Wulffpaul said:
Follicles with the full strength to eventually exert themselves even against the regular bladed attack are not part of this discussion, either. Those strong enough to keep coming back even with daily shaving and eventually become dominant supporters of fully adult mature hairs are still not the ones that concern me. They play no part in the advancement of my theory.
The successful exertion of weaker follicles is the concern -- the ones I believe are too weak to withstand persistent razor wars against their existence.
My assertion is that weaker follicles coming out of dormancy and into active growth cycles for the first time are the ones most needed to help fill in a beard. And by their weaker nature, they are the ones most ravaged by the razor.
Your doubt hinges on discounting the very foundation of why I believe my theory is also a fact.
You even state and thus believe, undoubtedly, that unshaven growth allows all your less vigorous hairs enough time to grow out. You said it yourself.
What I would invite you to do is focus on what you would discount. Rather than discount it, consider it. That is the most important facet of my theory. In fact, if you will humor me here, allow me to pull a direct quote from your own statement:
Now answer me this, my most excellent debate ally:
If something left alone for a long period of time will have a profound result, wouldn't something left alone for a shorter period of time have some measure of that result?
A forceful action of a large, hard, sharp object (razor) against a small, soft weak object (little immature first-time hair) certainly has an effect on the lesser object.
The follicle is connected to the razor by the hair. The razor makes contact with the follicle through motion and vibration translated through the shaft of the hair. Some razors pull, some twist -- but they all affect the follicle with each contact.
It gradually becomes necessary to shave more often, until finally the beard is complete and daily shaving becomes the rule. All this can happen without the facial hair ever being allowed to grow out for any appreciable time. If shaving really had the effect of stunting beard growth how would any of us who shaved regularly in our young days have ever ended up with any sort of a beard? [emphasis added]Strong follicles being shaved are not a concern as they are already producing a beard and are already replenishing after a shave, a.k.a. stubble. They've established themselves. They "made the cut."
Follicles with the full strength to eventually exert themselves even against the regular bladed attack are not part of this discussion, either. Those strong enough to keep coming back even with daily shaving and eventually become dominant supporters of fully adult mature hairs are still not the ones that concern me. They play no part in the advancement of my theory.
The successful exertion of weaker follicles is the concern -- the ones I believe are too weak to withstand persistent razor wars against their existence.
My assertion is that weaker follicles coming out of dormancy and into active growth cycles for the first time are the ones most needed to help fill in a beard. And by their weaker nature, they are the ones most ravaged by the razor.
I very much doubt whether you would have a better beard now if you had never shaved in your life, that is if you discount the undoubted effect of some 20 years unshaven growth which would have allowed all your less vigorous hairs enough time to grow out to the maximum extent.You have just proven my point and supported my theory.
Your doubt hinges on discounting the very foundation of why I believe my theory is also a fact.
You even state and thus believe, undoubtedly, that unshaven growth allows all your less vigorous hairs enough time to grow out. You said it yourself.
What I would invite you to do is focus on what you would discount. Rather than discount it, consider it. That is the most important facet of my theory. In fact, if you will humor me here, allow me to pull a direct quote from your own statement:
unshaven growth which would have allowed all your less vigorous hairs enough time to grow out to the maximum extent.Now I know you put the caveat of "20 years of unshaven growth" in there, presumably because I reported having shaved off my younger hairs developed by less dominant follicles for that period of time.
Now answer me this, my most excellent debate ally:
If something left alone for a long period of time will have a profound result, wouldn't something left alone for a shorter period of time have some measure of that result?
Remember that the hair follicle is not like a flower bulb and since it produces dead and not living material cannot be influenced by what goes on above it, unless someone tries to pull it out.You are implying that shaving does not have an effect below the surface of the skin and that a radical assault just above the skin in contact with that which lies just below does not affect that which lies below. That assertion defies the laws of physics. For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction. Go slap your hand against a 50-meter flagpole and tell me if that vibration can be felt, and heard, on the other end of the pole, and felt in the flag connected only by a rope.
A forceful action of a large, hard, sharp object (razor) against a small, soft weak object (little immature first-time hair) certainly has an effect on the lesser object.
The follicle is connected to the razor by the hair. The razor makes contact with the follicle through motion and vibration translated through the shaft of the hair. Some razors pull, some twist -- but they all affect the follicle with each contact.
Of course it may be that if you let you beard grow out for sufficient time you could well find that you have more density and growth than you originally thought.Good Lord I sure hope so! I want my beard to grow up and look like yours some day!!
