From Babak Givi, an assistant professor at NYU’s Dept. of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery:
I am writing in regards to your January 9th podcast ["Are We Ready to Legalize Drugs? And Other FREAK-quently Asked Questions"] and the question about hats. Why people used to wear hats? Stephen made a comment about religious roots of hats and Steven talked about fashion.
I am sure there are links with both, but I would like to note that for the most of the human history, hats were protective garments. We are not spending as much time as we used to out in the open environment. If you spend most of the time outside, you will soon realize that similar to the rest of your body, you have to protect your head from the sun, wind, rain, or snow; but most importantly from the sun. Even now, when we spend most of our time inside our manmade structures, skin cancers are the most common type of cancer in humans. Furthermore, the most common area for developing skin cancers is head and neck, which happens to be the most exposed area of human body, as long as you are not a strict nudist. The effects of ultraviolet rays on developing skin cancers is beyond doubt. Lightly pigmented skins are extremely sensitive to the sun and with enough exposure most people will develop skin cancers. Hats, similar to the rest of clothing items, protect our skin. In addition, less sunlight will delay development and progression of cataracts (point for wide brim hats). I think our ancestors had developed the habit of wearing hats out of necessity not fashion or religion. But of course through the millennia, we start adding religious, fashion, and symbolic meanings to wearing hats.
Interestingly, people who don’t have much sun exposure and suddenly have an intense exposure for a few hours are more at risk for developing skin cancers. Thus, I would recommend that Dr. Levitt consider wearing a hat when he is playing a game of golf on a sunny day. It’s not fashion, it’s not religion, it’s a health precaution.
Thanks, Dr. Givi — good point.
One more point unrelated to this e-mail but having to do with our FAQ episodes. Because they are primarily just “mailbag” episodes — Levitt and I trying to respond to listener questions — they are inherently much less researched and complete than a typical Freakonomics Radio. They are more like a call-in talk show than, say, a news magazine. That said, we inevitably fail to frame certain questions as they should be framed.
A good example is our discussion of the U.S. Postal Service in the same episode that Dr. Givi wrote to us about. We talked about a number of ways the USPS could improve itself — but, as many of you pointed out in e-mails, the USPS is severely limited by its federal commission. So some of the improvements and changes we suggested are simply not allowed as the USPS is currently configured.
It’s a tradeoff, I guess — we put out these casual Q&A’s once in a while, which seem to have a certain value; but they are necessarily not the same type of reporting and analysis as the standard episodes (which, surely, also make omissions and mistakes now and again, though they are more preventable in this context). It’s a tradeoff I am happy to live with — are you?