(It helps to know that Xinhua is China’s official news agency.)
Survey: Most HK people concern hair problem
HONG KONG, April 7 (Xinhua) — One of Hong Kong’s largest commodity store Watsons Thursday announced the results of a survey about hair and self-confidence which shows 96 percent of interviewees believed hair problem could affect social life.
Watsons conducted a survey last month which successfully interviewed 1,564 Hong Kong people. The survey aimed to gauge the impact of hair on social relationships.
Results of the survey indicated that hair can affect a person’s mood, self-confidence and social performance.
Seventy percent people think that waking up with bad hair will affect their mood the most, much worst than failing to find the right outfit or having a dull look on their face.
“Hair is the index of health and vitality and bad hair is one of the biggest social turnoff because instinctively, people like to be with healthy people,” said clinical behavioral psychologist Lee Po Nang.
Among the interviewees, 77 percent confessed that they have hair problems and 19 percent were prescient and worried that they eventually will.
Hair designer Pius Yiu said the most common problem is damaged hair and the wrong method in hair care. Since Hong Kong’s climate is so wet and damp, he suggested people to have their hair washed daily or at least once every two days to keep them clean and light.
As a reassuring conclusion, 98 percent think hair is important to them, with 75 percent thinking hair affects appearance and image. Hair is the hygiene standard for 15 percent people, health index for six percent and personal taste for 4 percent.
Lee hopes that the percentage of people treating hair as a health index will increase over time because health is the pre-requisite to hygiene, personal taste and image.
With the increased self-awareness in the health of one’s hair, there will be increased self-confidence and a balance in social life, said Lee.
Comments
...and hygiene, personal taste and image are essential to cultivating those personal vanities which drive consumption.
Anybody need more coffee this morning?
Posted by: garmr | April 7, 2005 11:02 AM
Dammit, Garmr, you make capitalism sound so negative.
Posted by: Mr. Guapo | April 7, 2005 11:24 AM
Capitolism?
Capitolism is just a risk-management technique wherein the ownership class spread their proverbial "eggs" into a great many baskets. Farming the labor & consumption of the slavering masses goes back to the bronze age.
You and I, MrG, we're just sheep. We eat grass, and produce the milk, wool & meat our shepherds require. Does the shepherd own the sheep? Does it matter? He still gets the milk, wool & meat.
In the words of Double-Oh "Baah."
Posted by: garmr | April 7, 2005 12:06 PM
Sounds like somebody's having a bad hair day...
Posted by: Dr. No | April 7, 2005 2:12 PM
gramr the is an examination of your point published sometime in the last few years entitled, "guns, germs and steel"
give it a look, it is an interesting read.
Posted by: jebus4me | April 7, 2005 5:26 PM
I couldn't make it past the introduction of "Guns, Germs & Steel." If I remember correctly (it's been a few years), the author was trying to simultaneously argue cultural equality and the inferiority of Western Civilization relative to that of the impoverished country in which he has spent a great deal of time. Revisionists often fall into the trap of arguing that "those who think they're superior miss the fact that we're all equal, and to prove this point I'm going to prove how these imperious people are in fact inferior."
That said, if European expansion is based on a handful of technologies and/or cultural factors (and I don't believe that it is), I think it's a serious omission to leave out ships and navigation.
PS: I'm having a bad-hair 30's.
Posted by: garmr | April 7, 2005 5:53 PM
well no, he basically said the potential for learning for everyone was the same, but those societies that won out were the ones that did not have to spend all their time hunting for food due to better climate conditions.
Posted by: jebus4me | April 10, 2005 11:53 AM
Were that the case, should Native Americans done a helluva lot better?
I still don't know. I'm sure environment-as-it-relates-to-food is a significant factor, but assuming it's the principle factor seems like the opinion of an anthropologist, and not a historian, a social scientist or an economist.
Posted by: garmr | April 10, 2005 12:42 PM