the most important habits are those related to how you move your body while performing different gestures like standing sitting or walking. Habits like your diet, how much you exercise or go outside are much less important because they will only have an effect on your soft tissue so like your skin, bodyfat percentage etc... but these health indicators aren't as important.

U could still improve a lot in ur early 20s. In my first 20 years all i did was sit down all day and play video games while eating junk and never exercises. After that I quit videa, changed my diet and my overall lifestyle. Basically i maximized my health indicators, i look like a different person

 

[cometohaunted]

How to stimulate mandible then I'm 16 and I want to grow it

It's mainly genetic, but just keep nose breathing. Eat a lot of meat and sleep a lot since it uses hgh mainly to stimulate chondrocyte proliferation for it's growth.

It's literally the same concept you use to heightmaxx. However it mainly stops growing majorly at around 16, just like your leg bones for height.

Hope for the best

 

[simules]

It's mainly genetic, but just keep nose breathing. Eat a lot of meat and sleep a lot since it uses hgh mainly to stimulate chondrocyte proliferation for it's growth.

It's literally the same concept you use to heightmaxx. However it mainly stops growing majorly at around 16, just like your leg bones for height.

Hope for the best

I'm confused .You say it's genetics but looking at my mom and dad I feel like it's just me lol..but I'll try my best to maximize my jaw..if this doesn't work out I'll just do genioplasty

 

[Peco]

This is case-dependent on the point being proven. Also by examples I'm talking about real examples not a hypothetical one, those are called analogies. I'm not simply explaining a concept I'm giving a real state of affairs.

Additionally, the point being proven is that it isn't just habits. and if we take a case where there are identical habits and still differentiation, this leads to the point that it's genetics also.

The only identical habit you can actually prove to be nearly identical is diet. Also I never said it's just habits, I'm claiming habits are more important than genetics. Nobody, not even op was claiming it's just habits.

This doesn't prove it's ALL genetics but that wasn't the aim.

Lol? sleep definitely matters?? That's where all your physiological processes and hormones are regulated lmao which are necessary for growth. This includes cranofacial growth. Same with nutrition. "Habits" in terms of things like gestures do not matter much when we have things like sleep and diet that have a much more direct impact on your bones.

That is true I tend to give more importance to gestures because it's what I personally suffered from and I never had problems with my diet or sleep. I will say though that this is common for most people so when I say that gestures matter more I mean that they are usually not considered very important while it's common knowledge that sleep and diet are.

I can say that though, it wouldn't be circular as the necessary bi-condition for attraction is genetics. The cranofacial areas on the face for attraction are genetically stimulated not habitually stimulated lmfao

But how can you prove this ?

You cannot stimulate maxillary growth. You cannot stimulate infraorbital growth.

I'm not sure about this

You cannot stimulate certain ratios on your face.

Ratios are much determined by the relative position of bones, which is determined by habits.

Also if someone doesn't have extraordinary habits but they have extraordinary looks, we can conclusively deduce that habits do not determine attractiveness as the only other possible factor would be genetic determinism. It's a simple disjunctive syllogism lmao

I agree but show me an example of that then

 

[cometohaunted]

I'm confused .You say it's genetics but looking at my mom and dad I feel like it's just me lol..but I'll try my best to maximize my jaw..if this doesn't work out I'll just do genioplasty

You're not understanding, genetics doesn't be hereditary. It's the same concept as autoimmune diseases. They're genetic diseases that you don't inherit for your parents.

Your genetics were just unlucky enough have an immune system that starts attacking another organ in your body.

For you, you were likely unlucky enough to not get the same mandible. Habits can somewhat be mixed in if you had chronically bad habits but if you didn't it's genetics.

 

[cometohaunted]

The only identical habit you can actually prove to be nearly identical is diet. Also I never said it's just habits, I'm claiming habits are more important than genetics. Nobody, not even op was claiming it's just habits.

He literally said it was majorly habits which is what I said I was attacking. You also implied its mainly habits and are explicitly saying it is. "Habits" is an ambiguous term you have to actually add some constituents into the word for a productive convo.

Also how is the only provable habit diet?? we both nose breathed lmfao there's no other habits that will impact mandibule growth or angle excluding genetics and sleep.

But how can you prove this ?

It's proven because there's literally no habit excluding potentially chronic mouth breathing that can impact the growth of the maxilla It's not circular when the thing you want to me to prove is already factual, it requires no further extensive reasoning.

There's 0 physiological links to maxillary growth outside of chronic mouth breathing and if it wasnt clear already mewing is apart of that since you can't mouth breathe and mew at the same time.

Zygos and infras are objectively unchangeable and cannot be impacted at all. Pure genes.

Supras are mainly genetic but can be influenced to some degree by androgens.

I'm not sure about this

Objective truth lol

Ratios are much determined by the relative position of bones, which is determined by habits.

I agree but show me an example of that then

Of course ratios are determined by bone positioning, and the bone positions are literally genetically determined. How can you have been on this forum for 2 years and you don't even agree with genetic determinism lmfao

What do you mean show an example?? Do you think every good looking person just has some arbitrary niche habit method that we don't know about to be attractive?? Do you think people like jordan barrett did something to get that attractive or was he just lucky to be born that way lmfao.

This is just a coping mechanism for realising you are ugly. (Not you specifically)

 

[Peco]

He literally said it was majorly habits which is what I said I was attacking. You also implied its mainly habits and are explicitly saying it is. "Habits" is an ambiguous term you have to actually add some constituents into the word for a productive convo.

You said and I quote "Additionally, the point being proven is that it isn't just habits" but our point was that it was mainly habit not just habits.

Also how is the only provable habit diet?? we both nose breathed lmfao there's no other habits that will impact mandibule growth or angle excluding genetics and sleep.

No yeah mouth breathing is also important but for example for sleep you could only be certain that your brother had the same as yours only if you guys sleep in the same room and you fall asleep shortly after him everytime. Also I doubt you have looked into gestural habits, you would have to record yourself walking,sitting standing speaking etc.. and compare it with how your brother does it. Additionally you would have to measure his and your pelvic and ribcage tilt together with other things like the position of your feet and neck.

It's proven because there's literally no habit excluding potentially chronic mouth breathing that can impact the growth of the maxilla It's not circular when the thing you want to me to prove is already factual, it requires no further extensive reasoning.

I'm not sure how you can be sure of this but even if it was the case like I said habits can change the relative position of bones, which can make your maxilla appear more projected and forwardly grown, even though there is no actual growth. When you undergo facial surgeries like lefort 1 the surgeon cuts parts of a bone and moves it relatively to the rest, he doesn't inject some serum to make your maxilla grow.

There's 0 physiological links to maxillary growth outside of chronic mouth breathing and if it wasnt clear already mewing is apart of that since you can't mouth breathe and mew at the same time.

Zygos and infras are objectively unchangeable and cannot be impacted at all. Pure genes.

Supras are mainly genetic but can be influenced to some degree by androgens.

Objective truth lol

Of course ratios are determined by bone positioning, and the bone positions are literally genetically determined.

This is not true, the relative position of bones is much determined by your habits

How can you have been on this forum for 2 years and you don't even agree with genetic determinism lmfao

What do you mean show an example?? Do you think every good looking person just has some arbitrary niche habit method that we don't know about to be attractive?? Do you think people like jordan barrett did something to get that attractive or was he just lucky to be born that way lmfao.

You said that by showing an example of a good looking person with bad habits you would prove that they don't matter as much as genetics, and I agree with that, so I'm asking you to do that.

 

[cometohaunted]

You said and I quote "Additionally, the point being proven is that it isn't just habits" but our point was that it was mainly habit not just habits.

Yes but it also proves the point that it isn't MAINLY habits as genetics also do the same thing you're saying habits do. So it isn't really habits in this case. You're not tracking the argument lol

No yeah mouth breathing is also important but for example for sleep you could only be certain that your brother had the same as yours only if you guys sleep in the same room and you fall asleep shortly after him everytime. Also I doubt you have looked into gestural habits, you would have to record yourself walking,sitting standing speaking etc.. and compare it with how your brother does it. Additionally you would have to measure his and your pelvic and ribcage tilt together with other things like the position of your feet and neck.

Me and my brother have always grown up sleeping in the same room. Also gestural habits are cope. If they had an effect it would be a very small percentage. And again all things that are bone altering have to be chronic.

You can't just become a hunchback by having terrible posture for a year, it has to be severe and chronic including other things. You're coping. Do you think jordan did all of this to look good? Obviously not. He was born that way and we have pictures of him when he was a kid.

I'm not sure how you can be sure of this but even if it was the case like I said habits can change the relative position of bones, which can make your maxilla appear more projected and forwardly grown, even though there is no actual growth. When you undergo facial surgeries like lefort 1 the surgeon cuts parts of a bone and moves it relatively to the rest, he doesn't inject some serum to make your maxilla grow.

??? Zero correlation I never said doctors inject some serum to make your maxilla grow or even implied it. Also yeah the maxilla is moved..? to mimic the forward growth it would have had..? I don't get the point being made here. You literally proved nothing by saying this

This is not true, the relative position of bones is much determined by your habits

You said that by showing an example of a good looking person with bad habits you would prove that they don't matter as much as genetics, and I agree with that, so I'm asking you to do that.

Repeating the claim does not prove it LOL. You think the distance between your eye sockets or the shape of your orbital bones is habitually produced???? If this was the case then what supposed habit did all the supermodels do that we didn't do for their orbital and maxillary bones??? They're literally normal humans like us lmfao you're trying to keep debating to safe your pride but it isn't working.

You said that by showing an example of a good looking person with bad habits you would prove that they don't matter as much as genetics, and I agree with that, so I'm asking you to do that.

That's a strawman fallacy, I never said that at all. Nice way to intentionally misrepresent my argument because you know I didn't say that.

I said if someone doesn't have extraordinary habits. Meaning they just did normal things and developed normally without going over the top with these "habitual" copes. If these people have extraordinary looks that analytically means habits does not determine attractiveness.

Habits = looks

Normal habits = Normal looks?

Bad habits = Bad looks


But THIS does not WORK because the people who have extraordinary looks also have normal habits. They didn't do anything extraordinary to achieve their looks they were literally born like that dude

ALL the positive features jordan has that we can name now as he's an adult, are the same features he had when he was literally like 6 years old. Excluding dimorphic facial features like the prominent brow ridge. He was literally born with everything he has. This emphasises the point that looks are just purely genetic.

You're so slow at tracking the conversation that you probably think I'm saying the only things that influence how you look is genetics which obviously isn't true and clearly isn't what I'm saying.

If you couldn't comprehend that you may need to re-evaluate your comprehension. What I am saying is that genetics will always run it's course and be the ending determiner of your skeletal structure whether you like it or not, sure if there's bad habits in your development like chronic excessive mouth breathing for years it will affect you but that isn't the point I'm making.

Think of a train on train tracks to get to it's destination, yes if you put blockades in the way it will change the course but it's so nonsensical to try and amount attractiveness up to childhood habits and not simply them being genetically gifted.

Literally look at young opry lmfao he still has those eyes in all 3 of the pictures. Your structure is already laid out from when you are born. It will never change for the better, only for the worse. IF you make it change the worse.

 

[Peco]

Yes but it also proves the point that it isn't MAINLY habits as genetics also do the same thing you're saying habits do. So it isn't really habits in this case. You're not tracking the argument lol

No, if your point is to prove that it's not just habits one example is enough, if your point is to prove it's not mainly habits one example is useless. Here I'm even assuming your tracking of yours and your brother's habits has something scientific to it which it clearly does not, but even if you were to scientifically prove you and your brother had the exact same habits that could still be an exception. To prove that's it's mainly genetics or not mainly habits you would have to provide a much larger set of examples.

Me and my brother have always grown up sleeping in the same room. Also gestural habits are cope. If they had an effect it would be a very small percentage. And again all things that are bone altering have to be chronic.

You can't just become a hunchback by having terrible posture for a year, it has to be severe and chronic including other things. You're coping. Do you think jordan did all of this to look good? Obviously not. He was born that way and we have pictures of him when he was a kid.

I do not think Jordan was conscious of his good habits no, and I'm not sure where you got that from me, because I never implied anything like that. Still you can clearly observe that all the extremly good looking people have a flat back, and close to 0 pelvis or ribcage tilt. I'm sure Jordan mews but I'm also certain he didn't learn mewing, it was natural for him. I'm sure when you were younger you weren't conscious that you were doing something good by nose breathing instead of mouth breathing, you just did it. So you don't have to be conscious of your good habits but they still affect you

??? Zero correlation I never said doctors inject some serum to make your maxilla grow or even implied it. Also yeah the maxilla is moved..? to mimic the forward growth it would have had..? I don't get the point being made here. You literally proved nothing by saying this

I was not claiming you said that, I was making an example to explain a concept. You said and I quote "It's proven because there's literally no habit excluding potentially chronic mouth breathing that can impact the growth of the maxilla" and I agree that no habit can "grow" your maxilla in the sense that it makes the bone larger, but it can change its position relative to other bones, thus making it appear more developed. I made that example to show you that surgeons do exactly this, they do not grow the bone in any way, it does not become larger, but they move it relatively to other bones.

Repeating the claim does not prove it LOL. You think the distance between your eye sockets or the shape of your orbital bones is habitually produced???? If this was the case then what supposed habit did all the supermodels do that we didn't do for their orbital and maxillary bones??? They're literally normal humans like us lmfao you're trying to keep debating to safe your pride but it isn't working.

I never claimed the shape of a bone is habitually produced, it's the relative position of said bones that is habitual. There certainly are characteristics that are not influenced by habits.

That's a strawman fallacy, I never said that at all. Nice way to intentionally misrepresent my argument because you know I didn't say that.
View attachment 4997521

I said if someone doesn't have extraordinary habits. Meaning they just did normal things and developed normally without going over the top with these "habitual" copes. If these people have extraordinary looks that analytically means habits does not determine attractiveness.

Jordan does have extraordinary habits though, you can clearly see it by analyzing a video of him walking for example. His torso is always lenghtned and his head does not retract, he has a perfectly flat back even while in motion. Like I said before just because he isn't conscious of his habits that does not mean they are not top notch.

Habits = looks

Normal habits = Normal looks?

Bad habits = Bad looks


But THIS does not WORK because the people who have extraordinary looks also have normal habits. They didn't do anything extraordinary to achieve their looks they were literally born like that dude
View attachment 4997550 View attachment 4997553
ALL the positive features jordan has that we can name now as he's an adult, are the same features he had when he was literally like 6 years old. Excluding dimorphic facial features like the prominent brow ridge. He was literally born with everything he has. This emphasises the point that looks are just purely genetic.

You're so slow at tracking the conversation that you probably think I'm saying the only things that influence how you look is genetics which obviously isn't true and clearly isn't what I'm saying.

If you couldn't comprehend that you may need to re-evaluate your comprehension. What I am saying is that genetics will always run it's course and be the ending determiner of your skeletal structure whether you like it or not, sure if there's bad habits in your development like chronic excessive mouth breathing for years it will affect you but that isn't the point I'm making.

Think of a train on train tracks to get to it's destination, yes if you put blockades in the way it will change the course but it's so nonsensical to try and amount attractiveness up to childhood habits and not simply them being genetically gifted.

View attachment 4997615View attachment 4997616 Literally look at young opry lmfao he still has those eyes in all 3 of the pictures. Your structure is already laid out from when you are born. It will never change for the better, only for the worse. IF you make it change the worse.

 

[cometohaunted]

No, if your point is to prove that it's not just habits one example is enough, if your point is to prove it's not mainly habits one example is useless. Here I'm even assuming your tracking of yours and your brother's habits has something scientific to it which it clearly does not, but even if you were to scientifically prove you and your brother had the exact same habits that could still be an exception. To prove that's it's mainly genetics or not mainly habits you would have to provide a much larger set of examples.

You're acting like the only argument given is examples when I've provided objective information that habits cannot restrict any maxillofacial growth, in which the antithesis of that is growth isn't determined by habits like at all.

You also keep saying "habits" as if there's some unknown methods models have to develop properly. MOST people use the same conventional methods to develop and still have recessions. Like you're being intentionally ambiguous. What do you think opry did that the rest of the population didn't?

I do not think Jordan was conscious of his good habits no, and I'm not sure where you got that from me, because I never implied anything like that. Still you can clearly observe that all the extremly good looking people have a flat back, and close to 0 pelvis or ribcage tilt. I'm sure Jordan mews but I'm also certain he didn't learn mewing, it was natural for him. I'm sure when you were younger you weren't conscious that you were doing something good by nose breathing instead of mouth breathing, you just did it. So you don't have to be conscious of your good habits but they still affect you

I never said anything about making the conscious consequential decision, so I don't know what argument you're attacking from there.

Also, that's a textbook definition of a fallacy. "All good looking people have x" yeah but that's completely irrelevant. I could say when I go outside it rains that doesn't mean I'm the cause. Correlation doesn't not equate to causation.

I was not claiming you said that, I was making an example to explain a concept. You said and I quote "It's proven because there's literally no habit excluding potentially chronic mouth breathing that can impact the growth of the maxilla" and I agree that no habit can "grow" your maxilla in the sense that it makes the bone larger, but it can change its position relative to other bones, thus making it appear more developed. I made that example to show you that surgeons do exactly this, they do not grow the bone in any way, it does not become larger, but they move it relatively to other bones

You keep repeating this and you don't even understand the critique being made, Yes surgeons move bone forward to MIMIC if the bone was grown more forward. That's literally the point lmfao positioning literally doesn't matter it's about how grown the bone is in volume.

But because you can't just make a bone grow more in volume, they move it forward to mimic the natural volume. You're not making a point here at all

I never claimed the shape of a bone is habitually produced, it's the relative position of said bones that is habitual. There certainly are characteristics that are not influenced by habits.

You keep saying relative position, this is literally ambiguous as hell and you keep arguing to save face. Unpack the term? relative to what? which specific cranofacial bone are you even talking about they all work differently Not all bones are shape dependent not all are length dependent and not all are depending on width. Be specific.

Jordan does have extraordinary habits though, you can clearly see it by analyzing a video of him walking for example. His torso is always lenghtned and his head does not retract, he has a perfectly flat back even while in motion. Like I said before just because he isn't conscious of his habits that does not mean they are not top notch.

That doesn't mean just because he did those things they are the cause?? that is the fallacy. That's literally like saying I played soccer and I have a projected maxilla therefore the maxilla is grown through being a football player that playing football has relevance. It's retard logic.

Also again like I said, there's people that do have all these good habits and still don't look like them which LITERALLY proves genes is cause for attraction not habits. And like I said, even if I were the steelman your position and say habits like this do have an effect, it's so fucking non-relevant based on the fact that people that do have these habits literally don't look like modelsSo it clearly isn't the thing causing the looks.

You keep hedging and saying "It's the main thing" and then we see a bunch of people do these things and still aren't as attractive then you say "Well it plays a role!!!" Like you're just hedging lmfao there's no good quantification for these habits as you can compare the apples to apples and still get oranges for one and apples for another.

The logical way you'd confirm if something has an effect is whether you can remove that variable and see if it still takes it's course. If it does it objectively means it doesn't have much presence for the subject to get to it's destination. Which we've done. This is a pointless discussion.

I mean what habit did opry and jordan do to get those hunter positive canthal tilt hooded brow ridge skin eyes with infraorbital support and zygo prominence? Please explain

 

[Peco]

You're acting like the only argument given is examples when I've provided objective information that habits cannot restrict any maxillofacial growth, in which the antithesis of that is growth isn't determined by habits like at all.

You also keep saying "habits" as if there's some unknown methods models have to develop properly. MOST people use the same conventional methods to develop and still have recessions. Like you're being intentionally ambiguous. What do you think opry did that the rest of the population didn't?

You say that "most people use the same conventional methods" but nobody uses anything. Nobody is conscious of their habits unless you are in communities like this. Again I do not think Opry or Jordan did anything, they were not conscious, but what you can clearly see is that the way they walk, sit or stand is different from the rest of the population.

I never said anything about making the conscious consequential decision, so I don't know what argument you're attacking from there.

You said:
"Do you think jordan did all of this to look good? Obviously not. He was born that way and we have pictures of him when he was a kid."

and to that I responded that no, I do not think Jordan did anything, because all came natural to him. I do not think he had to work for his looks because he wasn't conscious of his habits. Also saying that Jordan was attractive even as a kid doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that in the early stages of life genetic does matter more than habit, and I agree with that, but it makes much sense since you have your genetics since birth while you develop your habits your whole life. Your example would work if let's say even after 18 Jprdan was good looking but on top of that he had bad or regular habits. In that case it would mean that genetic do matter more even after puberty. But that is clearly not the case with Jordan since like I showed he has extraordinary habits.

Also, that's a textbook definition of a fallacy. "All good looking people have x" yeah but that's completely irrelevant. I could say when I go outside it rains that doesn't mean I'm the cause. Correlation doesn't not equate to causation.

Right but this is true for your argument too. Also habits (diet sleep and gestures) are all scientifically observable and measurable. On the other hand I'm still not sure how you measure good genetics without saying they produce good looking features which would be circular reasoning.

You keep repeating this and you don't even understand the critique being made, Yes surgeons move bone forward to MIMIC if the bone was grown more forward. That's literally the point lmfao positioning literally doesn't matter it's about how grown the bone is in volume.

But because you can't just make a bone grow more in volume, they move it forward to mimic the natural volume. You're not making a point here at all

The point I was trying to make was that you can get the same result you would get if the bone was to grow by moving said bone. And you agreed with me right here. Also if a bone can be moved to mimic an increase in volume it can also be moved to mimic a decrease in volume, so even if you have a big maxilla bone if it's not well rotated and positioned relative to other bones it can look much smaller than it actually is.

You keep saying relative position, this is literally ambiguous as hell and you keep arguing to save face. Unpack the term? relative to what? which specific cranofacial bone are you even talking about they all work differently Not all bones are shape dependent not all are length dependent and not all are depending on width. Be specific.

I'll show you an example of this

This is a diagram of the pelvis and ribcage. The left is how most people have their ribcage and pelvis positioned while the right is people like Jordan. You can see how the configuration on the right would result in a flat back from the butt up to the armpit line which is what we observe in people like Jordan. You can also see that the bones are exactly the same, what changes is their rotation and position relative to one another. Our body is not made only of bones, there is also tissue (muscle and fascia) and while we cannot grow our bones, we can move the tissue around them and thus also change their position and rotation relative to one another. You won't get the same change in rotation or position in cranofacial bones or any other bone in the body really, because the ribcage and pelvis are attached by the largest fascia in the body (thoracolumbar fascia) which if taut can change the relative position of those 2 bones even by centimeters. But you would agree with me that for craniofacial bones to see major result even a millimeter is enough.

That doesn't mean just because he did those things they are the cause?? that is the fallacy. That's literally like saying I played soccer and I have a projected maxilla therefore the maxilla is grown through being a football player that playing football has relevance. It's retard logic.

I was responding to you saying:
"That's a strawman fallacy, I never said that at all. Nice way to intentionally misrepresent my argument because you know I didn't say that.
View attachment 4997521

I said if someone doesn't have extraordinary habits. Meaning they just did normal things and developed normally without going over the top with these "habitual" copes. If these people have extraordinary looks that analytically means habits does not determine attractiveness."

You brought Jordan as an example of someone that did normal things and developed normally but that is extremly attractive. I responded to your argument by pointing to the fact that Jordan is not a good example of what you say, because he does have extraordinary habits.

Also again like I said, there's people that do have all these good habits and still don't look like them which LITERALLY proves genes is cause for attraction not habits. And like I said, even if I were the steelman your position and say habits like this do have an effect, it's so fucking non-relevant based on the fact that people that do have these habits literally don't look like modelsSo it clearly isn't the thing causing the looks.

You say this but I haven't seen you provide a single example of a person with a flat back, 0 pelvic tilt and ribcage tilt that is unattractive. I'm not saying everyone that has those habits will be a Jordan level model but since I'm claiming habits have a bigger impact than genetics that person will have to at least be above average. So go ahead and show me an example of someone with those habits I descbribed that is not attractive

You keep hedging and saying "It's the main thing" and then we see a bunch of people do these things and still aren't as attractive

Where have you provided an example of that ?

then you say "Well it plays a role!!!" Like you're just hedging lmfao there's no good quantification for these habits as you can compare the apples to apples and still get oranges for one and apples for another.

The logical way you'd confirm if something has an effect is whether you can remove that variable and see if it still takes it's course. If it does it objectively means it doesn't have much presence for the subject to get to it's destination. Which we've done.

Where have we done that ? I disproven your argument of Jordan or O'pry having normal or regular habits. You can clearly see by looking at how they move that their habits are top 1%

This is a pointless discussion.

I mean what habit did opry and jordan do to get those hunter positive canthal tilt hooded brow ridge skin eyes with infraorbital support and zygo prominence? Please explain

 

[cometohaunted]

You say that "most people use the same conventional methods" but nobody uses anything. Nobody is conscious of their habits unless you are in communities like this. Again I do not think Opry or Jordan did anything, they were not conscious, but what you can clearly see is that the way they walk, sit or stand is different from the rest of the population.

You said:
"Do you think jordan did all of this to look good? Obviously not. He was born that way and we have pictures of him when he was a kid."

and to that I responded that no, I do not think Jordan did anything, because all came natural to him. I do not think he had to work for his looks because he wasn't conscious of his habits. Also saying that Jordan was attractive even as a kid doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that in the early stages of life genetic does matter more than habit, and I agree with that, but it makes much sense since you have your genetics since birth while you develop your habits your whole life. Your example would work if let's say even after 18 Jprdan was good looking but on top of that he had bad or regular habits. In that case it would mean that genetic do matter more even after puberty. But that is clearly not the case with Jordan since like I showed he has extraordinary habits.

Right but this is true for your argument too. Also habits (diet sleep and gestures) are all scientifically observable and measurable. On the other hand I'm still not sure how you measure good genetics without saying they produce good looking features which would be circular reasoning.

The point I was trying to make was that you can get the same result you would get if the bone was to grow by moving said bone. And you agreed with me right here. Also if a bone can be moved to mimic an increase in volume it can also be moved to mimic a decrease in volume, so even if you have a big maxilla bone if it's not well rotated and positioned relative to other bones it can look much smaller than it actually is.

I'll show you an example of this
View attachment 5000530
This is a diagram of the pelvis and ribcage. The left is how most people have their ribcage and pelvis positioned while the right is people like Jordan. You can see how the configuration on the right would result in a flat back from the butt up to the armpit line which is what we observe in people like Jordan. You can also see that the bones are exactly the same, what changes is their rotation and position relative to one another. Our body is not made only of bones, there is also tissue (muscle and fascia) and while we cannot grow our bones, we can move the tissue around them and thus also change their position and rotation relative to one another. You won't get the same change in rotation or position in cranofacial bones or any other bone in the body really, because the ribcage and pelvis are attached by the largest fascia in the body (thoracolumbar fascia) which if taut can change the relative position of those 2 bones even by centimeters. But you would agree with me that for craniofacial bones to see major result even a millimeter is enough.

I was responding to you saying:
"That's a strawman fallacy, I never said that at all. Nice way to intentionally misrepresent my argument because you know I didn't say that.
View attachment 4997521

I said if someone doesn't have extraordinary habits. Meaning they just did normal things and developed normally without going over the top with these "habitual" copes. If these people have extraordinary looks that analytically means habits does not determine attractiveness."

You brought Jordan as an example of someone that did normal things and developed normally but that is extremly attractive. I responded to your argument by pointing to the fact that Jordan is not a good example of what you say, because he does have extraordinary habits.

You say this but I haven't seen you provide a single example of a person with a flat back, 0 pelvic tilt and ribcage tilt that is unattractive. I'm not saying everyone that has those habits will be a Jordan level model but since I'm claiming habits have a bigger impact than genetics that person will have to at least be above average. So go ahead and show me an example of someone with those habits I descbribed that is not attractive

Where have you provided an example of that ?


Where have we done that ? I disproven your argument of Jordan or O'pry having normal or regular habits. You can clearly see by looking at how they move that their habits are top 1%

Not responding, I skimmed through the text and it's just you repeating what you've been saying. Nice one

 

[Peco]

Not responding, I skimmed through the text and it's just you repeating what you've been saying. Nice one

I responded to all the points you made, how am I repeating anything. I'm sticking to responding to your points, I'm not mindlessly repeating anything.
You say "You keep hedging and saying It's the main thing and then we see a bunch of people do these things and still aren't as attractive"
When you only showed 2 examples which I wouldn't call a bunch, and both have been debunked, by showing that these 2 people have in fact top 1% habits.

You also agreed with me that a movement of bones can mimic an increase in volume.

You misinterpreted my arguments and I tried explaining them in a more detailed way so you could understand

 

[cometohaunted]

I responded to all the points you made, how am I repeating anything. I'm sticking to responding to your points, I'm not mindlessly repeating anything.
You say "You keep hedging and saying It's the main thing and then we see a bunch of people do these things and still aren't as attractive"
When you only showed 2 examples which I wouldn't call a bunch, and both have been debunked, by showing that these 2 people have in fact top 1% habits.

You also agreed with me that a movement of bones can mimic an increase in volume.

You misinterpreted my arguments and I tried explaining them in a more detailed way so you could understand

I didn't misinterpret your argument lmfao

These habits are not enough to turn you from a normal looking person into a model which is objectively true.

Also it's not about showing examples it's about deductive logic. Why is the only thing normies understand here empirical evidence?

You can't just conclude everyone isn't attractive or as attractive as them simply because they had bad posture. There are OBVIOUSLY a good amount of people that are attractive without doing anything you are saying. That's an undeniable truth. There's no contradiction to this so it is true that there are people.

Most people in the world have completely normal human habits. This is like those memes where people think making such a minor change like a change in your literal fucking posture turns you into chad. That is literally what your argument hinges on.

I also don't think you get the difference in quantification between: Bad, Normal, Excellent. Most people fall into the normal range. I wouldn't even call having good spinal and pelvic posture/tilt super excellent habits, a bunch of people have these good habits and aren't attractive dude

 

[Peco]

I didn't misinterpret your argument lmfao

It looked like that to me from the way you replied

These habits are not enough to turn you from a normal looking person into a model which is objectively true.

Also it's not about showing examples it's about deductive logic. Why is the only thing normies understand here empirical evidence?

You are the one bringing up examples of people, I either respond to your examples or explain concepts.

You can't just conclude everyone isn't attractive or as attractive as them simply because they had bad posture. There are OBVIOUSLY a good amount of people that are attractive without doing anything you are saying. That's an undeniable truth. There's no contradiction to this so it is true that there are people

Most people in the world have completely normal human habits. This is like those memes where people think making such a minor change like a change in your literal fucking posture turns you into chad. That is literally what your argument hinges on.

Exaxtly most people have normal habits, much less have exceptional ones

I also don't think you get the difference in quantification between: Bad, Normal, Excellent. Most people fall into the normal range. I wouldn't even call having good spinal and pelvic posture/tilt super excellent habits, a bunch of people have these good habits and aren't attractive dude

I would say close to nobody has good pelvia and ribcage tilt nowadays. Also I think you might have a wrong conception of what exceptional posture looks like. Can you show me someone you think has good posture?

You keep saying there are a good amount of people that are attractive without having good posture. That does not disprove my argument because I'm not saying habits account for 100% of your looks.

In the end you say instead that there are people with exceptional habits who aren't attractive. That would disprove my argument since if like I claim habits were more important than genetics, they should be enough on their own to at least make you not ugly. You claim a bunch of people fall in this category yet you cannot provide a single example.

 

[cometohaunted]

It looked like that to me from the way you replied

You are the one bringing up examples of people, I either respond to your examples or explain concepts.

Because examples are preponderance of evidence. This is just a low iq way of thinking, you think me bringing examples to accentuate the point is just the evidence singled out?? you have to couple both together you completely ignore the logical justification and jump right to the pictures.

This convo literally is not going anywhere because you haven't justified anything, you made a fallacious causal leap. You actually have not justified anything and I've been letting you off with that.

Exaxtly most people have normal habits, much less have exceptional ones

Exactly, thank you for proving the deduction I made YESTERDAY lol. So if habits are a direct cause of looks then it would mean normal habits always lead to a normal look and reaching your genetic potential because by definition a normal way of the developing is the way you're supposed to develop.

"Exceptional development" is just like adding water into a cup that's already full. it effectively does nothing for your cranofacial attractiveness. You'd have to prove that every exceptionally looking person has exceptional habits when again that's not the case. The things you're calling exceptional just fall into the normal category.

The MAIN things for cranofacial development is nose breathing. Nothing else significantly affects that outside of obstructions of course.

There's no posture that's gonna fucking grow your maxilla or infraorbitals. I'm genuinely not saying this again. "Oh we see jordan with good posture" okay that's literally fallacious it's irrelevant.

I would say close to nobody has good pelvia and ribcage tilt nowadays. Also I think you might have a wrong conception of what exceptional posture looks like. Can you show me someone you think has good posture?

This is your argument, idc about posture or gestural things it's irrelevant. What decides your looks is 100% genetics assuming they develop and are raised normally. Since you hate clarifying your terms and love to be ambiguous, normal development consists of doing completely normal things like:

- Satisfactory posture
- Eating enough meat and chewy meats
- Good amount of milk in the diet
- Nose breathing (Mewing obviously by extension)
- Getting a lot of sleep
- Not being malnourished
- Being physically active to some degree, like your mother taking you on frequent walks to the park. Nothing crazy.
- Good teeth hygiene

This is literally all that is NEEDED to develop good. Anything else being put into the exceptional category is unnecessary and doesn't have much of an effect.

You keep saying there are a good amount of people that are attractive without having good posture. That does not disprove my argument because I'm not saying habits account for 100% of your looks.

Your big thing is also misunderstanding how quantifiers work. You do realise that a claim about an amount of people isn't about a claim of efficacy? Meaning the statement "There's a good amount of people that attractive without having good posture" is a claim about how much people do a specific thing for an outcome.

it is NOT about how effective the particular thing is. I didn't say whether habits was or wasn't 100% of looks when making that argument. Though, it conclusively gets you to it not being the main or major thing. So me saying it's not everyone doesn't mean I'm implying that YOU said it's 100%.

it's attacking the fact that if there's people that exist that look good despite not doing the exceptional things and rather just developed normally then it's not true that habits universally aren't the main factor.

You can't say "Habits are the main factor for some but not for all" that's ridiculous because all human bodies are the exact same they all have a genetic endpoint that is achieved through normal development.

It's similar to height. You don't need hgh to get to your genetically set height because you're going to get there regardless as long as you do fairly basic and normal things like sleeping staying active and eating a lot in the pubertal years.

Posture doesn't actually do anything for cranofacial development, bad posture is just LINKED to mouth breathing. It does nothing on its own. there is zero scientific evidence on this claim. Even scientists admit cranofacial development is purely genetic with the inclusion of developing normally.

In the end you say instead that there are people with exceptional habits who aren't attractive. That would disprove my argument since if like I claim habits were more important than genetics, they should be enough on their own to at least make you not ugly. You claim a bunch of people fall in this category yet you cannot provide a single example.

You don't need to provide an example to prove this??? using simple modal logic.

P1: There is no contradiction to people being unattractive with exceptional developmental methods.
P2: If there is no contradiction to a proposition, it is possibly true.
C: It is possible that people are unattractive with exceptional developmental methods.
P3: If there can be people that are unattractive with exceptional developmental methods, They truly exist or have existed
P4: If they didn't exist, it wouldn't be a possibility
P5: It is a possibility
C2: They do exist.

 

[Peco]

Because examples are preponderance of evidence. This is just a low iq way of thinking, you think me bringing examples to accentuate the point is just the evidence singled out?? you have to couple both together you completely ignore the logical justification and jump right to the pictures.
This convo literally is not going anywhere because you haven't justified anything, you made a fallacious causal leap. You actually have not justified anything and I've been letting you off with that.

I have showed you how it's possible to change the relative position of bones and I also explained how changing the relative position of said bones and their rotation can lead to an increase in attractiveness.

Exactly, thank you for proving the deduction I made YESTERDAY lol. So if habits are a direct cause of looks then it would mean normal habits always lead to a normal look and reaching your genetic potential because by definition a normal way of the developing is the way you're supposed to develop.

If habits are a direct cause of looks normal habits would lead to a normal look, not an exceptional one. I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Also you say that" by definition a normal way of developing is the way you are supposed to develop" but this is of course wrong, the way you are supposed to develop is an exceptional way. If you had a kid you would want him to develop in the best way possible not in a normal way, which by definition means not too great and not too bad.

"Exceptional development" is just like adding water into a cup that's already full. it effectively does nothing for your cranofacial attractiveness. You'd have to prove that every exceptionally looking person has exceptional habits when again that's not the case.

Again like I said in basically all of my replies I don't have to prove every exceptionally good looking person has good habits. What I am trying to claim here is that habits matter more than genetics, not that they are the only deciding factor. It's very much possible that someone is attractive with normal habits. What is not possible is that someone has exceptional habits but is unattractive

The things you're calling exceptional just fall into the normal category.

How is having a 0 degree pelvic tilt and ribcage tilt and flat back while moving not exceptional ? Just look at the people around you, almost everybody has pelvic tilt, some more some less but having it close to 0 is almost unseen in today's society. Even if you go on google and look up "good posture" you'll see all of the examples of said good posture have their pelvis tilted forward to some degree.

The MAIN things for cranofacial development is nose breathing. Nothing else significantly affects that outside of obstructions of course.
There's no posture that's gonna fucking grow your maxilla or infraorbitals. I'm genuinely not saying this again. "Oh we see jordan with good posture" okay that's literally fallacious it's irrelevant.

I never said posture grows your bones. Please quote me when you say this stuff , like I do for you because it seems you are talking with yourself sometimes. I never once in my replies claimed posture grows bones

This is your argument, idc about posture or gestural things it's irrelevant. What decides your looks is 100% genetics assuming they develop and are raised normally. Since you hate clarifying your terms and love to be ambiguous, normal development consists of doing completely normal things like:

- Satisfactory posture
- Eating enough meat and chewy meats
- Good amount of milk in the diet
- Nose breathing (Mewing obviously by extension)
- Getting a lot of sleep
- Not being malnourished
- Being physically active to some degree, like your mother taking you on frequent walks to the park. Nothing crazy.
- Good teeth hygiene

This is literally all that is NEEDED to develop good. Anything else being put into the exceptional category is unnecessary and doesn't have much of an effect.

Your big thing is also misunderstanding how quantifiers work. You do realise that a claim about an amount of people isn't about a claim of efficacy? Meaning the statement "There's a good amount of people that attractive without having good posture" is a claim about how much people do a specific thing for an outcome.

it is NOT about how effective the particular thing is. I didn't say whether habits was or wasn't 100% of looks when making that argument. Though, it conclusively gets you to it not being the main or major thing. So me saying it's not everyone doesn't mean I'm implying that YOU said it's 100%.

it's attacking the fact that if there's people that exist that look good despite not doing the exceptional things and rather just developed normally then it's not true that habits universally aren't the main factor.

You can't say "Habits are the main factor for some but not for all" that's ridiculous because all human bodies are the exact same they all have a genetic endpoint that is achieved through normal development.

It's similar to height. You don't need hgh to get to your genetically set height because you're going to get there regardless as long as you do fairly basic and normal things like sleeping staying active and eating a lot in the pubertal years.

But your argument makes no sense to go against what I'm claiming. You saying that there are attractive people without good posture does not help you against my argument. I have said I all my replies that I agree with you that these people exist.
So please explain how you saying that " There's a good amount of people that attractive without having good posture" goes against my claim that habits are more important than genetics.

Genetics are not determined by the time period in which a person lives. Habits on the other hand are very much affected by that. So in a world where people move less and less, are always using phones and looking at screens it makes very much sense that you would see more attractive people with bad habits. That is because in our modern world exceptional habits are discouraged, while genetics are not encouraged or discouraged, they just are what they are.

So since genetics are part of what makes you attractive and are indipendent it is to be expected that in a world that discourages good habits you would see a good amount of attractive people with bad habits

Posture doesn't actually do anything for cranofacial development, bad posture is just LINKED to mouth breathing. It does nothing on its own. there is zero scientific evidence on this claim. Even scientists admit cranofacial development is purely genetic with the inclusion of developing normally.

I explained already that the position of your bones relative to each other is much more important than their volume, or that at least you could mimic an increased volume by moving a bone. I have never once in this conversation claimed posture makes your bones grow in volume in any way, I did say though that by repositioning and rotating those bones you can make them look more projected and forwardly grown

You don't need to provide an example to prove this??? using simple modal logic.

P1: There is no contradiction to people being unattractive with exceptional developmental methods.
P2: If there is no contradiction to a proposition, it is possibly true.
C: It is possible that people are unattractive with exceptional developmental methods.
P3: If there can be people that are unattractive with exceptional developmental methods, They truly exist or have existed
P4: If they didn't exist, it wouldn't be a possibility
P5: It is a possibility
C2: They do exist.

I don't understand how this would make sense, your first proposition is what you are trying to prove. You are trying to say there is no contradiction to people being unattractive with exceptional habits. I cannot even agree with the first proposition, I do believe there is a contradiction to people being unattractive with good habits, that's what I've been trying to prove for the whole conversation. Since I believe habits matter more than genetics an unattractive person with exceptional habits would be a contradiction for me.

Your whole arguments here is based on a premise that only you agree with. I could make your exact same argument with the premise that "There is no contradiction to people being unattractive with exceptional genetics.". The argument would be the exact same but of course you would not agree with me because you do not believe in the premise.

The only way you could make me agree with your premise is with an example of a person with exceptional habits that is not attractive. But you haven't been able to do that so far

On the other hand any study where there are 2 twins, one does an harmful habit while the other a benefitial one, and this results in the first being ugly and the second being attractive, serves as an example of good genetics resulting in unattractive people.

 

[cometohaunted]

I have showed you how it's possible to change the relative position of bones and I also explained how changing the relative position of said bones and their rotation can lead to an increase in attractiveness.

No you did not?? LOL

If habits are a direct cause of looks normal habits would lead to a normal look, not an exceptional one. I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Also you say that" by definition a normal way of developing is the way you are supposed to develop" but this is of course wrong, the way you are supposed to develop is an exceptional way. If you had a kid you would want him to develop in the best way possible not in a normal way, which by definition means not too great and not too bad.

You're playing semantic games, a "normal" look is the way you're supposed to look. Normal by definition means the expected condition. This is so fallacious again dude you're just misunderstanding the argument. A NORMAL look doesn't just mean an average look it means normal as growing in a way where there are no inherent obstacles.

Also what? the way you are supposed to develop is not in an "exceptional" way otherwise you're collapsing the constituents of normal and what's exceptional. Also my kid developing in the best way possible, is developing normally. Normal is an "as he/she should" word. Getting rid of potential obstacles allows for you to develop NORMALLY. posture isn't an obstacle as it scientifically does not affect attraction.

Again like I said in basically all of my replies I don't have to prove every exceptionally good looking person has good habits. What I am trying to claim here is that habits matter more than genetics, not that they are the only deciding factor. It's very much possible that someone is attractive with normal habits. What is not possible is that someone has exceptional habits but is unattractive

Dude like can you genuinely stop arguing and try to comprehend the propositions I'm putting out? I had to explain what quantification is and you're still making the exact same mistake. "every" and "more" are 2 different quantifiers in logic. Every is a reference to an amount of things that satisfy a statement.

For example "Every person in the world has autism" this is called a universal quantifier because it's talking about all people.

"more" is a quantifier of efficacy like 1-100%. or how much of the autism they have. What LEVEL. You keep switching from "I didn't say every good looking person is based on habits i just said habits is the main thing" I never said you said every good looking person abides by that. But by definition it's a necessary implication from "Habits is the main thing" This is a universal statement.

If it's particular then you're agreeing and conceding to my point that it depends on whether you have bad habits per person or not.

What is not possible is that someone has exceptional habits but is unattractive

LOL SO WHAT IS THE CONTRADICTION??That's the point of this entire debate, there's no given contradiction so it's possible. it's called genetics. I asked you in my last message to prove this. You literally keep going around and round in circles and are avoiding any sort of justification.

How is having a 0 degree pelvic tilt and ribcage tilt and flat back while moving not exceptional ? Just look at the people around you, almost everybody has pelvic tilt, some more some less but having it close to 0 is almost unseen in today's society. Even if you go on google and look up "good posture" you'll see all of the examples of said good posture have their pelvis tilted forward to some degree.

Dude it doesn't matter whether it's exceptional or not, it doesn't contribute to attractiveness. You're trying to run away from the core point of the debate. I don't care about how rare it is to see thats more relevant to height. This does not correlate to facial attraction at all.

I never said posture grows your bones. Please quote me when you say this stuff , like I do for you because it seems you are talking with yourself sometimes. I never once in my replies claimed posture grows bones

Dudeeeee If you're not saying posture grows bones you do understand you're conceding the entire debate as the debate is about cranofacial structure.. All cranofacial recessions are gene-based and cannot be impacted externally outside of nose breathing. And nose breathing is only a preventative obstacle, it doesn't actually grow the maxilla & mandible, it just stops it from being recessed.

Attractiveness is based on how much these bones grow forward, how much the zygos and infras grow, how much the brow ridge grows (partially impacted by sex hormones but still largely genetic).

Also on how the muscles in the eyes are formed and what angle they are tense and relaxed in which produces the positive or negative canthal tilts. Also how relaxed the skin below the supraorbitals are for hooded eyes.

Everything just listed cannot be altered for the best at all and are purely genetic. Now you with your weird ambiguous language that you still haven't even defined by "relative", Those are hereditary features. So how far apart your eyes are, how far apart the mouth is from the nose, all these ratios are largely hereditary because that's literally what makes you look like your parents/family members.

Ofc genetic outliers also exist here too though.But your argument makes no sense to go against what I'm claiming. You saying that there are attractive people without good posture does not help you against my argument. I have said I all my replies that I agree with you that these people exist.

I have said I all my replies that I agree with you that these people exist. So please explain how you saying that " There's a good amount of people that attractive without having good posture" goes against my claim that habits are more important than genetics.

Wait so then if these people exist it's not possible to conclude that everyone that does look good didn't just get genetically gifted..? There's literally no way to prove that, it's just a correlation causation fallacy like I've been saying.

Genetics are not determined by the time period in which a person lives. Habits on the other hand are very much affected by that. So in a world where people move less and less, are always using phones and looking at screens it makes very much sense that you would see more attractive people with bad habits. That is because in our modern world exceptional habits are discouraged, while genetics are not encouraged or discouraged, they just are what they are.

So since genetics are part of what makes you attractive and are indipendent it is to be expected that in a world that discourages good habits you would see a good amount of attractive people with bad habits

"Habits are affected by that" Habits are actions not nouns.. how can verbs be affected

Also you're going on a tangent that has nothing to do with the point. Sure these attractive people have bad habits, I don't give a shit about what the reason is. THEY'RE STILL ATTRACTIVE??!!

I explained already that the position of your bones relative to each other is much more important than their volume, or that at least you could mimic an increased volume by moving a bone. I have never once in this conversation claimed posture makes your bones grow in volume in any way, I did say though that by repositioning and rotating those bones you can make them look more projected and forwardly grown

Repositioning and rotating bone is only done surgically.....?????? That has absolutely nothing to do with the fucking convo dude you're so stupid holy shit stick to your claim that habits are the main determiners of attractiveness. Stop trying to commit red herring. Also it's literally MY POINT that surgeons mimic volumetric growth with locational movement of bone. That was literally apart of my argument.

They reposition the bone to match the extra mm of volume it should've had for optimal attraction because attraction is based on how much the bone grows. When the bone doesn't grow enough it's considered recession or maxillofacial hypoplasia. These just means not grown/developed enough.

I don't understand how this would make sense, your first proposition is what you are trying to prove. You are trying to say there is no contradiction to people being unattractive with exceptional habits. I cannot even agree with the first proposition, I do believe there is a contradiction to people being unattractive with good habits, that's what I've been trying to prove for the whole conversation. Since I believe habits matter more than genetics an unattractive person with exceptional habits would be a contradiction for me.

Are you slow? the second conclusion is the point to prove as that's the conclusion..? Premise 1 is literally an analytical truth that it's not impossible The claim to be justified in the debate is the fact that they do exist not that there is no contradiction. Keep up, you aren't tracking.

What's the contradiction to say that it isn't possible if you disagree with p1? Could you give a logical argument as to why it's not possible? you also need a scientific claim to verify this has actually happened.

Your whole arguments here is based on a premise that only you agree with. I could make your exact same argument with the premise that "There is no contradiction to people being unattractive with exceptional genetics.". The argument would be the exact same but of course you would not agree with me because you do not believe in the premise.

The only way you could make me agree with your premise is with an example of a person with exceptional habits that is not attractive. But you haven't been able to do that so far

It's not a premise "only I agree with" this is fact of modality lmao. A possibility is something that is able to occur. If something isn't able to occur that means there is a contradiction present with the fact to make it not able to occur.

You have to provide an exhaustive reason for why it isn't possible to be ugly with exceptional habits which again traces back to how much habits impact your cranofacial growth in a positive way (they absolutely don't and there's no evidence suggesting this)

The argument isn't the same, knowing the person has good genetics is literally conducive to measuring their achieved attraction. Genetics are random and unknowable, you can't just know someone has good genes. Genes are random and individual.

If they are unattractive they don't have good genes. If they are attractive they have good genes. There is a contradiction because it's an objective fact that cranofacial growth is an entire genetic process. You're so low iq genuinely and I'm not trying to insult but it's true, you can't even follow the extremely basic deductive argument.

It is a true statement that volumetric growth = attraction.
Volumetric growth is caused by genetic predisposition

Therefore Genetic predisposition is the only factor for attractiveness in a POSITIVE way.

Now this isn't the same for the opposition, it's more nuanced. There are habitual things that can NEGATIVELY impact your cranofacial genetic course which we've already went over. There's not an ounce of scientific evidence showing you can achieve cranofacial growth with habits. If you agree to this proposition, habits don't positively impact cranofacial growth.

the "relative" thing you keep going back to is ambiguous and you keep repeating it without exhaustively substantiating what it means.

You've lost the debate, concede (you lost when it started anyways)

On the other hand any study where there are 2 twins, one does an harmful habit while the other a benefitial one, and this results in the first being ugly and the second being attractive, serves as an example of good genetics resulting in unattractive people.

Again, you're genuinely such a sub human retard in terms of iq. This isn't me throwing out ad hominems or trying to make a purposefully insulting argument. But it's genuinely baffling me that I can't even sugarcoat it anymore. You are an absolute idiot genuinely and you need to take a professional iq test.

I've literally been saying THE ENTIRE TIME that bad habits can NEGATIVELY impact your genetic course. Literally have been saying it since the start of this conversation. You're so behind the convo that you're just restating my own position. Yes you can ruin your genetics with shitty habits.

This literally proves that if you don't do bad things you will prosper. It's NOT about the good things you DON'T DO it's about the bad things THAT YOU DO. If you don't do those bad things you're fine, all you have to do is avoid them for your genetics to run it's course. You don't need some pseudoscience exceptional back posture there's zero evidence that helps. You just need to NOT be bad.

Aka satisfactory. This conversation is done lol

 

[Peco]

No you did not?? LOL

You're playing semantic games, a "normal" look is the way you're supposed to look. Normal by definition means the expected condition. This is so fallacious again dude you're just misunderstanding the argument. A NORMAL look doesn't just mean an average look it means normal as growing in a way where there are no inherent obstacles.


Also what? the way you are supposed to develop is not in an "exceptional" way otherwise you're collapsing the constituents of normal and what's exceptional.

You are doing what you criticize by playing with semantics here, being exceptional I obviously mean the best possible, or close to that. For instance for posture exceptional would be 0 pelvic and ribcage tilt.

Also my kid developing in the best way possible, is developing normally. Normal is an "as he/she should" word. Getting rid of potential obstacles allows for you to develop NORMALLY. posture isn't an obstacle as it scientifically does not affect attraction.

I am not aware of any scientific study that proves posture does not affect attraction but you are welcome to prove me wrong.

Dude like can you genuinely stop arguing and try to comprehend the propositions I'm putting out? I had to explain what quantification is and you're still making the exact same mistake. "every" and "more" are 2 different quantifiers in logic. Every is a reference to an amount of things that satisfy a statement.

For example "Every person in the world has autism" this is called a universal quantifier because it's talking about all people.

"more" is a quantifier of efficacy like 1-100%. or how much of the autism they have. What LEVEL. You keep switching from "I didn't say every good looking person is based on habits i just said habits is the main thing" I never said you said every good looking person abides by that. But by definition it's a necessary implication from "Habits is the main thing" This is a universal statement.

If it's particular then you're agreeing and conceding to my point that it depends on whether you have bad habits per person or not.

I already explained that this still does not help your argument. Saying that a lot of people look good with bad habits is to be expected since habits are effected by the world we live in (which discourages said good habits) while genetics are indipendent.

LOL SO WHAT IS THE CONTRADICTION??That's the point of this entire debate, there's no given contradiction so it's possible. it's called genetics. I asked you in my last message to prove this. You literally keep going around and round in circles and are avoiding any sort of justification.

Dude it doesn't matter whether it's exceptional or not, it doesn't contribute to attractiveness. You're trying to run away from the core point of the debate. I don't care about how rare it is to see thats more relevant to height. This does not correlate to facial attraction at all.

Dudeeeee If you're not saying posture grows bones you do understand you're conceding the entire debate as the debate is about cranofacial structure.. All cranofacial recessions are gene-based and cannot be impacted externally outside of nose breathing. And nose breathing is only a preventative obstacle, it doesn't actually grow the maxilla & mandible, it just stops it from being recessed.

No because like I said you can mimic an increase in volume by repositioning and rotating a bone, without it having to actually grow (this is what they do in surgeries, thus the example I made in my earlier reply)

Attractiveness is based on how much these bones grow forward, how much the zygos and infras grow, how much the brow ridge grows (partially impacted by sex hormones but still largely genetic)

Also on how the muscles in the eyes are formed and what angle they are tense and relaxed in which produces the positive or negative canthal tilts. Also how relaxed the skin below the supraorbitals are for hooded eyes.

Everything just listed cannot be altered for the best at all and are purely genetic. Now you with your weird ambiguous language that you still haven't even defined by "relative", Those are hereditary features. So how far apart your eyes are, how far apart the mouth is from the nose, all these ratios are largely hereditary because that's literally what makes you look like your parents/family members.

Ofc genetic outliers also exist here too though.But your argument makes no sense to go against what I'm claiming. You saying that there are attractive people without good posture does not help you against my argument. I have said I all my replies that I agree with you that these people exist.

Wait so then if these people exist it's not possible to conclude that everyone that does look good didn't just get genetically gifted..? There's literally no way to prove that, it's just a correlation causation fallacy like I've been saying.

"Habits are affected by that" Habits are actions not nouns.. how can verbs be affected

What ? Holding a phone and looking down is an example of modern world badly affecting your posture

Also you're going on a tangent that has nothing to do with the point. Sure these attractive people have bad habits, I don't give a shit about what the reason is. THEY'RE STILL ATTRACTIVE??!!

Yeah attractive people with bad habits exist because genetics still plays a role.

Repositioning and rotating bone is only done surgically.....??????

This is not true, like I explained with the pelvis and ribcage diagram in a previous reply bones are not the only component of your body, there is also tissue (muscle and fascia) that unlike bones can move and deform, and since bones are attached to it they can also move relative to each other. Since you wanted clarification , relative to other bones means that the constituent parts of a bone do not move, but the bone itself change position compared to other bones.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the fucking convo dude you're so stupid holy shit stick to your claim that habits are the main determiners of attractiveness. Stop trying to commit red herring.

Also it's literally MY POINT that surgeons mimic volumetric growth with locational movement of bone. That was literally apart of my argument.

They reposition the bone to match the extra mm of volume it should've had for optimal attraction because attraction is based on how much the bone grows. When the bone doesn't grow enough it's considered recession or maxillofacial hypoplasia. These just means not grown/developed enough.

Not true, I was the first to bring up the example of surgery to explain how a change in position could result in a perceived increase in volume

I will quote it from my reply here:

" I'm not sure how you can be sure of this but even if it was the case like I said habits can change the relative position of bones, which can make your maxilla appear more projected and forwardly grown, even though there is no actual growth. When you undergo facial surgeries like lefort 1 the surgeon cuts parts of a bone and moves it relatively to the rest, he doesn't inject some serum to make your maxilla grow. "

You then misinterpreted my example thinking I was accusing you of saying that surgeons inject serums, when I was simply making the example to show how even surgeons do not grow your bones but change their position to mimic growth

Are you slow? the second conclusion is the point to prove as that's the conclusion..? Premise 1 is literally an analytical truth that it's not impossible

The claim to be justified in the debate is the fact that they do exist not that there is no contradiction. Keep up, you aren't tracking.

What's the contradiction to say that it isn't possible if you disagree with p1? Could you give a logical argument as to why it's not possible? you also need a scientific claim to verify this has actually happened.

It's not a premise "only I agree with" this is fact of modality lmao. A possibility is something that is able to occur. If something isn't able to occur that means there is a contradiction present with the fact to make it not able to occur

Yes and I'm telling you it is not able to occur that a person with exceptional habits is unattractive. From my perspective that isn't a possibility because it is not able to occur. If I believe habits matter more than genetics it is not able to occur that a person with exceptional habits is unattractive, thus it's not possible. If we do not agree with the premise your argument falls apart.

You have to provide an exhaustive reason for why it isn't possible to be ugly with exceptional habits which again traces back to how much habits impact your cranofacial growth in a positive way (they absolutely don't and there's no evidence suggesting this)

No, if I say unicorns exist, I have to prove that they do. If you claim people with exceptional habits that are also unattractive exist you have to prove they do. I don't have to prove something doesn't exist, you have to prove that it does. It's called burden of proof

I was able to prove to you that people with good genetics that are unattractive exist.

The argument isn't the same, knowing the person has good genetics is literally conducive to measuring their achieved attraction. Genetics are random and unknowable, you can't just know someone has good genes. Genes are random and individual.

You are saying good genetics are measured by attractiveness but that is obvious circular reasoning if you are trying to prove that genetics lead to attractivness

If they are unattractive they don't have good genes. If they are attractive they have good genes.

This is circular reasoning, you are trying to say that genetics lead to attractivness by saying that attractivness leads to good genes

There is a contradiction because it's an objective fact that cranofacial growth is an entire genetic process. You're so low iq genuinely and I'm not trying to insult but it's true, you can't even follow the extremely basic deductive argument.

It is a true statement that volumetric growth = attraction.

There is plenty of people with huge bones that look unattractive. So no, volumetric growth does not equal attraction. To give you an example there is that one marpe guy on tiktok, not sure what is name his but I'm sure if you search marpe guy or something like that you'll find him. He has very large bones but I wouldn't say he is particularly attractive.

Volumetric growth is caused by genetic predisposition

Therefore Genetic predisposition is the only factor for attractiveness in a POSITIVE way.

Now this isn't the same for the opposition, it's more nuanced. There are habitual things that can NEGATIVELY impact your cranofacial genetic course which we've already went over. There's not an ounce of scientific evidence showing you can achieve cranofacial growth with habits.

Cranofacial growth is affected by habits like sleep and diet but I assume you main postural habits here. But like I said I never once claimed postural habits lead to growth so you are arguing with yourself

If you agree to this proposition, habits don't positively impact cranofacial growth.

the "relative" thing you keep going back to is ambiguous and you keep repeating it without exhaustively substantiating what it means.

I explained it above

You've lost the debate, concede (you lost when it started anyways)

Declaring your own victory sounds more like admitting defeat to me. I don't think this was ever about winning, I have been trying to prove my point as best as I can but my objective is not to win anything here, we are just discussing.

Again, you're genuinely such a sub human retard in terms of iq. This isn't me throwing out ad hominems or trying to make a purposefully insulting argument. But it's genuinely baffling me that I can't even sugarcoat it anymore. You are an absolute idiot genuinely and you need to take a professional iq test.

I think this is quite rude, you've been calling me low iq and insulting me in all your replies, from the beginning of this whole conversation, don't act like it's something you began doing now. I've always sticked to the points without personally attacking you or insulting you, even once in this whole conversation. You used mocking emojis multiple times also, in this and previous replies.

I've literally been saying THE ENTIRE TIME that bad habits can NEGATIVELY impact your genetic course. Literally have been saying it since the start of this conversation. You're so behind the convo that you're just restating my own position. Yes you can ruin your genetics with shitty habits.

I'm just trying to show you how while you cannot provide a single example of an unattractive person with exceptional habits I can show plenty of examples of unattractive people with good genetics

This literally proves that if you don't do bad things you will prosper. It's NOT about the good things you DON'T DO it's about the bad things THAT YOU DO. If you don't do those bad things you're fine, all you have to do is avoid them for your genetics to run it's course. You don't need some pseudoscience exceptional back posture there's zero evidence that helps. You just need to NOT be bad.

Aka satisfactory. This conversation is done lol

 

[Peco]

@cometohaunted Also, it seems you are so sure that there exist people with exceptional habits who are unattractive. I'm sure you have seen someone like this online , haven't you ? Is it so hard to find a single example of this ?

 

[cometohaunted]

You are doing what you criticize by playing with semantics here, being exceptional I obviously mean the best possible, or close to that. For instance for posture exceptional would be 0 pelvic and ribcage tilt.

You keep mentioning posture, I'm not writing paragraphs until you correlate posture to facial attractiveness. Nice try at stamina debating.

I am not aware of any scientific study that proves posture does not affect attraction but you are welcome to prove me wrong.

Posture literally has no scientific causal relationship with cranofacial structure?? There's no evidence on thisYou have the burden of proof to prove your claims. I'm asking for the evidence, you haven't given it.

I already explained that this still does not help your argument. Saying that a lot of people look good with bad habits is to be expected since habits are effected by the world we live in (which discourages said good habits) while genetics are indipendent.

Then there is no evidence to conclude that habits make a change for the better. Nice concession

No because like I said you can mimic an increase in volume by repositioning and rotating a bone, without it having to actually grow (this is what they do in surgeries, thus the example I made in my earlier reply)

This is the point I'm making.. Surgeons move bone forward to mimic the attraction gain from volumetric growth. Volumetric growth = attraction. Volumetric growth = genetics.

What ? Holding a phone and looking down is an example of modern world badly affecting your posture

Has no effect on the face.

Yeah attractive people with bad habits exist because genetics still plays a role.

If genetic plays a relatively small role, it shouldn't be enough to still make you attractive if habits in the main things that makes you attractive. Logically if the main factor to attractiveness is one thing, the smaller factor should also not have a consequence that's equal to the habitual one..

And again, with this logic you cannot logically conclude that habits even play a role for the betterment of cranofacial growth.

This is not true, like I explained with the pelvis and ribcage diagram in a previous reply bones are not the only component of your body, there is also tissue (muscle and fascia) that unlike bones can move and deform, and since bones are attached to it they can also move relative to each other. Since you wanted clarification , relative to other bones means that the constituent parts of a bone do not move, but the bone itself change position compared to other bones.

We're talking about the face btw your legs and pelvis have nothing to do with your face lol

Not true, I was the first to bring up the example of surgery to explain how a change in position could result in a perceived increase in volume

I will quote it from my reply here:

" I'm not sure how you can be sure of this but even if it was the case like I said habits can change the relative position of bones, which can make your maxilla appear more projected and forwardly grown, even though there is no actual growth. When you undergo facial surgeries like lefort 1 the surgeon cuts parts of a bone and moves it relatively to the rest, he doesn't inject some serum to make your maxilla grow. "

You then misinterpreted my example thinking I was accusing you of saying that surgeons inject serums, when I was simply making the example to show how even surgeons do not grow your bones but change their position to mimic growth

What's wrong with me thinking you accused me of that? it has no relevance to say "Doctors don't use some serum to grow bone in our face" As if I wasn't also saying the same thing. I never implied or explicitly claimed doctors grow your bone at all. I made the point that they move it forward to mimic volume. Which agrees with my point being that attraction is gained through volume.

Also I never said I made this point first.

Yes and I'm telling you it is not able to occur that a person with exceptional habits is unattractive. From my perspective that isn't a possibility because it is not able to occur. If I believe habits matter more than genetics it is not able to occur that a person with exceptional habits is unattractive, thus it's not possible. If we do not agree with the premise your argument falls apart.

Your belief doesn't equate to what's true. Knowledge is justified true belief. You're just making an unjustified claim by simply saying "I believe it so its true".

Since in this sentence you're making the claim that it's not possible for someone with exceptional habits to be ugly, Can you give me the contradiction that demonstrates this claim? As possibility claims are inherently negative in their justification (In which you're making the negative claim so you have to justify it).

It is also a non sequitur that your belief in habits mattering more than genetics = it can't occur. There's no causal link here, What's the justification?

No, if I say unicorns exist, I have to prove that they do. If you claim people with exceptional habits that are also unattractive exist you have to prove they do. I don't have to prove something doesn't exist, you have to prove that it does. It's called burden of proof

I was able to prove to you that people with good genetics that are unattractive exist.

Lol? the burden of proof relies on anyone that makes the claim regardless of whether it's a negative (does not) or a positive claim (does). Also if you say unicorns exist, yeah you have to prove it. The claim that Good habits and ugly people can exist was proved through the modal logic argument I gave in premises.

No, you never proved people with good genetics that are unattractive exist, you proved that bad habits not good, can interfere with the genetic process. Which is another point I made. I've said it maybe 20 times now that bad habits can interfere with your looks. Just not the opposition.

Also if we were to assume there were no bad habits but there were bad genes, the only way you'd find out someone has good genes is by waiting to see what they look like as facial attraction is not guessable. (Since it's purely random, individualistic and based on gene code. So theres no such thing as "normal habits good genes and still ugly" as it would just mean the genes are bad.

Genes are expressed phenotypically. The same way you would only know someone has good height genes by how tall they are as height cannot be predicted accurately (completely random process) All bones work this way in the body.

You are saying good genetics are measured by attractiveness but that is obvious circular reasoning if you are trying to prove that genetics lead to attractivness

That isn't circular? The only way you can measure how good someone's genes are would be by the expression of the gene. That's literally what gene expression is about in biology. Genes that are expressed phenotypically, how tall they are what eye color etc. You can only tell someone has blue eye genes if they actually have blue eyes as an example.

This is circular reasoning, you are trying to say that genetics lead to attractivness by saying that attractivness leads to good genes

This isn't fallacious circular reasoning. There's 2 different types of circularity, Epistemic circularity is a claim that is circular on the outset simply due to the conclusion and premise looping back into each other, but the difference is that there is a bridge between the loop that actually justifies the loop.

It's an objective truth that genes lead to attraction, you can't fight around it. So via that we can conclude attractiveness is a process of genes. Similar to if someone asked you how you know the sky is blue and you say "Because I can see it with my eyes" and then they ask you "How do you know your eyes work" then you'd reply by saying "well I can see the sky with my eyes and the color I can see is blue"

That's not disingenuous, that's just how things go. The FALLACIOUS circular reasoning is something less abstract and is more about saying like "My mother is at the shop because she's at the shop" <- This is fallacious circular reasoning

https://iep.utm.edu/ep-circ/
You can read about this concept here^

There is plenty of people with huge bones that look unattractive. So no, volumetric growth does not equal attraction. To give you an example there is that one marpe guy on tiktok, not sure what is name his but I'm sure if you search marpe guy or something like that you'll find him. He has very large bones but I wouldn't say he is particularly attractive.

I know who he is. Also, this is a great example of what I'm saying LOL his name is Bwython. We can see bwython has the genetic potential to be much more attractive. His issue is he had terrible development by being a chronic mouth breather. Completely fucked up his jaw alignment and growth so he looks uncanny. He also has radix hypoplasia which is quite a failo on his face.

Big bones doesn't equate to volumetric advancement completely. For example every increase in volume is only half of that of it's surface area. I never said "Big bones leads to attraction" I said volume. Meaning if someones infras had more volume the overall skull size would barely be affected. It would be slightly bigger but almost unnoticeably because it's simply millimetres of volumetric growth.

It'd be even less for the surface area. So this is a bad point, you're talking about skull size which yeah would look weird relative to a human body. Also if bwython fixes his bite malocclusions and jaw alignment he'd be really attractive. His other failos are his really wide eyes which are caused by his orbital socket placement. He's not ugly because of bones he's ugly because of other things.

Eyes play a slight role in attraction. Also bwython is literally somewhat attractive lmao he just has bite issues which he's fixing as we speak. He's the biggest example that you can have good genes but bad habits and still come back from it even without surgery. He has a lot of potential because his bones everywhere are grown really well in volume.

Cranofacial growth is affected by habits like sleep and diet but I assume you main postural habits here. But like I said I never once claimed postural habits lead to growth so you are arguing with yourself

LOL THEN DEBATE IS OVER??? YOU CONCEDED If cranofacial growth isn't affected by postural habits then you agree these habits do not lead to attraction whatsoeverAlso if you never claimed that why are you arguing posture gives attraction? attraction is achieved through genetic eye placements, volumetric bone growth and genetic muscle positioning in the eyes I am NOT responding to you again, you lost the debate.

I'm just trying to show you how while you cannot provide a single example of an unattractive person with exceptional habits

Modal logic argument was already given, nice try tho. Also it's YOUR burden to prove there's attractive people with good habits and "bad genes" which isn't possible as you cannot conclude the genes are the problem. YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS FACT.

YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY CONCLUDE HABITS PLAY A ROLE IN SOMEONES ATTRACTION IF YOU CAN'T EVEN PINPOINT WHAT WAS HABITUAL AND WHAT WAS GENETIC. YOU HAVE ZERO REFERENCE HERE.

I can show plenty of examples of unattractive people with good genetics

LOL I NEVER DENIED THE CLAIM THAT YOU CAN BE UNATTRACTIVE WITH GOOD GENETICS, IF AND ONLY IF THE CAUSE OF YOUR UGLYNESS IS YOU OBSTRUCTING YOUR GENES THROUGH BAD HABITS. EVEN THEN, GENES ARE EXPRESSIVE FEATURES, MEANING TO BE ABLE TO CLAIM WHETHER SOMEONE HAS GOOD ATTRACTIVENESS GENES OR NO YOU ANALYTICALLY HAVE TO SEE WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE.

BECAUSE CRANOFACIAL DEVELOPMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HABITS UNLESS THE HABITS ARE BAD AND INHIBITING AGAIN.

YOU ARE A LOW IQ JESTER YOU CONCEDED THIS DEBATE MULTIPLE TIMES, I WILL NOT BE RESPONDING FROM NOW ON, ANYONE WHO READS THIS CONVERSATION WILL SEE HOW YOU WERE UTTERLY DESTROYED.

 

[Peco]

You keep mentioning posture, I'm not writing paragraphs until you correlate posture to facial attractiveness. Nice try at stamina debating.

Posture literally has no scientific causal relationship with cranofacial structure?? There's no evidence on thisYou have the burden of proof to prove your claims. I'm asking for the evidence, you haven't given it.

Then there is no evidence to conclude that habits make a change for the better. Nice concession

This is the point I'm making.. Surgeons move bone forward to mimic the attraction gain from volumetric growth. Volumetric growth = attraction. Volumetric growth = genetics.

Has no effect on the face.

If genetic plays a relatively small role, it shouldn't be enough to still make you attractive if habits in the main things that makes you attractive. Logically if the main factor to attractiveness is one thing, the smaller factor should also not have a consequence that's equal to the habitual one..

And again, with this logic you cannot logically conclude that habits even play a role for the betterment of cranofacial growth.

We're talking about the face btw your legs and pelvis have nothing to do with your face lol

What's wrong with me thinking you accused me of that? it has no relevance to say "Doctors don't use some serum to grow bone in our face" As if I wasn't also saying the same thing. I never implied or explicitly claimed doctors grow your bone at all. I made the point that they move it forward to mimic volume. Which agrees with my point being that attraction is gained through volume.

Also I never said I made this point first.

Your belief doesn't equate to what's true. Knowledge is justified true belief. You're just making an unjustified claim by simply saying "I believe it so its true".

Since in this sentence you're making the claim that it's not possible for someone with exceptional habits to be ugly, Can you give me the contradiction that demonstrates this claim? As possibility claims are inherently negative in their justification (In which you're making the negative claim so you have to justify it).

It is also a non sequitur that your belief in habits mattering more than genetics = it can't occur. There's no causal link here, What's the justification?

Lol? the burden of proof relies on anyone that makes the claim regardless of whether it's a negative (does not) or a positive claim (does). Also if you say unicorns exist, yeah you have to prove it. The claim that Good habits and ugly people can exist was proved through the modal logic argument I gave in premises.

No, you never proved people with good genetics that are unattractive exist, you proved that bad habits not good, can interfere with the genetic process. Which is another point I made. I've said it maybe 20 times now that bad habits can interfere with your looks. Just not the opposition.

Also if we were to assume there were no bad habits but there were bad genes, the only way you'd find out someone has good genes is by waiting to see what they look like as facial attraction is not guessable. (Since it's purely random, individualistic and based on gene code. So theres no such thing as "normal habits good genes and still ugly" as it would just mean the genes are bad.

Genes are expressed phenotypically. The same way you would only know someone has good height genes by how tall they are as height cannot be predicted accurately (completely random process) All bones work this way in the body.

That isn't circular? The only way you can measure how good someone's genes are would be by the expression of the gene. That's literally what gene expression is about in biology. Genes that are expressed phenotypically, how tall they are what eye color etc. You can only tell someone has blue eye genes if they actually have blue eyes as an example.

This isn't fallacious circular reasoning. There's 2 different types of circularity, Epistemic circularity is a claim that is circular on the outset simply due to the conclusion and premise looping back into each other, but the difference is that there is a bridge between the loop that actually justifies the loop.

It's an objective truth that genes lead to attraction, you can't fight around it. So via that we can conclude attractiveness is a process of genes. Similar to if someone asked you how you know the sky is blue and you say "Because I can see it with my eyes" and then they ask you "How do you know your eyes work" then you'd reply by saying "well I can see the sky with my eyes and the color I can see is blue"

That's not disingenuous, that's just how things go. The FALLACIOUS circular reasoning is something less abstract and is more about saying like "My mother is at the shop because she's at the shop" <- This is fallacious circular reasoning

https://iep.utm.edu/ep-circ/
You can read about this concept here^

I know who he is. Also, this is a great example of what I'm saying LOL his name is Bwython. We can see bwython has the genetic potential to be much more attractive. His issue is he had terrible development by being a chronic mouth breather. Completely fucked up his jaw alignment and growth so he looks uncanny. He also has radix hypoplasia which is quite a failo on his face.

Big bones doesn't equate to volumetric advancement completely. For example every increase in volume is only half of that of it's surface area. I never said "Big bones leads to attraction" I said volume. Meaning if someones infras had more volume the overall skull size would barely be affected. It would be slightly bigger but almost unnoticeably because it's simply millimetres of volumetric growth.

It'd be even less for the surface area. So this is a bad point, you're talking about skull size which yeah would look weird relative to a human body. Also if bwython fixes his bite malocclusions and jaw alignment he'd be really attractive. His other failos are his really wide eyes which are caused by his orbital socket placement. He's not ugly because of bones he's ugly because of other things.

Eyes play a slight role in attraction. Also bwython is literally somewhat attractive lmao he just has bite issues which he's fixing as we speak. He's the biggest example that you can have good genes but bad habits and still come back from it even without surgery. He has a lot of potential because his bones everywhere are grown really well in volume.
View attachment 5002832

LOL THEN DEBATE IS OVER??? YOU CONCEDED If cranofacial growth isn't affected by postural habits then you agree these habits do not lead to attraction whatsoeverAlso if you never claimed that why are you arguing posture gives attraction? attraction is achieved through genetic eye placements, volumetric bone growth and genetic muscle positioning in the eyes I am NOT responding to you again, you lost the debate.

Modal logic argument was already given, nice try tho. Also it's YOUR burden to prove there's attractive people with good habits and "bad genes" which isn't possible as you cannot conclude the genes are the problem. YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS FACT.

YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY CONCLUDE HABITS PLAY A ROLE IN SOMEONES ATTRACTION IF YOU CAN'T EVEN PINPOINT WHAT WAS HABITUAL AND WHAT WAS GENETIC. YOU HAVE ZERO REFERENCE HERE.

LOL I NEVER DENIED THE CLAIM THAT YOU CAN BE UNATTRACTIVE WITH GOOD GENETICS, IF AND ONLY IF THE CAUSE OF YOUR UGLYNESS IS YOU OBSTRUCTING YOUR GENES THROUGH BAD HABITS. EVEN THEN, GENES ARE EXPRESSIVE FEATURES, MEANING TO BE ABLE TO CLAIM WHETHER SOMEONE HAS GOOD ATTRACTIVENESS GENES OR NO YOU ANALYTICALLY HAVE TO SEE WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE.

BECAUSE CRANOFACIAL DEVELOPMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HABITS UNLESS THE HABITS ARE BAD AND INHIBITING AGAIN.

YOU ARE A LOW IQ JESTER YOU CONCEDED THIS DEBATE MULTIPLE TIMES, I WILL NOT BE RESPONDING FROM NOW ON, ANYONE WHO READS THIS CONVERSATION WILL SEE HOW YOU WERE UTTERLY DESTROYED.

It does seem this is not going anywhere. Still if you ever get an example of someone that has exceptional habits but is not attractive notify me, that would make me change my mind

 

[Peco]

@cometohaunted
Also it does seem to me you are a bit insecure of your own mental capacities, you need continuos reassurance that the person you are discussing with is dumber than you and that you won the argument. Personally if I thought the person I was discussing with was a complete idiot I would not partcipate in any type of conversation with him. Despite you insulting me in every reply you kept the conversation going even after saying it was over multiple times, meaning you want the last word on the matter at all costs. If you actually believed I was as idiotic as you seem to believe you would have stopped replying after the first few replies. I certainly did not think you were an idiot, and I always kept the conversation relevant to the topic discussed.

 

[cometohaunted]

@cometohaunted
Also it does seem to me you are a bit insecure of your own mental capacities, you need continuos reassurance that the person you are discussing with is dumber than you and that you won the argument. Personally if I thought the person I was discussing with was a complete idiot I would not partcipate in any type of conversation with him. Despite you insulting me in every reply you kept the conversation going even after saying it was over multiple times, meaning you want the last word on the matter at all costs. If you actually believed I was as idiotic as you seem to believe you would have stopped replying after the first few replies. I certainly did not think you were an idiot, and I always kept the conversation relevant to the topic discussed.

Dnr