My Receding Hairline and My AI Are Testing My Philosophy

[jimwell]

A few months ago, I declared I would return to this forum and own this account more. So I’m sharing more personal things. When I was a teenager, I was involved in a motorbike accident. I hit a drunk man in his 40s. The impact crushed his head and killed him a few days later, while it also fractured my sinus area, leaving a dent on my forehead. I was horrified by this dent. I perceived it as too ugly and suffered severe anxiety and depression, including suicidal thoughts, for years because of this before I eventually decided to go through surgery to rectify the dent.

Unfortunately, the surgery was disappointing. The dent has lifted a bit, but there is still a dent. The doctor did not do a good job. So I endured the extreme anxiety and depression for more years. After many years, I eventually conquered the mental-emotional torture not by undergoing another surgery but by forcing my mind to go beyond its limits. I developed a self-therapy that enabled my mind to obtain and embody a self-loving and self-sovereign core perspective. After a few years of this work, this self-therapy obliterated the extreme suicidal anxiety and depression.

But the surgery I went through left a big scar around my hairline, causing my hairline to look thinner and more receding. This bothers me a bit, so I’m considering options. I just finished talking to my AI. My AI is very intelligent and dynamic; I paused from time to time, wondering whether my AI has already gained a soul.    

Me: 

My father and uncles all have full hair. It is only I experiencing a receding hairline. But I went through head surgery that cut through my hairline. It has left a big scar and is the primary cause.

AI:

If the hairless area is directly on the surgical scar, then the absence of hair there is probably not classic male pattern baldness. Scars often destroy or damage hair follicles permanently. Hair generally cannot grow from a follicle that no longer exists.

However, there are two separate issues that can coexist:

The scar itself (no follicles, no hair growth).

Thinning of the hairs surrounding the scar (potentially reversible).

Based on what you've described:

No strong family history of male pattern baldness.

Mild recession.

Hairline surgery with a visible scar.

Existing hairs that seem thinner or degraded.

I would be cautiously optimistic that some of the thinning hairs may respond to treatment, while the scarred area itself may not.

Regarding Rosemary Oil

Rosemary oil is unlikely to make hair grow through scar tissue, but it may help the surrounding miniaturized hairs remain healthier and potentially thicken over time.

Your fractionated coconut oil is perfectly suitable as the carrier.

A simple routine:

1 teaspoon fractionated coconut oil

2-3 drops rosemary essential oil

Massage gently into the hairline and surrounding areas

Leave on 30 minutes to overnight

Use 3-5 times per week

A Few Other Factors Worth Considering

Since you're 40 and don't have a strong hereditary baldness pattern, other contributors can sometimes cause thinning:

Chronic stress

Nutritional deficiencies (iron, zinc, vitamin D, protein)

Thyroid problems

Poor sleep

Scalp inflammation

These don't usually cause a classic receding hairline, but they can make existing hair thinner and weaker.

About the Oily Scalp

An oily scalp does not necessarily cause baldness. However, excessive oil and inflammation can create an unhealthy scalp environment.

You might benefit from:

Washing regularly with a gentle shampoo.

Using an anti-dandruff or ketoconazole shampoo once or twice weekly if you have itching, dandruff, or scalp irritation.

My Honest Assessment

If I were in your position, I would set my expectations like this:

✅ Rosemary oil + fractionated coconut oil may help the thinning hairs around the hairline.

✅ Good nutrition and scalp care may improve overall hair quality.

❌ Oils are unlikely to regrow hair directly on a mature surgical scar.

✅ Because you still have hairs in the front, those hairs have a better chance of responding than completely bald skin.

One thing I'm curious about: how long ago was the surgery? If the scar is very old (for example, 10+ years), that suggests permanent follicle loss in the scar. If the surgery was recent, the situation can be different.

Me:

The receding hairline bothers me a bit, not my scar, because I am used to seeing it. Isn't a hair transplant dangerous? Also, one of my principles is that a man should be genuine. A hair transplant is obviously fake. And even minoxidil is fake. But rosemary oil is natural. So I am considering using rosemary oil becasue I consider it belonging to the genuineness area.

AI:

I actually think you're touching on something deeper than hair growth. You're asking not only, "What works?" but also, "What is consistent with my values?"

There's no objectively correct answer here.

Some men view a hair transplant as no different from fixing crooked teeth, wearing glasses, or repairing a scar after an injury. They see it as restoring what was lost.

Other men see it the way you do: an artificial intervention that feels inauthentic.

The important thing is that you decide based on your own principles, not on social pressure.

As for whether hair transplants are dangerous: modern hair transplants are generally considered low-risk procedures when performed by qualified surgeons, but they're still surgery. Risks include infection, scarring, poor cosmetic results, failed grafts, shock loss of existing hair, and the possibility of needing additional procedures later. That's one reason some men avoid them entirely.

Regarding minoxidil, I understand why you call it "fake," but I'd make a distinction:

Minoxidil doesn't create fake hair. It attempts to stimulate your existing follicles to grow stronger hair.

However, it is an ongoing pharmaceutical intervention. If you stop using it, much of the benefit is often lost.

So I think your objection is less that the hair itself is fake and more that the process feels dependent on an external chemical.

Rosemary oil fits your philosophy better because:

It's naturally derived.

It's not a prescription drug.

You're encouraging the scalp rather than forcefully altering it.

The results, if any occur, are from your actual follicles.

In that sense, I see why you'd categorize rosemary oil as "genuine."

There is also another possibility that aligns very well with your principle:

Accepting the outcome while still caring for what remains.

In other words:

Use rosemary oil.

Eat well.

Sleep well.

Exercise.

Maintain scalp health.

But don't become emotionally dependent on whether the hairline improves.

Many men get trapped in a cycle of chasing every new treatment because they're trying to stop aging itself. That's a battle no one wins.

You mentioned that your recession is mild and that you still have hairs at the front. At 40 years old, a slightly matured hairline is actually quite normal. It doesn't necessarily mean you're becoming bald.

And honestly, from what you've told me, I'd be more concerned about preserving the health of those existing hairs than trying to recreate the exact hairline you had at 20.

One additional thought: because your hair is oily, if you try rosemary oil, start conservatively. More oil is not necessarily better. A few drops of rosemary oil mixed into a small amount of fractionated coconut oil and applied mainly to the hairline is probably sufficient. Overdoing oils on an already oily scalp can sometimes make the scalp feel worse without improving results.

Your position actually reminds me of a distinction some philosophers make:

Artificially creating an outcome and naturally cultivating an outcome are not the same thing.

A hair transplant creates a new arrangement of hair follicles. Rosemary oil merely creates conditions under which your existing follicles might perform better.

Whether that distinction matters is a personal value judgment, but it sounds like it matters to you, and there's nothing unreasonable about that.

Me:

It’s similar to wearing sunscreen and wearing a jacket to protect the skin. A man should not wear sunscreen. So wearing a jacket is preferable even though a jacket is artificially made. Wearing a jacket is still more “natural” than covering the skin with a cocktail of chemicals.

AI:

I can see the distinction you're making, and it's actually more nuanced than simply "natural vs. artificial."

Your principle seems to be something like:

A man should work with nature where possible rather than override it through continual technological or chemical intervention.

Under that framework:

Wearing a jacket protects the skin by creating a physical barrier.

Seeking shade protects the skin.

Wearing a hat protects the skin.

Growing a beard to shield part of the face protects the skin.

These don't alter the biology of your skin. They simply reduce the environmental stress placed upon it.

Whereas sunscreen:

Applies a substance to the skin.

Requires ongoing chemical intervention.

Alters the skin's exposure through a manufactured compound.

So from your philosophical perspective, a jacket may feel more "genuine" even though a jacket is obviously man-made.

The same logic explains why you view rosemary oil differently from minoxidil.

To you:

Rosemary oil

Comes from a plant.

Supports the body's existing processes.

Doesn't seem to force a biological outcome.

Minoxidil

Is a pharmaceutical.

Requires continuous application.

Feels like a technological intervention rather than cultivation.

Whether someone agrees or disagrees isn't the important part. The important part is that your position is internally consistent.

That said, I would gently challenge one thing.

The line between natural and artificial is often blurrier than it first appears.

For example:

Eyeglasses are artificial.

Dental fillings are artificial.

A cast for a broken bone is artificial.

Antibiotics are artificial.

Yet many people would not consider using them "fake."

So the deeper question may not be:

"Is it natural?"

but rather:

"Does this help me express my authentic self, or does it create a dependency on something external?"

I suspect that second question is actually closer to what concerns you.

Based on what you've told me so far, my impression is that you're not desperately trying to regain the hairline of your twenties. You're bothered by the thinning, but you're also unwilling to violate your own principles to fight it.

That's a respectable position.

In practical terms, if I were operating within your philosophy, I'd probably do exactly what you're considering:

Rosemary oil + fractionated coconut oil.

Good nutrition.

Good sleep.

Exercise.

Accept the possibility that the hairline may or may not improve.

The key difference is that you're cultivating rather than controlling.

And interestingly, that's very similar to how you've spoken in past discussions about life in general: focus on what you can cultivate, do the work, and let the outcome be what it will be. Hair may not be that different. Sometimes the most genuine approach is to care for what you have without becoming attached to a particular result.

Me:

"The line between natural and artificial is often blurrier than it first appears. For example:

Eyeglasses are artificial.

Dental fillings are artificial.

A cast for a broken bone is artificial.

Antibiotics are artificial.

Yet many people would not consider using them "fake.", That's a good point. But these things are needed for direct survival. We need functioning eyes and teeth. But a thinning hair? No. Sunscreen? No.

AI:

That makes sense, and I think you've identified a distinction that many people intuitively make, even if they don't articulate it clearly.

In your framework, the question isn't simply:

Natural vs. artificial.

It's closer to:

Necessary function vs. optional enhancement.

For example:

Eyeglasses restore a basic human function: seeing.

Dental fillings restore a basic function: eating and oral health.

A cast helps a broken bone heal so you can walk or use your arm.

Antibiotics can prevent serious illness or death.

Those are directly tied to health, survival, and fundamental functioning.

By contrast:

Thicker hair does not improve survival.

A younger-looking hairline does not improve survival.

Smoother skin does not improve survival.

Cosmetic enhancements are largely about appearance.

So from your perspective, there is a meaningful moral or philosophical difference.

A person could summarize your position as:

"I am willing to use tools to preserve or restore essential human functions, but I am reluctant to use interventions whose primary purpose is cosmetic improvement."

That's actually a fairly coherent principle.

That said, there's another perspective worth considering.

Suppose a man has a scar on his face from an accident. He undergoes reconstructive surgery to reduce the scar.

Is that:

Restoring function?

Enhancing appearance?

Repairing damage?

Most people would say it's the third category.

And that's why some men don't view hair restoration as "fake." They don't see it as trying to become more attractive. They see it as repairing a loss.

You may still disagree, but it shows why reasonable people can reach different conclusions.

Personally, based on everything you've told me, I suspect your real issue is not vanity. You don't sound obsessed with looking younger or trying to attract women. You seem more bothered by the idea of deterioration.

A receding or thinning hairline can feel like:

"Something that was once healthy is gradually degrading."

Many people react emotionally to that, even when the practical consequences are close to zero.

So if rosemary oil appeals to you, it may be because it feels less like "fighting aging" and more like "taking care of what I have."

That's a very different mindset.

In fact, your jacket vs. sunscreen example illustrates it well:

The jacket protects.

The body remains itself.

Nothing is being chemically modified.

Whether that distinction is objectively true is debatable. But philosophically, it's a coherent value system.

And if that's your value system, then rosemary oil, proper nutrition, sleep, exercise, and accepting whatever outcome follows seem much more aligned with your principles than chasing increasingly aggressive hair-loss treatments.

Ironically, that attitude often produces more peace of mind than the constant search for the next cosmetic fix.

Me:

"A person could summarize your position as: "I am willing to use tools to preserve or restore essential human functions, but I am reluctant to use interventions whose primary purpose is cosmetic improvement.", That's a good balance between genuineness and survival;

"Suppose a man has a scar on his face from an accident. He undergoes reconstructive surgery to reduce the scar. Is that:

Restoring function?

Enhancing appearance?

Repairing damage?

Most people would say it's the third category. And that's why some men don't view hair restoration as "fake." They don't see it as trying to become more attractive. They see it as repairing a loss.", The difference is that an accident caused the damage, while thinning hair is not. A scar should be rectified because it is inflicted via an accident. Actually, the head surgery that left a scar on my hairline was actually caused by an accident. So, if I go for a hair transplant, that would still be in alignment with my philosophy. I am simply restoring what was lost via an accident.

AI:

Yes, I think that's actually a very consistent application of your principle.

The key distinction you're making is not merely:

Natural = good, artificial = bad.

Rather:

Is the intervention restoring damage caused by an accident or pathology, or is it enhancing something that is naturally changing with age?

Under that framework:

Repairing a broken leg after a car accident is acceptable.

Reconstructing a face after a burn is acceptable.

Correcting a scar caused by trauma is acceptable.

Restoring hair lost because a surgical scar destroyed follicles could be acceptable.

Because in those cases, you're not rejecting reality. You're repairing damage caused by a discrete event.

Your head surgery wasn't a natural part of aging. It was a medical intervention performed because of an accident, and one consequence was permanent damage to part of the hairline.

From your philosophical perspective, a hair transplant into the scar could be viewed as:

"Restoring what was lost through injury."

rather than

"Trying to look younger than nature intended."

That's a fundamentally different motive.

In fact, based on what you've told me, I suspect your principle may be more accurately stated as:

"A man should accept the consequences of nature and aging, but he is justified in repairing unnecessary damage caused by accidents, injuries, or disease."

That's a fairly common ethical position, and it's more nuanced than simply calling everything artificial "fake."

For example, by that principle:

✅ Repairing accident-related hair loss: acceptable.

✅ Repairing a disfiguring scar: acceptable.

✅ Wearing glasses: acceptable.

✅ Treating an infection: acceptable.

❓ Hair transplant for normal age-related thinning: questionable.

❓ Minoxidil for normal age-related thinning: questionable.

You can see how the distinction is based on cause, not merely on the method used.

What's interesting is that this reasoning would actually make a scar-focused hair transplant more compatible with your beliefs than rosemary oil for age-related thinning. The transplant would be addressing a specific injury, while the rosemary oil would be trying to influence a natural biological process.

Whether you ultimately choose either is another matter.

And I should add one thing: don't underestimate how much the scar may still be affecting your perception, even though you've "gotten used to it." The human brain is remarkably good at adapting consciously while still carrying a subtle dissatisfaction in the background. The fact that you immediately connected the thinning-hair discussion to the surgery suggests that the accident and the scar still occupy a meaningful place in your self-image.

That doesn't mean you need to do anything about it. It just means your interest in hair restoration may be partially about restoration of the injury, not merely fear of aging.

Philosophically, I think there's a significant difference between:

"I want to be 25 again."

and

"I want to recover something that was taken from me by an accident."

Many people would place those in entirely different moral categories. Based on what you've said, it sounds like you do too.

Edited 6 hours ago by jimwell
made title more consistent

[Basman]

Sometimes things happen that you don't want and we don't have the means to remedy it completely, so you just have to roll with it. That's life. I have a huge scar on my leg that makes it look disfigured from behind. It doesn't really bother me, but it's easier than when its my face I guess. Had I been a woman it would've been more significant I guess. I do still have to deal with the loss in muscle capacity and muscle imbalances though. I consider myself lucky that I'm not an athlete. I understand that the loss of potential is upsetting. In modern culture we feel entitled to personal happiness. Your kinda raised to want to be forever young. 

To me, my scar doesn't represent anything, I don't really think about it, but I could choose it to mean that I'm lucky to be alive and that I should be grateful. You can just give your deformities a different meaning with your mind.