SPHENOID BONE ALIGNMENT Is EVERYTHING

[Agendum]

When you look at those guys it's good to note that they probably couldn't have achieved that dramatic results with bimax or any other surgery. Especially the second guy. If he had gotten his jaws moved forwards surgically that much, they would have been so much in front of his forehead and upper midface that he would have looked like a chimp. But instead his whole face, including upper maxilla and forehead, grew forward and his entire skull changed shape, resulting in a wery blanced and harmonous side profile where nothing is underdeveloped. He went from neurocranium dominance to splanchnocranium dominance for example.


I'll also add that 100% of the people with real mewing results have put significant effort in fixing their head posture. Some even talk about how they looked ridiculous at first when trying to hold their neck straight due to their recessed jaws but they forced themselves trough it.
View attachment 1471504View attachment 1471514

Its 80% posture anyone here can fraud it like that. The key is puffing out your chest, then erecting your cervical column. These kinds of pictures are just people who discover by accident by frauding. They wont be able to hold that posture for more than a few seconds.

 

[Chinlet Ascension]

Yeah, from my point of view I'm absolutely certain it's genetic due to the research I've done myself. It's not peer-reviewed research from a top university, but it's good enough for me to conclude that mewing is bullshit.

You're equating two things: "Mewing," which are changes to bone that happen in adulthood, and the bone development of the face overall being affected by developmental factors. These two ideas rely on different assumptions and ideas.

People have had jaw issues all throughout European history.

What we should be interested in is whether Europeans had these jaw issues in prehistory. There is a marked difference in the European skulls from prehistory, which were much more robust, and modern ones. You can say this is due to genetics, but this is just speculation on your part.

Malocclusion is mostly due to in-breeding, race mixing, random mutation, and other genetic factors.

This is all wild speculation.

That's why the famous "habsburg jaw" was from a super inbred family.

Pointing out one very isolated and rare case of genetic deformation of the jaw does not mean that the skeletal issues that endemic in all developed societies are genetic.

The only difference is that people from less developed countries selected on the basis of physical features (strength, forward growth, etc)

This is just a fantasy created with some vaguely Darwinist language. "Forward growth" is a modern term that was created to discuss modern medical issues. The idea that primitive people were worried about "forward growth" is just so strange.

There is plenty of speculation (I mean from real scientists, not online broscience) about forces of natural selection that took place in the past: Warfare, disease, adaptations to new food sources and agriculture, and so on. There is no evidence of a persistent genetic tendency towards crooked teeth, malocclusion, or any of the related issues. The idea that those issues are so fundamental to a person's ability to survive, yet there was no evidence of them even being factors in the distant past, makes no sense.

I think your issue is that you've become obsessively "blackpilled" to the point that you want every human flaw to be a sign of genetic failure, even when there's no evidence, and good evidence to indicate otherwise.

It's not a real medical issue. There's people with terrible medical conditions that require research so they don't have to suffer and can live a long life.

Medical issue =/= immediate risk of death. This is such a dumb argument.

Or just genetics. Me and my family grew up in the US and we all have the same cranial and jaw growth as typical Slavs.

I suspect it is "genetic" only insofar as it is the effect of similar negative developmental conditions on a set of different genetic ethnic features.

They are science-deniers. They claim things like "buccinators cause puffy cheeks" and "proper swallowing" when they're absolutely bullshit in science.

This is another case of equating "Mewing" with the developmental explanation for craniofacial issues.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

You're equating two things: "Mewing," which are changes to bone that happen in adulthood, and the bone development of the face overall being affected by developmental factors. These two ideas rely on different assumptions and ideas.

What exactly do you mean by developmental factors? Mewing or something else?

What we should be interested in is whether Europeans had these jaw issues in prehistory. There is a marked difference in the European skulls from prehistory, which were much more robust, and modern ones. You can say this is due to genetics, but this is just speculation on your part.

People of different ethnicities have different skulls as evolutionary adaptations to their climate and selection. If you're a European, you don't need to have forward growth with increased air capacity and mastication force since you can sit in your town and grow your crops and have farm animals. You don't have to go hunting and you don't need to chew rough foods. The lack of natural selection along with monogamy and arranged marriages causing a lack of sexual selection means that people will slowly evolve to no longer possess ideal physical traits en masse.

This is all wild speculation.

It's not wild speculation. It's the current scientifically accepted standpoint for figuring out why differences occur in different ethnicities and people. We also know for a fact that things like hapsburg jaw and other facial deformities occur from inbreeding so that's scientific as well. Everything you say is simply anti-science.

Pointing out one very isolated and rare case of genetic deformation of the jaw does not mean that the skeletal issues that endemic in all developed societies are genetic.

It's not isolated and rare. Users like copingvolcel had this exact same deformity as well as tons of people in Alfaro and Ramieri's Instagram. If we can see that a certain family was confirmed to have inbreeding and almost all of them had underbites, then it's safe to conclude that it's a genetic trait.

This is just a fantasy created with some vaguely Darwinist language. "Forward growth" is a modern term that was created to discuss modern medical issues. The idea that primitive people were worried about "forward growth" is just so strange.

Forward growth is related with wider nasal cavity, higher mastication force, air portal size, airway size, trunk and lung capacity, etc. Why do you think people find forward growth attractive? It's an evolved trait that represented higher survival success so women and men alike select for it. It's not vaguely Darwinist language, it's literally basic natural and sexual selection.

There is plenty of speculation (I mean from real scientists, not online broscience) about forces of natural selection that took place in the past: Warfare, disease, adaptations to new food sources and agriculture, and so on. There is no evidence of a persistent genetic tendency towards crooked teeth, malocclusion, or any of the related issues. The idea that those issues are so fundamental to a person's ability to survive, yet there was no evidence of them even being factors in the distant past, makes no sense.

I think your issue is that you've become obsessively "blackpilled" to the point that you want every human flaw to be a sign of genetic failure, even when there's no evidence, and good evidence to indicate otherwise.

Who exactly are these "real scientists" and can you provide a source for their studies? There is evidence of persistent genetic tendency toward malocclusion. As I said, every single person in the royal family of Spain had a hapsburg jaw. Unless they all mouthbreathed, then it's safe to say it's genetic.

It's like saying that African people have bigger dicks than Europeans on average because they can walk around naked all day. It's purely genetic but mewcopers like you will never understand. I'm just waiting for the day that a "Dr." Mike Mew comes out for dick size and has some theory on why people have bigger dicks. Maybe Africans have bigger dicks because they hang their dicks all day with these :

I'm not obsessively blackpilled to want to prove everything to be bad genetics lmfao. I actually believe in science unlike you. What is balding? What is height? What is eye color? What is dick size? What is pheno? It's clear that it's all genetics.

Medical issue =/= immediate risk of death. This is such a dumb argument.

Being recessed causes no harm to your health, aside from rotting here since you can't get any bitches.

I suspect it is "genetic" only insofar as it is the effect of similar negative developmental conditions on a set of different genetic ethnic features.

Well then you're a science-denying schizoid. How exactly would the same environment cause differences in the development of different ethnic features? I've never heard of anything like this before.

This is another case of equating "Mewing" with the developmental explanation for craniofacial issues.

What exactly do you consider to be a developmental explanation? If it's not mewing then what is it?

 

[Chinlet Ascension]

What exactly do you mean by developmental factors? Mewing or something else?

Continual pressure, or lack thereof, applied to the facial bones while growing. Without the pressure of the jaw closed (and possibly also the tongue position in the mouth), it is possible the jaw would grow differently. This is not a fringe theory, look at Chinese foot binding. Mouthbreathing is a plausible explanation for this.

People of different ethnicities have different skulls as evolutionary adaptations to their climate and selection.

You're talking about some huge evolutionary pressure, one that is enough to transform the faces of people living a few thousand years apart, yet there is no legitimate evidence of this pressure taking place. You are just inventing a Darwinist-sounding explanation to explain an observation. That's not scientific. That's broscience.

The evolutionary benefits of face/head shape are way overblown as well. There is plenty of migration between different races to different parts of the world today, and where is the evidence of any of these people suffering from having the wrong facial/head shape? I suspect genetic drift and sexual selection had a lot to do with the differences in facial appearance, not just natural selection.

We also know for a fact that things like hapsburg jaw and other facial deformities occur from inbreeding so that's scientific as well.

Once again, you use one of the most obscure conditions in human history--a condition that existed in one single family--to explain massive tendencies that are occurring all across the globe. The fact that your best specific example only affected double-digit numbers of people says a lot.

Forward growth is related with wider nasal cavity, higher mastication force, air portal size, airway size, trunk and lung capacity, etc. Why do you think people find forward growth attractive? It's an evolved trait that represented higher survival success so women and men alike select for it. It's not vaguely Darwinist language, it's literally basic natural and sexual selection.

Again, you are applying Darwinist logic to a modern phenomenon. There is no evidence of "forward growth" being a major factor in natural selection in the distant past.

Who exactly are these "real scientists" and can you provide a source for their studies?

It started with Weston Price. Price was a man of his time, which resulted in some false conclusions, but he nevertheless made observations that were very valuable to medical science. (His focus on vitamins, for instance, was simply a result of the fact that this was something that chemistry had recently revealed.)

There is evidence of persistent genetic tendency toward malocclusion. As I said, every single person in the royal family of Spain had a hapsburg jaw.

Looking at one royal family as an example for all of humanity is probably the worst sample you could possibly select.

Unless they all mouthbreathed, then it's safe to say it's genetic.

Perhaps they all did mouthbreathe. You state that as if it is some absurd possibility, but there is nothing absurd about it at all.

It's like saying that African people have bigger dicks than Europeans on average because they can walk around naked all day.

That is a terrible comparison. Mew has proposed an actual growth mechanism for why dysfunctional growth patterns occur. "Walking around naked" is not a growth mechanism.

I'm not obsessively blackpilled to want to prove everything to be bad genetics lmfao. I actually believe in science unlike you.

As I've argued, and as you've admitted at certain points, your "science" is not actually science. It's just a cynicism and authoritarianism that makes you hostile towards new ideas.

Being recessed causes no harm to your health, aside from rotting here since you can't get any bitches.

Health problems that sometimes require surgery = actual health problems.

What exactly do you consider to be a developmental explanation? If it's not mewing then what is it?

I'm comparing "Mewing," the theory that bone changes can occur in adulthood, to the idea that the original development of the bones in childhood was affected by environmental conditions.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

Continual pressure, or lack thereof, applied to the facial bones while growing. Without the pressure of the jaw closed (and possibly also the tongue position in the mouth), it is possible the jaw would grow differently. This is not a fringe theory, look at Chinese foot binding. Mouthbreathing is a plausible explanation for this.


You're talking about some huge evolutionary pressure, one that is enough to transform the faces of people living a few thousand years apart, yet there is no legitimate evidence of this pressure taking place. You are just inventing a Darwinist-sounding explanation to explain an observation. That's not scientific. That's broscience.

The evolutionary benefits of face/head shape are way overblown as well. There is plenty of migration between different races to different parts of the world today, and where is the evidence of any of these people suffering from having the wrong facial/head shape? I suspect genetic drift and sexual selection had a lot to do with the differences in facial appearance, not just natural selection.


Once again, you use one of the most obscure conditions in human history--a condition that existed in one single family--to explain massive tendencies that are occurring all across the globe. The fact that your best specific example only affected double-digit numbers of people says a lot.


Again, you are applying Darwinist logic to a modern phenomenon. There is no evidence of "forward growth" being a major factor in natural selection in the distant past.


It started with Weston Price. Price was a man of his time, which resulted in some false conclusions, but he nevertheless made observations that were very valuable to medical science. (His focus on vitamins, for instance, was simply a result of the fact that this was something that chemistry had recently revealed.)


Looking at one royal family as an example for all of humanity is probably the worst sample you could possibly select.


Perhaps they all did mouthbreathe. You state that as if it is some absurd possibility, but there is nothing absurd about it at all.


That is a terrible comparison. Mew has proposed an actual growth mechanism for why dysfunctional growth patterns occur. "Walking around naked" is not a growth mechanism.


As I've argued, and as you've admitted at certain points, your "science" is not actually science. It's just a cynicism and authoritarianism that makes you hostile towards new ideas.


Health problems that sometimes require surgery = actual health problems.


I'm comparing "Mewing," the theory that bone changes can occur in adulthood, to the idea that the original development of the bones in childhood was affected by environmental conditions.

You literally just reposted the exact same points from your last argument without any reading through or understanding any of my points.

 

[Chinlet Ascension]

You literally just reposted the exact same points from your last argument without any reading through or understanding any of my points.

yOu DoN't UnDeRsTaNd is the oldest cope in the book. You don't have good points, you reason from obscure and irrelevant observations, and there is not science that supports your views. If you want me to have more varied responses, you need to make more varied points.

I don't know if your whole "African dicks" tirade was supposed to be an attempt at humor, that was very bizarre.

I should have emphasized this statement of yours more:

There is evidence of persistent genetic tendency toward malocclusion.

Because it is one of your more specific statements that is completely untrue. It's one of the examples of you acting like there is science in favor of your views, and then pivoting to your assumptions and broscience.

 

[Deleted member 16204]

Its 80% posture anyone here can fraud it like that. The key is puffing out your chest, then erecting your cervical column. These kinds of pictures are just people who discover by accident by frauding. They wont be able to hold that posture for more than a few seconds.

Yes it's just the posture change that makes your occiput and the entire shape of your skull to change like that. His splanchnocranium literally grew in comparison to his neurocranium.

How many times do you need to be told that his head and neck are MORE BACK in the after photo? If he had tried to hold that posture with the facial structure he had before his jaw would have completely disappeared inside his neck. How low IQ and illogical do you need to be to think that literally chin tucking and holding your neck more straigh will fraud your jaw to be more visible. Jesus Christ.

 

[DegenerateSkullCell]

not until retards like you stop calling the people who actually did it surgery frauders

View attachment 1470347


View attachment 1470348 View attachment 1470350

Bro who is the 2nd dude , holy snap that is some progression

 

[Agendum]

and puberty.

 

[Deleted member 16204]

Bro who is the 2nd dude , holy snap that is some progression

Apparently a bluepilled but extremely dedicated guy from the mewing subreddit. He claims to have started mewing at 17 or almost 18.
In his post he emphazised good posture and it's crucial importance in seeing any changes from mewing. He told how he looked like an absolute subhuman at first when trying to hold good neck posture as his jaw was so recessed, but he forced himself trough it.
He was also a premolar extractioncel if I remember correctly. He said he had problems fitting his tongue to the roof of his mouth when he first started.

 

[DegenerateSkullCell]

Apparently a bluepilled but extremely dedicated guy from the mewing subreddit. He claims to have started mewing at 17 or almost 18.
In his post he emphazised good posture and it's crucial importance in seeing any changes from mewing. He told how he looked like an absolute subhuman at first when trying to hold good neck posture as his jaw was so recessed, but he forced himself trough it.
He was also a premolar extractioncel if I remember correctly. He said he had problems fitting his tongue to the roof of his mouth when he first started.

Couldn’t care less about those blue pill stuff when he’s giving women the pill after he nuts in them

 

[Need2Ascend]

Sphenoid and maxilla bone really are the absolute foundation of your whole body. I would have a lot to add to the topic from my personal experience but no one would read anyway

I'm also quite confident that surgery/ custom bimax wouldn't fix the whole complex(, it may could over a longer period of time afterwards). What do you think @baboom babadabibi ?

 

[AscendingHero]

Facepulling increased his testosterone, thickened his eyebrows, lowered his hairline, made him grow taller, doubled his testicle size, made him lose weight, and grew his browridge. Nobody can truly believe this... well except for the 14 year old greycel mewtards who are so gullible to believe anything.

then what do you think induced those changes? high t?

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

Sphenoid and maxilla bone really are the absolute foundation of your whole body. I would have a lot to add to the topic from my personal experience but no one would read anyway

I'm also quite confident that surgery/ custom bimax wouldn't fix the whole complex(, it may could over a longer period of time afterwards). What do you think @baboom babadabibi ?

I read

 

[Deleted member 7725]

then what do you think induced those changes? high t?

Making it up.

 

[Need2Ascend]

I read

I can't bother writing my own experience rn, but it was quite crazy(I did Mse+Facemask).

This is worth reading:

Is it Mental or is it Dental?

🖨️ Print post Cranial & Dental Impacts on Total Health Dr. Raymond Silkman has a private practice in holistic dentistry and orthodontics in West Los Angeles, California. This […]

www.westonaprice.org

 

[Deleted member 5061]

I can't bother writing my own experience rn, but it was quite crazy(I did Mse+Facemask).

This is worth reading:

Is it Mental or is it Dental?

🖨️ Print post Cranial & Dental Impacts on Total Health Dr. Raymond Silkman has a private practice in holistic dentistry and orthodontics in West Los Angeles, California. This […]

www.westonaprice.org

Great article. They saw this bad facial development ppl have nowadays in 2006 already.

 

[Deleted member 10125]

Sphenoid and maxilla bone really are the absolute foundation of your whole body. I would have a lot to add to the topic from my personal experience but no one would read anyway

I'm also quite confident that surgery/ custom bimax wouldn't fix the whole complex(, it may could over a longer period of time afterwards). What do you think @baboom babadabibi ?

It 100% doesn't fix the whole complex, that's exactly why it isn't uncommon to see relapses in people who get jaw surgeries. Like many things in modern medicine, there is merely a short term bandaid mentality to "fixing" problems instead of repairing the foundation.

 

[thecel]

forward foreheads mog!

side profiles like this are impossible to achieve for Mongoloids because Mongoloids’ craniums are flat.

 

[Deleted member 13626]

It 100% doesn't fix the whole complex, that's exactly why it isn't uncommon to see relapses in people who get jaw surgeries. Like many things in modern medicine, there is merely a short term bandaid mentality to "fixing" problems instead of repairing the foundation.

Well you cant rlly get surgery for sphenoid so you cant treat the foumdation in this one compared to other stuff

You can try shotgun shell to the back of the head it will fix gay alien skull and upswing your whole face and sphenoid

 

[Deleted member 16204]

forward foreheads mog!

side profiles like this are impossible to achieve for Mongoloids because Mongoloids’ craniums are flat.

Also impossible to achieve for recessedcels and meltcels who didn't mew in time, as usually even their foreheads are recessed. And bimax will only cause their jaws to be too much forward compared to their foreheads and make them look like a chimpanzee.

It's correct development of the entire skull or death.

 

[Deleted member 5061]

forward foreheads mog!

side profiles like this are impossible to achieve for Mongoloids because Mongoloids’ craniums are flat.

I feel like foreheads arent given the importance they deserve on psl forums. Sure other things like jaw, cheekbones and eye area are more important. But a well developed and aesthetically looking forehead can halo both men and women quite a bit, even if other features are just average.

Also most Chads usually have top tier foreheads. I dont think Chads with trash tier forehead and nice eye/jaw area actually exist.

Also impossible to achieve for recessedcels and meltcels who didn't mew in time, as usually even their foreheads are recessed. And bimax will only cause their jaws to be too much forward compared to their foreheads and make them look like a chimpanzee.

It's correct development of the entire skull or death.

True, the importance of correct development of the whole skull is huge.

She probably was mouthbreathing as a child and because of that had recessed cheekbones and midface, recessed jaw, NCT and so on. She had bimax though, which kinda improved her jaw, but it didnt improve her orbital/cheekbone area or NCT, or her forehead which also seems to be recessed slightly. Just a couple of quick morphs I did to show how she couldve looked with better craniofacial development (on the 1st example I additionally changed forehead, eye area, cheekbones and nose, on the 2nd only cheekbone on her right side)

 

[Buci]

Tongue posture is natural and poor tongue posture is caused by recession. That's why Mike Mew got so many followers of his retarded theories because recessed people would check their tongue posture and 99% of the time it wouldn't be in the proper anatomical position. If you're recessed, you won't have room in your mouth for your tongue to rest in the proper anatomical position. It's simple causation vs correlation. Only other things that can fuck you up is dogshit orthodontics in your youth. Posture, diet, and other bullshit isn't going to do anything.

you literally destroy most threads you are in. We get less space and we get recessed when young because our parents dont stop us from mouth breathing( every fucking baby I see nowadays has their mouth open the entire time; there are many instances recorded when modern people went to tribes to study them and they saw them close their babies lips when they slept).

And also, after being weaned off, babies should get hard and chewy food like our ancestors, not puree until they are 4 for Crist Sake.

Also, how did the genes manage to change so fast without any pressure. There is literally no advantage to recession, why did we start to develop it the second we started modernizing, not only that, why are people that live in tribes still having perfect space for the teeth and no recession.

Just stop bro. Stop

 

[Deleted member 7725]

you literally destroy most threads you are in. We get less space and we get recessed when young because our parents dont stop us from mouth breathing( every fucking baby I see nowadays has their mouth open the entire time; there are many instances recorded when modern people went to tribes to study them and they saw them close their babies lips when they slept).

And also, after being weaned off, babies should get hard and chewy food like our ancestors, not puree until they are 4 for Crist Sake.

Also, how did the genes manage to change so fast without any pressure. There is literally no advantage to recession, why did we start to develop it the second we started modernizing, not only that, why are people that live in tribes still having perfect space for the teeth and no recession.

Just stop bro. Stop

My parents stopped me from mouth breathing. My mom literally told me not to breathe through my mouth when I was like 5 because it made you look dumb. I remember I thought I was superior in elementary school because everyone mouth breathed while I kept my mouth shut and inhaled through my nostrils. Still ended up being a recessed dog. It's literally low IQ reasoning. 99% of kids breathe through their mouth when they're young and still become Chads.

What do you mean? Genes can change incredibly fast if the selection for it is gone. Especially with inbreeding.

They have perfect space for teeth because of genetics.

 

[Buci]

My parents stopped me from mouth breathing. My mom literally told me not to breathe through my mouth when I was like 5 because it made you look dumb. I remember I thought I was superior in elementary school because everyone mouth breathed while I kept my mouth shut and inhaled through my nostrils. Still ended up being a recessed dog. It's literally low IQ reasoning. 99% of kids breathe through their mouth when they're young and still become Chads.

What do you mean? Genes can change incredibly fast if the selection for it is gone. Especially with inbreeding.

They have perfect space for teeth because of genetics.

Without a pic we are getting nowhere. A very good way to know if you are recessed is to see if your bite is angled downwards(while the top of your ear is in a horizontal line with right above the brow), if you dont have that, then you're recession is 100% genetics.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

Without a pic we are getting nowhere. A very good way to know if you are recessed is to see if your bite is angled downwards(while the top of your ear is in a horizontal line with right above the brow), if you dont have that, then you're recession is 100% genetics.

I have a normal/flat occlusal plane so it's genetics.

 

[Buci]

I have a normal/flat occlusal plane so it's genetics.

I see

 

[Chinlet Ascension]

My parents stopped me from mouth breathing. My mom literally told me not to breathe through my mouth when I was like 5 because it made you look dumb. I remember I thought I was superior in elementary school because everyone mouth breathed while I kept my mouth shut and inhaled through my nostrils. Still ended up being a recessed dog. It's literally low IQ reasoning. 99% of kids breathe through their mouth when they're young and still become Chads.

So this is just made up. It's a convenient lie that he rolled out late in the thread, after a long and in-depth series of arguments that he failed to mention it in. He thinks he will sound more convincing if he has a more specific, relevant personal anecdote.

They have perfect space for teeth because of genetics.

In case anyone is reading this but skipped over our little "debate," we should be clear about one thing: There is no scientific proof that malocclusion is genetic. This is something that PSL users made up.

I have a normal/flat occlusal plane so it's genetics.

Another assumption presented as fact.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

So this is just made up. It's a convenient lie that he rolled out late in the thread, after a long and in-depth series of arguments that he failed to mention it in. He thinks he will sound more convincing if he has a more specific, relevant personal anecdote.


In case anyone is reading this but skipped over our little "debate," we should be clear about one thing: There is no scientific proof that malocclusion is genetic. This is something that PSL users made up.


Another assumption presented as fact.

It's not made up at all. I've posted that exact same anecdote a year ago. After further research, I concluded that mouth breathing has little influence on the normal individual since I posted this:

Reminder that Enviroment Fucked Everyone Up

A look at our Native American ancestors to understand what it means to have good facial development. When over 80-90{ae022d2295c0485893c83c8425b5bfafafba893c2d19b1bb9bc4c7c9bf3eeba6} of modern population is affected by Cranial Facial Dystrophy, we have now lost sight of what “ideal” is. We have...

looksmax.org

There's literally more and more evidence coming out that all recession is due to genetics:

How to get Lefort 2/3 for medical reasons?

H How do you know? Have you been assessed by a dysmorphologist or had genetic testing? Those genetic syndrome is already spotted on the moment you were born, mine just happen in late puberty Like if you have genetic syndrome doctor will already know about it since when you born they check...

looksmax.org

I stopped responding to your posts because you just skip over all my points based in science and make things up based on speculation to fit your side.

 

[Chinlet Ascension]

I stopped responding to your posts because you just skip over all my points based in science and make things up based on speculation to fit your side.

This is such a strange response in the context of this thread, I don't even know how to respond.

I went through your comments, over and over again, and responded to almost every point you made specifically. The only times I didn't were when your statement was completely insubstantial, like this:

Entirely speculative but people like Jordan Barrett and other wide-palate moggers still exist in first world developed countries so it's likely it's genetic.

I don't know if this is what you think qualifies as "based in science."

You argue like a woman. "saying the same things" is natural when your interlocutor is saying the same things. If you can't support your case logically, you don't have a good case. It's not "mak[ing] things up based on speculation to fit [my] side," it's seeing if your ideas can stand up to scrutiny. Have you really never seen this kind of exchange before?

 

[Deleted member 7725]

This is such a strange response in the context of this thread, I don't even know how to respond.

I went through your comments, over and over again, and responded to almost every point you made specifically. The only times I didn't were when your statement was completely insubstantial, like this:

I don't know if this is what you think qualifies as "based in science."

You argue like a woman. "saying the same things" is natural when your interlocutor is saying the same things. If you can't support your case logically, you don't have a good case. It's not "mak[ing] things up based on speculation to fit [my] side," it's seeing if your ideas can stand up to scrutiny. Have you really never seen this kind of exchange before?

We have 0 evidence that environment has an influence on jaw forward growth.

We have tons of evidence that genetics has an influence on jaw growth (Crouzons, Hapsburg jaws, other forms of facial craniosynostosis, etc.). Recession also runs in families. It's safe to assume it's the same with normal amounts of jaw recession, especially if there's no evidence on the other side.

No, you argue like a woman. "bUT mUH inTUItioN tHInKS iT'S nOT gENetIC, eVEn wiTH nO fACts oR eVIdeNCE".

 

[Deleted member 16861]

Forward growth is entirely genetics. Keep coping.

This, and nothing else.

 

[spark]

What about lifestyle? People also say height is 80% genetics and 20% lifestyle and I rot in my room playing minecraft all day and still grew to 6'7".

Imagine thinking playing videogames could have an effect on your height. It's diet retard. That is why previous generations were shorter. Muh sexual selection yeah almost all of the height gain was prior to 1960 under strict monogamy.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

Imagine thinking playing videogames could have an effect on your height. It's diet retard. That is why previous generations were shorter. Muh sexual selection yeah almost all of the height gain was prior to 1960 under strict monogamy.

I didn't eat shit. I ate like 1200 calories a day and still do. That was my point, I didn't eat shit and sat slouched over my computer all day. It's ALL genetics. The sooner you understand that, the easier it will be for you to understand.

 

[spark]

We have 0 evidence that environment has an influence on jaw forward growth.

We have tons of evidence that genetics has an influence on jaw growth (Crouzons, Hapsburg jaws, other forms of facial craniosynostosis, etc.). Recession also runs in families. It's safe to assume it's the same with normal amounts of jaw recession, especially if there's no evidence on the other side.

No, you argue like a woman. "bUT mUH inTUItioN tHInKS iT'S nOT gENetIC, eVEn wiTH nO fACts oR eVIdeNCE".

breastfeeding

Effect of breastfeeding on malocclusions: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed

Breastfeeding decreases the risk of malocclusions.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

mastication

Effects of mastication on mandibular growth evaluated by microcomputed tomography

Abstract. It is well known that mastication has a significant influence on mandibular growth and development, but the mechanism behind this effect has not yet b

academic.oup.com

pollution

Environmental Factors Associated with Malocclusion in Children Population from Mining Areas, Western Romania

Our study is based on the hypothesis that the prevalence of malocclusions in children is higher in the mining areas from North-Western (NW) Romania than in other geographic areas. We also considered that the distribution of the different types of malocclusions ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

vitamin d

Could Vitamin D3 Deficiency Influence Malocclusion Development?

The abnormal growth of the craniofacial bone leads to skeletal and dental defects, which result in the presence of malocclusions. Not all causes of malocclusion have been explained. In the development of skeletal abnormalities, attention is paid to general ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[spark]

I didn't eat shit. I ate like 1200 calories a day and still do. That was my point, I didn't eat shit and sat slouched over my computer all day. It's ALL genetics. The sooner you understand that, the easier it will be for you to understand.

And you only slept 4 hours a night right?


Why does every PSLer claim they had this lifestyle growing up?

 

[Deleted member 7725]

And you only slept 4 hours a night right?


Why does every PSLer claim they had this lifestyle growing up?

No, I slept for like 10-12 hours a night during the summers, which is when I grew.

 

[Chinlet Ascension]

We have 0 evidence that environment has an influence on jaw forward growth.

There is evidence, which I have listed in previous comments.

We have tons of evidence that genetics has an influence on jaw growth (Crouzons, Hapsburg jaws, other forms of facial craniosynostosis, etc.).

You're equating random craniofacial deformities with common recession. That is a complete strawman (and not the only strawman you have used in this conversation). I never argued that there are no genetic craniofacial deformities. I'm talking about jaw recession in particular.

It's safe to assume it's the same with normal amounts of jaw recession, especially if there's no evidence on the other side.

Just stating two things that you think are similar and connecting them with phrases like "It's safe to assume it's the same" is not science.

I'm going to get to the substance of our disagreement because this is getting tiresome: You fundamentally do not understand what constitutes scientific evidence. Making an idea in your head that has some basic logic to it, and explaining and expanding on that logic over and over again is not scientific evidence.

An idea "making sense" and "being true" is not the same thing. You need to try and understand the difference between these things.

The idea that common recession is genetic in origin is not an inherently absurd idea. You are acting like it is a certainty, when it is not, and there is, so far, no legitimate evidence in favor of it.

No, you argue like a woman. "bUT mUH inTUItioN tHInKS iT'S nOT gENetIC, eVEn wiTH nO fACts oR eVIdeNCE".

You are projecting so hard right now. I have, time and time again, made rational and specific responses to your points. I even quoted the relevant passages so the conversation is easy to follow. Time and time again, you completely ignore everything I say, repeat your own points ad nauseum, and pretend like you have some kind of airtight logic. I'll give you a specific example:

-You said that a trait becoming ubiquitous in a population is a sign that it is genetic.
-I pointed out that a trait becoming ubiquitous in a population could be either genetic or environmental. This is not my opinion, this is not speculation, this a fringe theory or hypothesis. This is a basic concept when you discuss population genetics, or the investigation of whether any trait is genetic or environmental.
-You pretend like that entire exchange didn't happen.

I'm still trying to decide whether you actually believe any of the increasingly bizarre and dishonest responses you are typing or if it's pure rhetoric at this point.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

There is evidence, which I have listed in previous comments.


You're equating random craniofacial deformities with common recession. That is a complete strawman (and not the only strawman you have used in this conversation). I never argued that there are no genetic craniofacial deformities. I'm talking about jaw recession in particular.


Just stating two things that you think are similar and connecting them with phrases like "It's safe to assume it's the same" is not science.

I'm going to get to the substance of our disagreement because this is getting tiresome: You fundamentally do not understand what constitutes scientific evidence. Making an idea in your head that has some basic logic to it, and explaining and expanding on that logic over and over again is not scientific evidence.

An idea "making sense" and "being true" is not the same thing. You need to try and understand the difference between these things.

The idea that common recession is genetic in origin is not an inherently absurd idea. You are acting like it is a certainty, when it is not, and there is, so far, no legitimate evidence in favor of it.

You are projecting so hard right now. I have, time and time again, made rational and specific responses to your points. I even quoted the relevant passages so the conversation is easy to follow. Time and time again, you completely ignore everything I say, repeat your own points ad nauseum, and pretend like you have some kind of airtight logic. I'll give you a specific example:

-You said that a trait becoming ubiquitous in a population is a sign that it is genetic.
-I pointed out that a trait becoming ubiquitous in a population could be either genetic or environmental. This is not my opinion, this is not speculation, this a fringe theory or hypothesis. This is a basic concept when you discuss population genetics, or the investigation of whether any trait is genetic or environmental.
-You pretend like that entire exchange didn't happen.

I'm still trying to decide whether you actually believe any of the increasingly bizarre and dishonest responses you are typing or if it's pure rhetoric at this point.

There's 0 evidence recession is environmental.

 

[Chinlet Ascension]

There's 0 evidence recession is environmental.

I make a response to your comment, listing various comments in response to your specific statements: Bad scientific/medical analogies, your misunderstanding of what science is as a methodology, and I further expanded on a previous exchange we had, in which you failed to understand the basic parameters of a scientific topic and ignored it when I corrected you.

You respond by ignoring almost everything I said once again, and asserting your own point once again.

This is beyond parody at this point. You have been completely blown out and can't admit it.

As for evidence that recession is environmental, evidence includes the difference in palate size between people with ancient and modern diets, the dental problems that exist among various people in industrialized countries (across many races and ethnic groups and continents), and the rapid shrinking of jaws and downward growth that has emerged in recent history (in terms of modern vs. ancient people). I believe that there have been cases of identical twins in which one had dental problems the other didn't, but I'm not positive about that. These are all pieces of evidence. They may not be evidence which you personally find compelling, but your opinion is not the arbiter of what constitutes evidence.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

I make a response to your comment, listing various comments in response to your specific statements: Bad scientific/medical analogies, your misunderstanding of what science is as a methodology, and I further expanded on a previous exchange we had, in which you failed to understand the basic parameters of a scientific topic and ignored it when I corrected you.

You respond by ignoring almost everything I said once again, and asserting your own point once again.

This is beyond parody at this point. You have been completely blown out and can't admit it.

As for evidence that recession is environmental, evidence includes the difference in palate size between people with ancient and modern diets, the dental problems that exist among various people in industrialized countries (across many races and ethnic groups and continents), and the rapid shrinking of jaws and downward growth that has emerged in recent history (in terms of modern vs. ancient people). I believe that there have been cases of identical twins in which one had dental problems the other didn't, but I'm not positive about that. These are all pieces of evidence. They may not be evidence which you personally find compelling, but your opinion is not the arbiter of what constitutes evidence.

idgaf about ur arguments. I wasted my time replying to your points with evidence-based arguments but you just ignore all of them. You're simply a science-denier and don't understand adaptation and evolution.

All of your "evidence" is simply evolution. If a society no longer needs robust palates and jaws because of better diets, then that trait will slowly deteriorate. There's absolutely 0 evidence for environment having any effect on jaws. You clearly don't understand your own evidence.

 

[Deleted member 14848]

Idk why you're banned but I will still answer

What exactly do you mean by developmental factors? Mewing or something else?

People of different ethnicities have different skulls as evolutionary adaptations to their climate and selection.

true

If you're a European, you don't need to have forward growth with increased air capacity and mastication force since you can sit in your town and grow your crops and have farm animals. You don't have to go hunting and you don't need to chew rough foods. The lack of natural selection along with monogamy and arranged marriages causing a lack of sexual selection means that people will slowly evolve to no longer possess ideal physical traits en masse.

But this doesn't prove that it's genetic
changing the lifestyle could also be a environental explanation to your point

It's not wild speculation. It's the current scientifically accepted standpoint for figuring out why differences occur in different ethnicities and people. We also know for a fact that things like hapsburg jaw and other facial deformities occur from inbreeding so that's scientific as well. Everything you say is simply anti-science.

So inbreeding is a normal occuring phenomenom which explains the genetical caused recession if not also irrelevant example

It's not isolated and rare. Users like copingvolcel had this exact same deformity as well as tons of people in Alfaro and Ramieri's Instagram. If we can see that a certain family was confirmed to have inbreeding and almost all of them had underbites, then it's safe to conclude that it's a genetic trait.

a specific example isn't transferable to a whole population

Forward growth is related with wider nasal cavity, higher mastication force, air portal size, airway size, trunk and lung capacity, etc. Why do you think people find forward growth attractive? It's an evolved trait that represented higher survival success so women and men alike select for it. It's not vaguely Darwinist language, it's literally basic natural and sexual selection.

true

Who exactly are these "real scientists" and can you provide a source for their studies? There is evidence of persistent genetic tendency toward malocclusion. As I said, every single person in the royal family of Spain had a hapsburg jaw. Unless they all mouthbreathed, then it's safe to say it's genetic.

It's like saying that African people have bigger dicks than Europeans on average because they can walk around naked all day. It's purely genetic but mewcopers like you will never understand.

nah has also to do with hormones which have both genetic and environmental influence

I'm just waiting for the day that a "Dr." Mike Mew comes out for dick size and has some theory on why people have bigger dicks. Maybe Africans have bigger dicks because they hang their dicks all day with these :

View attachment 1472208

I'm not obsessively blackpilled to want to prove everything to be bad genetics lmfao. I actually believe in science unlike you. What is balding?

scalp tension partly genetic, partly environmental

What is height?

mostly genetic

What is eye color?

mostly genetic

What is dick size?

mainly genetic

What is pheno?

It's clear that it's all genetics.

no

Being recessed causes no harm to your health, aside from rotting here since you can't get any bitches.

It does, sleep apnea, body deformation etc

Well then you're a science-denying schizoid. How exactly would the same environment cause differences in the development of different ethnic features? I've never heard of anything like this before.

there are obviously genetic differences but nobody lives in the exact same environment

What exactly do you consider to be a developmental explanation? If it's not mewing then what is it?

@Chinlet Ascension

 

[Deleted member 17768]

not until retards like you stop calling the people who actually did it surgery frauders

View attachment 1470347


View attachment 1470348 View attachment 1470350

both have flatter neck in second pick. Does the neck go back and leave more chin area when you mew + posture or what?

I'm an ignorantcel

 

[Deleted member 10125]

both have flatter neck in second pick. Does the neck go back and leave more chin area when you mew + posture or what?

I'm an ignorantcel

look at the gif in the original post

 

[Chinlet Ascension]

But this doesn't prove that it's genetic
changing the lifestyle could also be a environental explanation to your point

I'm getting a little tired of this conversation, because I think I've already made all my main points.

On a conceptual level, LooksOverAll's idea that there is a dysgenic trend towards small jaw (and the health issues associated with them) makes sense. There is just no good evidence for this. I've also pointed out a strong reason against it: There has been a rapid growth of issues associated with small jaws in the entire industrialized world. Is it rational to expect the same genetic defects to increase massively in Sweden, the USA, Italy, Japan and South Korea (just to name a few) simultaneously? This seems like an extraordinary coincidence.

So inbreeding is a normal occuring phenomenom which explains the genetical caused recession if not also irrelevant example

If you establish that there is a genetic dynamic going on, that might be relevant. A genetic explanation is purely speculative at this time, with the current evidence.

nah has also to do with hormones which have both genetic and environmental influence

Not sure what you meant here.

 

[Chinlet Ascension]

idgaf about ur arguments. I wasted my time replying to your points with evidence-based arguments but you just ignore all of them. You're simply a science-denier and don't understand adaptation and evolution.

This is exactly like arguing with a woman. I did not ignore any of your points, and I pointed out specific points that you ignored, and you continued to ignore to the very moment your then-account was deleted. (I expect you will read this. You are welcome to continue your flailing on a new account.)

If a society no longer needs robust palates and jaws because of better diets, then that trait will slowly deteriorate.

This is the same misunderstanding of science that I pointed out on my February 26 comment. Saying that your idea "makes sense" in some logical conceptual way does not make it true.

 

[Deleted member 14848]

I'm getting a little tired of this conversation, because I think I've already made all my main points.

On a conceptual level, LooksOverAll's idea that there is a dysgenic trend towards small jaw (and the health issues associated with them) makes sense. There is just no good evidence for this. I've also pointed out a strong reason against it: There has been a rapid growth of issues associated with small jaws in the entire industrialized world. Is it rational to expect the same genetic defects to increase massively in Sweden, the USA, Italy, Japan and South Korea (just to name a few) simultaneously? This seems like an extraordinary coincidence.

I agree

If you establish that there is a genetic dynamic going on, that might be relevant. A genetic explanation is purely speculative at this time, with the current evidence.

No, I was saying that just because the habsburg jaw is genetic doesn't mean/proof that all the other recessions

Not sure what you meant here.

I was referring to the comment about dick size

 

[Racky]

It's like saying that African people have bigger dicks than Europeans on average because they can walk around naked all day. It's purely genetic but mewcopers like you will never understand. I'm just waiting for the day that a "Dr." Mike Mew comes out for dick size and has some theory on why people have bigger dicks. Maybe Africans have bigger dicks because they hang their dicks all day with these :

"African" those are Papuan
And that claim isn't true.

People of different ethnicities have different skulls as evolutionary adaptations to their climate and selection. If you're a European, you don't need to have forward growth with increased air capacity and mastication force since you can sit in your town and grow your crops and have farm animals. You don't have to go hunting and you don't need to chew rough foods. The lack of natural selection along with monogamy and arranged marriages causing a lack of sexual selection means that people will slowly evolve to no longer possess ideal physical traits en masse.

What I highlighted is in total dissonance with my knowledge of (West) African diets. And I'm sure someone who knows more about European diets could address those claims as well. That makes me really untrustworthy of everything you are saying and makes it seem like you are just making arguments based on mostly wrong assumptions and random evolutionary claims that just so happen to be convenient to your arguments.

This idea that all they ate back then was hunted game is completely false. The vast majority of West African people depended on agriculture and their diet mostly consisted of carbohydrates such as yams, sorghum, pearl millet, fonio, etc... which is btw still the case today

From "West African Food in the Middle Ages" by Tadeusz Lewicki :

Now obviously there were exceptions. Herders obviously ate more meat, coastal people who were big on fishing like the Ijaw ate more fish. But overall West African people mostly ate food of vegetable origin

This is not to say they ate no meat/fish or hard food. They absolutely did, and definitely more so than modern Westerners on processed foods. But not to the extent you think, where you seem to imply they depended almost solely on hunted game. For many people hunted game was more for celebratory occasions than a staple.

Spoiler: more info but not necessarily important here

In the 15th century after the introduction of cassava and maize, West African diet became even more grain-based.
West African diets actually did not change much, we just eat more salt than before because of Maggi cube seasoning and stuff like that. But other than that, we basically have had the same diet since the 15th century. What do you see today? Mostly carbs(yams/rice/cassava) with a stew + some meat/fish. Hunted game is eaten sometimes but it's more of an occasional thing. In particular, in most West African cities, we like eating grasscutters on special occasions. Literally the only times I remember eating wild game growing up was on special occasions. Even when I was in the village I don't remember eating much hunted game.

Basically little changed, we just exchange more culture in the big cities.

If what you were saying was true, more agrarian West African populations that depended more on grains like the Jola(rice) wouldn't "need to have forward growth with increased air capacity and mastication force", as you said, and by "selection" would develop to have less forward growth than their nomadic counterparts. Meanwhile those populations that are to this day still hunter-gatherers like the San, Hadza and Mbuti would be more forward grown than the bulk of agrarian/nomadic African populations, which isn't the case... San people in particular tend to have flat faces and lack the alveolar prognathism you often see in most sub-Saharan African populations.

And those are people who relied much more on wild hunted game for their subsistence than West Africans. Where is the "forward growth with increased air capacity and mastication force" that they should have evolved to have?

 

[Deleted member 7725]

"African" those are Papuan
And that claim isn't true.

What I highlighted is in total dissonance with my knowledge of (West) African diets. And I'm sure someone who knows more about European diets could address those claims as well. That makes me really untrustworthy of everything you are saying and makes it seem like you are just making arguments based on mostly wrong assumptions and random evolutionary claims that just so happen to be convenient to your arguments.

This idea that all they ate back then was hunted game is completely false. The vast majority of West African people depended on agriculture and their diet mostly consisted of carbohydrates such as yams, sorghum, pearl millet, fonio, etc... which is btw still the case today

From "West African Food in the Middle Ages" by Tadeusz Lewicki :
View attachment 1766302
Now obviously there were exceptions. Herders obviously ate more meat, coastal people who were big on fishing like the Ijaw ate more fish. But overall West African people mostly ate food of vegetable origin
View attachment 1766304
This is not to say they ate no meat/fish or hard food. They absolutely did, and definitely more so than modern Westerners on processed foods. But not to the extent you think, where you seem to imply they depended almost solely on hunted game. For many people hunted game was more for celebratory occasions than a staple.

Spoiler: more info but not necessarily important here

In the 15th century after the introduction of cassava and maize, West African diet became even more grain-based.
West African diets actually did not change much, we just eat more salt than before because of Maggi cube seasoning and stuff like that. But other than that, we basically have had the same diet since the 15th century. What do you see today? Mostly carbs(yams/rice/cassava) with a stew + some meat/fish. Hunted game is eaten sometimes but it's more of an occasional thing. In particular, in most West African cities, we like eating grasscutters on special occasions. Literally the only times I remember eating wild game growing up was on special occasions. Even when I was in the village I don't remember eating much hunted game.

Basically little changed, we just exchange more culture in the big cities.

If what you were saying was true, more agrarian West African populations that depended more on grains like the Jola(rice) wouldn't "need to have forward growth with increased air capacity and mastication force", as you said, and by "selection" would develop to have less forward growth than their nomadic counterparts. Meanwhile those populations that are to this day still hunter-gatherers like the San, Hadza and Mbuti would be more forward grown than the bulk of agrarian/nomadic African populations, which isn't the case... San people in particular tend to have flat faces and lack the alveolar prognathism you often see in most sub-Saharan African populations.
View attachment 1766373
And those are people who relied much more on wild hunted game for their subsistence than West Africans. Where is the "forward growth with increased air capacity and mastication force"?

Tell me you know nothing about evolution, without telling me you know nothing about evolution. I hope you realize I was arguing for the same thing as you.

 

[5'7 zoomer]

Did you read this thread? @Dr. Bruh