4 ms·
Hasn’t this been widely known for a long time?
by aldoushuxley001 7y ago
Hasn’t this been widely known for a long time?
- jbverschoor 7y agoTruth or knowledge is not how science works.
- Aardwolf 7y agoScience or not, it looks like millennia of real world human experience noticed this effect, even though it's hard to measure directly and is a slow process, sufficiently to end up in spoken language (some languages literally having the expression "I'm getting gray hair from this!" about a stressful experience)
- oefrha 7y agoIt’s not necessarily a slow process. I know someone (actually know, not heard a story about) whose hair turned gray almost overnight after losing his son to a car accident.
- Konnstann 7y agoIt has been hypothesized, but not proven definitively, as in this paper.
- vorpalhex 7y agoI think it's been known by every grandmother and stressed out mom since we left the ocean as a species, but this is a case of "proving the tale" scientifically. It does feel a bit moot though.
- denzil_correa 7y agoThe first line of the article > For a long time, anecdotes have connected stressful experiences with the phenomenon of hair graying. Now, for the first time, Harvard University scientists have discovered exactly how the process plays out: stress activates nerves that are part of the fight-or-flight response, which in turn cause permanent damage to pigment-regenerating stem cells in hair follicles.
- patentatt 7y agoLook at how a president’s hair turns over their term, it’s striking. Can’t think of a more stressful job.
- jihadjihad 7y agoThis is generally understood as a natural consequence of aging rather than the rigors and demands of the job. Most presidents end their terms in their mid-fifties or mid-sixties [0], which is prime time for developing a head full of gray hair, whether you're the POTUS or not. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age#Presidential_age-related_data_points https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Unit...
- jerf 7y agoIt is valuable in science to test the things we think we already know, because there is a history of them sometimes being proved false. Plus, even if we were right, it is valuable to learn why the things we know are true. (That said, it is possible to get overexcited about the cases where science disproves the things we think we know, because those are the things we hear about and it generates cognitively-available surprise and attention. But most of our implicit knowledge about the world is actually mostly accurate. Both "mosts" I used are required; a lot of our implicit knowledge is heuristic, and almost always has edge cases and domains where it will turn out false. But for the most part, it works or, you know, we'd die.)