Why did people in the past look so much older? | Hacker News Reader

Why did people in the past look so much older?

dazeddigital.com

120 pointshelsinkiandrew166 comments

As far as I can tell, it used to be more important culturally to look and act your age.

If you were 40 and still dressing and acting like you were young, a lot of people would assume you weren't a serious, responsible person and were foolishly trying to hang onto your youth too long. These days the attitude is more like just because you're a grown up with responsibilities doesn't mean you can't cut loose and enjoy life sometimes.

Yeah I'm in my late 40s but live like I'm in my 20s lol.. I'm glad these things aren't so strict anymore

There's a great expression in reference to dealing with other people's lifestyle/clothing/etc judgment: if you don't feed me, clothe, house, or f^*+ me, $&%^ you...Very relevant.

I’ve been wearing t-shirts and shorts daily for the past 51 years. This is honestly the first time I’ve wondered if some people don’t take me seriously because of what I wear. I’ve never noticed anything (though my wife and kids could tell you I am notoriously oblivious).

Solid color or benign logo, probably OK. Band, sports team, anything jokey, college -- no, they aren't taking you seriously. Star Wars related -- they are laughing at you.

You can take my band tees from my cold dead hands.

don't worry, nobody wants your old, sweaty, mustard-stained shirts. nor is anyone impressed that you were there in '88 before anyone else thought they were cool

Umm... they very much do. I regularly go to markets here in a capital city in the midwest and those old band shirts are selling for triple digits by the youth.

"the youth"

And here I felt silly for having a strong opinion about something that doesn't matter.

I’ve always said when you’re paying the bill you can wear whatever you want. I don’t need anyone to take me seriously, I’m not a politician.

of course you can. nobody is requiring you to be taken seriously. you seem a bit sensitive, however

You're the only person in the thread taking this at all seriously.

I cannot take you seriously with that poor grammar.

The irony is, I work for a huge sporting goods manufacturer. I’d be taken more seriously at work if I did wear sport team t-shirts.

I'm not sure what circles you frequent but no one in my social sphere would laugh, or even care really, if someone would wear Star Wars clothing.

Yeah, mine either. But then, my circle of friends and acquaintances aren’t hung up on social signals like clothing.

And if they wore a MAGA hat? Just a piece of clothing, right?

That depends on context and location.

Where I'm from, wearing your football's team shirt is nothing to be scoffed at. That is, except by your rivals, but they're not taking you any less seriously - just not liking your choice of team.

And yes, it's very normal to wear that to work, especially (but not exclusively) after a big match where your team won or played particularly well, or at least bravely.

Differs from country to country. It's obvious as soon as you land in some countries that people dress in a certain style. I noticed that in colder climates people tend to use less vivid colors more darker tones, single color tops while in hotter climates people wear colourful tops and shorts almost everywhere and it's considered normal.

That's alright. When you wear chinos, an argyle vest, and those hideous warby parker glasses, I think you look like a 20 year old waiter desperate to be thought of as some wealthy stock investor.

Don't even get me started about the Clarks Desert Boots.

Ask your wife. She'll know. ;)

I’ve been doing the opposite and dressing based on what I learned from my father and uncles. They said that shorts are for children and athletic wear like t-shirts aren’t to be worn outside of athletic settings.

From what I can tell nobody noticed this either.

As long as if someone is doing their job well and/or being nice, I don’t care what they wear (assuming they aren’t naked or something overly silly haha).

Try it, I was once invited to a club I wasn't interested in going to, so I got a fancy haircut and dressed up for the occasion. I got to experience a bit of what it's like to be a celebrity, with people approaching me, buying me drinks and inviting me places, and more...

I've since then done something similar a couple of times, it's like being in Quantum Leap.

That really depends on the shorts, the shirts, and the obliviousness :) But yes, people were most definitely judging. Whether that was good or bad, or whether you missed any chance or received worse treatment because of that, almost certainly yes. Was it fair? I don't think so.

> weren't a serious, responsible person and were foolishly trying to hang onto your youth too long

You left one out. That was an obvious sign of mid-life crisis.

I wonder if being a parent is a factor as well? A quick Google search said that the avg age of a 1st-time parent in 1970 was 21 and in 2023 in the US it is 29.6. Stress and less time for taking car of yourself especially as you start developing adulthood habits/tendencies ?

Also: I think social media has played a roll in this. A comparison with all of your friends, acquaintances, extended family, etc is all just a scroll away. Everyone's social circles are less intimate and far larger, both of which lead to you not wanting to be compared negatively (ie close, intimate circle -> who cares what you look like)

Yes. People are having kids later in life. I was born when my parents were in their early twenties. My kids were born when we were in our thirties. Nothing aged me faster than having kids...

This is kinda absurd....massive sampling bias.

Take the example in the article itself: Cheers. [1]

Do Shelley Long (33) and Rhea Perlman (34) look the same age?

[1] https://images-prod.dazeddigital.com/786/azure/dazed-prod/13...

And in that picture, all the men in the back row look to be in the late 40s / early 50s … but are actually only in their mid-30’s.

The two on the right, yes, but Ted Danson looks 35, he just has an old timey hair style in the picture.

Oh man, this hurts my soul in such alien ways. Coach was 58, and he was portrayed as some old man that was close to dying (and did in the show). I'm 52. I see people in their 30s as "kids" now.

At that age I have to assume you are also familiar with (and pained by) the "Wilford Brimley Line"

For some examples:

https://twitter.com/BrimleyLine

Was he playing 58 or was the actor 58? There's a difference, after all.

Nick Colasanto was age 58 during the first season of Cheers, and died before the 4th season began in 1985 at age 61.

He died in the show because the actor actually died!

We also see the styles of our parents as “looking old,” but surprise most people don’t change their style after 30.

Men from the past look old because they leave the ring of hair and don’t shave bald.

For Gen Z/Alpha, shaved bald is what will look old (vs. what a lot of younger bald men do now which is a short crop leaving the hairline visible but not long).

Repeat this pattern endlessly and you have the history of fashion.

My dad in his late 70s has only recently gotten rid of his comb over and gotten a much tighter head shave, while I'm not sure he looks younger he definitely looks better for his age.

Once you shave your head you realistically might look the same for the next 50 years

Patrick Stewart is a perfect example. Hasn’t aged a day in the last 30 years.

Oh jeez thanks for this. I remember when I WAS 34. I watched all of cheers thinking “no way am I that old”. Norm!!

Life 50 or 100 years ago was a lot harsher than it is now.

We have better medicine, better food and diet, better living conditions (more white collar vs. blue collar jobs, better life balance vs. all work no play, etc.)

It isn't perfect, but my life is significantly less difficult and stressful than my father's or grandfather's life.

Yes. Not quite the appearance one gets from aging, exactly, so much as a weathering. Sometimes literally. Sun exposure is pretty bad for the skin. The effects of certain kinds of heavy manual labour on the body are debilitating, too. You still see men and women who suffer the effects of that today in industrialized societies, but it's nothing like in the past.

I've noticed that men who work hard jobs often look older than they are. They're often taking physical injuries, and may be outdoors in the sun without UV protection. They end up stooped over, wrinkled, asymmetrical, much sooner than people who aren't exposed to those kinds of conditions.

And from what I can tell, the average person's working life before the mid-20th century, roughly, was comparable to today being a roofer, landscaper, warehouser, on-foot postal worker, something like that, in terms of physical wear on the body. But maybe worse.

The before and after war photos of soldier where they are physically 3-5 years older but look like they have lived through at least an extra decade really drives this home.

I've noticed this with presidents as well, the before & after pictures of president Obama looked much longer than the 8 years that had passed between them.

War is a different beast entirely. Every year spent at war is a 3-5x of years as a civilian.

Living in constant stress, fear and potentially malnutrition and disease takes a pretty big toll on you. 20-somethings begin to look like 35-40 year old men really quick.

Sure. I just think the same thing happens at smaller scales for folks with stressful lives who aren't living through a literal war.

> better food and diet

We have far more processed garbage, more pesticides, more chemicals in general. I don't think it's so cut and dry in the nutrition department.

I suspect it was mostly just people smoked a lot. I remember the 80s, I remember everywhere public except hospitals allowing smoking indoors still. It was a huge portion of the population that smoked, at least back in IL where I grew up. And it was often discussed about, how unhealthy certain relatives/friends were and how fast they were declining visibly for their age. There was usually an element of addiction like smoking over a pack a day implicated.

Also back when I was a kid, everyone was putting on sun-tan lotion in the summer. We didn't even have sunscreen in our home. What we had instead was Solarcaine to numb the pain of sunburn. My dad worked as a concrete construction worker and by the time he retired his skin was so utterly wrecked. I don't think he ever put on sunscreen once in his life, too macho for that.

There is a Vsauce video[1] about this.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjqt8T3tJIE

This touches something I have yet to be mentioned, you associate the clothes they’re wearing in the pictures with an older time, so therefore, they look older.

A side note: I feel like people singing songs are older than they are. It's easy to forget a lot of artists from earlier eras are actually young.

Like when I heard the Beatles sing "she was just 17, if you know what I mean" I used to cringe until I thought about the fact that they were kids when they recorded it. Bob Dylan positively sounds like an old man (but I think that's at least in party by design).

30-year-old men dating/marrying 16 year-olds was common, especially among rock stars and actors.

When the song came out John Lennon would have been 23. For both John and Paul, 17 would have violated the "half your age +7" rule

Lennon was 22, McCartney was 21 when the song was released. (Feb. 1963 recorded, Mar. 1963 released on “Please Please Me”)

But yeah, still not quite half plus 7. You could argue they were writing it for teens, though - the audience singing along would skew several years younger than the band. (Poll of the Beatles fan club placed the average fan between 13-17. And they took great pains to create the illusion that fans might just meet the Beatles and be “the one.”)

It does sound wrong now, though. The lyrics, anyway. Music still holds up.

>> "she was just 17, if you know what I mean" I used to cringe

took about 25-30 years to make men feel shame for something that was completely normal for thousands of years prior.

I see so many men, usually on reddit, completely lying or somehow brainwashed that thinking the beautiful girls they saw in highschool suddenly become disgusting or 'children'.

I can't help but think it has something to do with the western population decline.

Is it possible progressive and feminist ideology influenced women to have kids much later, when they are less fertile, and pressured men only to date this age group? I know I sound like a andrew tate or right wing maniac (especially to those redditors described above), but I can't help but wonder

The change is that we have socially and psychologically extended childhood.

So a 17 year old girl today represents someone much less self-actualized than a 17 year old lady 200 years ago.

But the result (for all persons) is a more skilled, highly specialized, more brainy vs. brawny (behaviorally) work force.

So I understand your argument correctly, are you saying to reverse Western decline we should renormalize middle aged men getting with minors?

Teenage childbirth actually has a high risk of complications, versus birth in the 20-24 age range. (There is an entire WHO page about this.)

The brain goes through a lot of changes between 17 and 21-25. We have evidence of this. It's not just "feminists changing things". One consequence of your brain reaching maturity is that it is harder for people to manipulate you.

Marriage is not what it used to be in terms of economics either. Use your head, man. Fertility does not drop to nothing the moment a woman turns twenty. I say this as a non-redditor. I find it funny how people are so often concerned with female fertility and age, but the babydaddy is allowed to be old as the hills and not blamed for any birth defects, despite that advanced paternal age is associated with many birth defects and fertility struggles.

>It's not just "feminists changing things"

it actually was, christian feminists are directly responsible for this and then 3rd/4th wave feminism was responsible for the shame that you obviously now feel when hearing a song like "17".

>Use your head, man women in their 30s are less fertile, full stop, im not talking about childbirth in the 20s, or about marriage, or birth defects, or anything else you decided were my points that you are arguing against, I was talking about attraction and shame. But women women are designed for childbirth in their teens and 20s.

"Adolescent mothers (aged 10–19 years) face higher risks of eclampsia, puerperal endometritis and systemic infections than women aged 20–24 years, and babies of adolescent mothers face higher risks of low birth weight, preterm birth and severe neonatal condition."

Women are not designed for childbirth in their teens. Bodies keep changing a long time post the onset of puberty, into the late teens and early twenties. But dream on if you want to, dude. I'm sure increasing the risk of eclampsia will help the birth rate, nevermind the fact there's a lot more reasons people are having less kids.

Source: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-...

To be clear, they are not the words to the song. There is no “if” in there.

Going to let people rip this one apart but here goes.

Age was valued back then so people attempted give the impression they were older than they really were. Now the opposite is true. The younger and dumber you behave the more respected you are (think Kardashians). Being (or looking) old gives the impression you are behind the times. Synonymous with calling Google "The Google" or Facebook "The Facebook". BTW I do that now because at this point both The Google and The Facebook are rather dated so I find it appropriate.

> The younger and dumber you behave the more respected you are

I do believe we value youth more but I thinks it’s mostly about looks and to a lesser extent personality and future prospects. Who have like, mortgages and stuff.

Young people can be more malleable to change and can be more effective adapting to institutional change compared to us more seasoned curmudgeons.

There definitely is some kind of 'cult of stupidity' where people are proud because they are clueless about stuff. This is one of those things that I'll never get.

I am glad to say I've never came across anyone like that. But if I were to guess I think it has to do with diminishing someone else's curiosity or effort to know or care about something, as in "you're wasting your time/energy/resources etc. knowing anything". It may also just be information fatigue.

I remember a dozen years ago seeing a Touch of Grey ad on TV. It advertised dying the top of your head and keeping the sides grey, so you'd simultaneously pick up the women with your jet black top half and command respect in the board room with the grey hair on your temples, or so the ad went. Imagine if that was your world view, like you were Patrick Bateman in mid life crisis.

Older style/clothing that we associate with older generations, higher alcoholism/smoking prevalence, higher androgen levels (in men).

Yeah, all this plus more men working physical labor jobs and working outside.

Sunlight ages your skin pretty hard, especially at lower melanin levels.

Dating apps in both southern europe as well as northern europe show such a massive difference in how old people look compared to their actual ages.

In which way? Are the northerners older-looking because their skin can't handle the sun? Are the southerners older-looking because they get more sun?

I’d also be curious about any disparate economic conditions 30-50 years ago as were judging older peoples appearances.

Exactly, northerners look younger and southerners look older. It might be genetics, but I think it's more due to the sun. Exceptions exist of course, but I think there is a trend.

Yet supposedly the "Mediterranean" lifestyle is better for us overall...

I've heard that espoused in reference to their diet, not the sun exposure of their more southerly located environ.

That and an arguably a better work/life balance, and lack of SAD from excessively dark/cold/long winters.

Fair point about SAD, knowing plenty of people in far north Alaska. But there is a huge difference between "23 hours of darkness in the winter" and "On the beach so often your skin resembled tanned leather by 32 years of age"

Weathered skin doesn't kill you.

Skin cancer, on the other hand, is my one of own country's bigger killers (11th biggest cause of death I think).

Interestingly, skin cancer incidences are highest in northern europe, which is maybe due to the fair skin that people up there have:

https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/07/19/skin-cancer-which-e...

True, but it also seems the fatal occurences are more common in southern Europe. In Australia we have the worst of both worlds - large numbers of us with northern-European heritage, hence fairer skin, yet very high levels of UV (esp. due to ozone layer thinning).

I wonder about photography.

Current photography benefits enormously from lots of automatic and manual technology that make photos look bright, modern, smooth and generally very attractive.

compare this to film photography, which did not have the dynamic range, light sensitivity, color balance and other benefits, and could generally be improved only by sustained manual effort.

(and older photography was black and white, and which added years and psychological distance to any photo)

Just think of the benefits from a modern phone camera taking a candid photograph of yourself, at night, at arms length.

You don’t have to go very far back for this hypothesis to fail. Consider that on the classic American show the Golden Girls, a sitcom of seniors, the youngest of them was 53 (played by a 51 year old actress.)

We simply dress and act differently in our older age these days.

I wonder. take a look at my contrived comparison:

https://duckduckgo.com/?iax=images&ia=images&iar=images&q=ja...

https://duckduckgo.com/?iax=images&ia=images&iar=images&q=ch...

The confounding factor is that in 2023 Hollywood studios assign stars nutritionists and personal trainers to get them where they need to be. Chris Pratt pictured here dropped 60 pounds in 6 months: https://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/how-chris-pratt-d...

Men were not subjected to this during early Hollywood. (Women weren’t so lucky; studios encouraged drug abuse in women to keep them thin, and the most famous example is probably Judy Garland of The Wizard of Oz)

James Dean died when he was 24. Chris Pratt became an action star when he was roughly 34 (he is now 44).

What do you think you are contriving?

>I wonder about photography.

s/photography/photoshop

er,

s/graphy/shop

Regex minimalism FTW :)

Until it matches “lithography” :P

Nice catch :), except that I accounted for that above, that's why I quoted the parent's single line, to mean that the substitution applied only to it.

But it would have been more clear if I had written it thusly:

echo "I wonder about photography." | sed 's/graphy/shop'

Also, if the expression had been wrong, other words too could cause it to fail, like videography, filmography, orthography, etc.

It seems this article and others in this genre are lacking quantitative data. It seems pretty easy to gather data on showing people pictures and having them guess a person's age. Effect of heavy smokers, sun/sunscreen use, etc could all be quantified. I feel like the viral posts on this could easily be cherry-picked examples.

It's just not that kind of article. They're not trying to make a rock solid formal argument, just discussing factors that may contribute to an effect.

> the viral posts on this could easily be cherry-picked examples

Quite clearly so. The pics are of actors in costume and makeup - obviously not chosen as typical photos of those people in real life at the time. They are wearing period clothing to "age" them (Wallace Shawn looked younger in The Princess Bride 6 years later). Not to mention that the photos are terrible quality.

Botox works pretty well to keep facial skin tight.

When done sparingly, it looks extremely natural -- even up close and in person. My brother's wife and mother-in-law look about twenty years younger than their ages.

We've all probably seen some people who look like botox disasters or plastic surgery disasters with unnatural looking faces, but what you don't necessarily notice is all of the people doing it in a more low-key way.

Another thing I haven't seen mentioned is facial moisturization for men. I get the impression that men rarely used to do this and that it's still somewhat rare. Trust me: it works. People are generally surprised by my age.

People have mentioned reduced sun exposure and physical labor. I don't know that I buy this. I don't think the cast members of Cheers were exactly toiling in the fields all day long.

Reduction of smoking is definitely a factor.

“I don't think the cast members of Cheers were exactly toiling in the fields all day long.”

No, but they probably “worked on their tan” a lot. Instead of accidental exposure they’d roast themselves to keep a tan.

Agreed on smoking, though. It does a number on skin.

yeah i think a lot of people world be surprised by how many people use botox. i know of people who host botox parties, and they sell/inject all their friends as a side hustle to working in healthcare.

Can you explain what you mean by "facial moisturization for men"?

1. be a man

2. purchase facial moisturizer

3. apply to it your face

He's right, it does help. Here are some products: https://philosophy.com/collections/moisturizers

I've found that companies charge fairly exorbitant rates for facial moisturizers.

I suspect that plain old cheap hand lotion would clog one's pores something fierce. But I've had great results just using plain old "not specifically made for faces" argan or jojoba oil based moisturizers.

I use an argan oil based one from Lush. It's not specifically for faces. A small tub is ~$35 and is roughly a year's supply for me when used on my face. It's truly bizarre to mention a skincare tip on HN but I think it's a worthwhile lifehack.

Try going to an asian beauty supply store if you want fair prices on these sorts of things.

I'll try that! Although, $35 for a year's supply is decent...

That‘s absolutely ridiculous. Please get your skincare products from The Ordinary. Fair prices, little marketing and most of their products contain only scientifically proven ingredients.

I suggest moisturizing with their HA moisturizer everything night and in the morning use their SPF30 on sunny days / moisturizer without spf in winter. Additionally if you like, exfoliate using their AHA/BHA once a week followed up by moisturizer. I also use their Vit C twice a week.

N=1 but at 35 I‘ve had people compliment my skin on two different occasions. It‘s not much, but still.

https://theordinary.com/en-us/category/skincare/moisturizers

Because of various cultural issues I think men have been far less likely to moisturize their faces or really do "skincare" in general relative to women. I do think it has been changing over the last few decades.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that is my overwhelming impression.

I'm mostly curious about what you use and how you do it. It's not typical to talk about these things especially here, so it's an interesting topic.

I love to talk about it because one of those "I wish somebody would have told me this" things. I hope it can help in some way.

I use this, which is a "body conditioner", but I mean really - there's nothing special about the skin on your face. I don't find this to cause acne whatsoever. In the dry winter air I do this every day. In warmer months I don't always do it. A $40 container lasts me > 1 year.

https://www.lushusa.com/shower/body-butters-conditioners-1/r...

1. Wash face with soap and water

2. Spend some time rubbing the lotion into your face. 30 seconds? 1 minute? Unscientifically, I suspect the massage here is beneficial.

3. Use a clean washcloth to wipe off any extra that wasn't absorbed

I know two:

1. lot of smoking which is terrible for your skin.

2. life was harder and farming/factory/mining jobs were very popular, first one involve burning in the sun, second in dirt and bad air. Both hard physical work.

So much this. I've noticed it and talked about it for years. Glad someone wrote about it. I definitely think the "dress and act your age" thing was a big factor and I'm so glad that went out the window. Not so that people will get to be immature (that was already there, just buried), but so that people finally get to really define themselves and how they will age gracefully.

Smoking and drinking are known to be major factors, yet I knew many members of religious communities who were very strict about having none of that and they still showed their age earlier.

There was earlier and more childbirth, but that doesn't account for the men.

Some of the men were outdoor workers like farmers, and they definitely showed earlier aging.

I think diet and environment must be a factor. I've read medical literature on the prevalence of toxic chemicals in foods, consumer products, and industrial processes before WW2. My impression of family histories is that major physical ailments were more common in that era.

Must be all those microplastics we're eating...

Must be just me but aside from the oldest guy, none of the faces from that Cheers shot look obviously older than I'd expect from their age. Which is not to say I disagree with the basic idea that the average 30yo today looks younger than someone the same age did 50 or 70 years ago, for all the various proposed reason here and in the article . It's that people are especially surprised by that Cheers cast post that surprises me...maybe I'd feel differently if I were <=30 myself!

Cliff Claven(the mailman, rear center) blew me away the most. I'd have pegged him for late 40s or 50s in that pic/show...

I think that was the guy I meant - not "Coach", who was actually 58 when the show was filmed. But I know guys in real life in their 30s that arguably look older than I do (despite being 10+ years younger!), usually because of thinning or greying hair etc.

To me they look all at least 20 years older in that picture. Let’s say i would meet them in the wild today and they told me their age i would surely think they’re lying about their age.

I figure it’s a hard-to-detect bias. You see a video of the 90’s you know you’re looking on at the 90’s. You unconsciously know your reference frame to the 90’s.

I think this has it backwards: Why are adults today more like children?

Adults, including myself to some extent if I'm honest, in multiple ways act much more like children than any other age in history. This is a very recent phenomena, and I'm continually shocked by how unquestioned it is by most "adults" I know.

My suspicions is that our culture of neoteny is a byproduct of late capitalism. The ideal consumer is a mental and emotional toddler with the income of an adult professional: constantly wanting a new shiny toy or tasty treat to occupy their time, without the need for parental supervision to limit their ability to mean those desires.

When I look around I increasingly see the definition of "adult" being pushed back further and further in age (in another post people are going on about the myth that "mental maturity" starts at 25!)."Adults" that refuse to outgrow the wants of a child leads us to a world where we have dessert with every meal and Christmas is everyday (Amazon makes that possible). It also means a world were individuals refuse to take any responsibility for the reality they participate in.

Late empire issues.

Can you give some examples of other late empires?

I’m not entirely unsympathetic to this line of thinking but “dessert with every meal” as an example of late capitalist degeneracy seems cartoonishly austere.

Neoteny is a product of the safety-oriented culture and single parent-families and low-fertility rate.

If you're having 1 kid vs 10, you'll be way more protective. A 100 years ago, if a horse kicked and killed a 8yo in the village, no one would bat an eye. Today, no chance the kid would be allowed anywhere close or without constant supervision.

From Admiral David Farragut's life: "Farragut was warranted a midshipman in the U.S. Navy on December 17, 1810, at the age of 9. [...]Farragut was 11 years old when, during the War of 1812, he was given the assignment to bring a ship captured by the Essex safely to port."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Farragut

We were talking about this the other day. A friend, soon to be 50, was surprised that a guy and a girl from the group were just a few years younger than him. (He thought they'd be at least 10 years younger, I think.)

He made a comment that 40-50 year old people looked like old men in our childhood and now people of this age really look pretty young, like 10-20 years younger than back then.

And the girl replied that "well, maybe it just shows we're getting old and children and youngsters these days probably see you just as old as you saw those people back then..." :)

But yeah, I had that feeling too. I remember being amazed/perplexed when looking at the photos of people from WW2 or the people on the photos of the 1956 revolution of Hungary (being a Hungarian). When you read about it and see the photos of people executed in their 30's or 40's and they look like grandparents these days. (I'm mentioning the ones executed because those are the ones usually where you know their birth date.) And no, the photos aren't necessarily ones taken at the trials or during the atrocities.

I often hear lead levels being attributed to changing behaviors. Maybe it also accounts for some of the changing looks.

Surprised not to see https://twitter.com/nealbrennan/status/956253921827176448 on this post. Roy Orbison, in particular, looks older than I would think a 52yo would look.

The guys on the left to Tom Petty don't look as old. It has to do a lot with genetics

Tangent, but Roy Orbison always looked to me like he was on death's door, not simply old.

I think it's mostly the giant 90 year old Florida retiree glasses.

It is a quadruple whammy when a style is time-specific, ages badly, few people can pull it off, and seems contrived or odd even when it is in fashion.

I.e. Jellyfish hair could be described as mushroom head, or ... worse. Can't be unseen.

But wolf cuts seem likely to age well. Naturally ragged but still beautiful and styled hair has been a staple of counter culture fashion, rock and roll vamps, and fantasy pinup art for generations.

In fact, wolf cut looks a lot like the Hollywood movie version of "bed head", which has never resembled how most people look in the morning.

Lack of sunscreen

You can visit Brazil, you'll see most young women with 18-year old bodies and 50-year old faces. I think the article has no clue why it is so as their proposed reasons can't be applied on Brazil.

In America you see the opposite. Young faces but 50 year old bodies.

Or 50 tons to be more exact.

They looked older because they were older. Like take my mom. She was there in the past and is much older than me. In fact the further back in the past I want a person to have lived, the older they look now. Also if I was alive at that time in the past, that person would look much older than me then and now (if they're still around).

Joking aside this article might win a prize for the single dumbest thing ever on HN.

The 70's TV show, "All in the Family" featured the iconic cranky-old-man character, "Archie Bunker".

The age of this character on the show? Well, there was an episode where Archie celebrated his 50th birthday-- in 1974. This show premiered in 1968. So, the show started when the Archie character was 44.

I think that the perception of age and age-appropriateness was very different than it is today even a relatively short time ago.

Most of the male actors in the Mary Tyler Moore show were in their 40s.

Perhaps the most startling fact: William Hartnell, the first Doctor Who, was just 55 when the show premiered.

Age wasn't seen as negatively as now, so people cared more about clean attire than particularly looking young.

There weren't drinking the blood of the young?

https://www.insideprecisionmedicine.com/topics/molecular-dx-...

Check out George Orwell.

He died at 46, so no picture of him is from an older age.

Must have been all the stressful war experience.

I’m pretty sure vsauce did a video about this. He concluded that it’s basically an illusion.

Life was considerably more difficult. Logistically a lot has been simplified. Yes modern life is more complex today but we manage it through specialization. This stress takes a toll on people and they look older.

The article seems to be saying, but not quite admitting, that most people don't actually look that different; it's only celebrities that have become obsessed with/expected to look very young.

This looks like an article based entirely off a strawman argument. Head over to r/oldschoolcool and you will see a lot of youngish looking people in their 30s and 40s as well.

List of things that make people looks older:

- Stress

- Sun (or UV to be exact)

- Hormones imbalance

- Alcohol

- Over exercising/workout

(Will add citations if if I got time later)

- Smoking

A lot of the photos are New Yorkers. They look older because of all the pollution living there, aa well as a lifetime alcohol and drug abuse.

I kinda misread the title and was like: of course people in the past look older... because they're older?

Because their cameras didn't include fully automated digital skin filtering?

I agree that everyone (and their mom) looks young on Instagram nowadays. But meet them in person and you'll sometimes wonder if they sent their parents instead ...

Also, old camera tech used to have a good local contrast but bad overall dynamic range. If you use a high contrast HDR tonemapping on modern photos, that alone will also really highlight wrinkles and skin impurities and make the person look old.

You can see this effect even with normal SLR film photos that haven’t been retouched.

So many of these examples are about TV and film though.

And while Instagram lets you do that kind of smoothing, it's virtually never done on TV and film except as very explicit (and very expensive) VFX. Because it obviously doesn't work to do cheaply in HD on somebody in motion.

Contrast isn't the answer either. Modern high-definition TV shows highlight wrinkles and skin texture more than film ever did (digital cameras simply resolve more detail). And so TV and filmmakers cover them up today exactly the same as they did in the 70's: with makeup.

The page doesn't scroll on an iPad. How do you build a website that breaks scrolling...

Less smoking and less drinking perhaps?

When my Father was my age, he had four children and I do not.

I look younger.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

Also, sunblock makes your skin stay young.

You're right! Incidentally, he died of skin cancer (this is not a joke, please cover up, wear sunscreen, get checked by a doctor).

I will offer somewhat opposite. My father had 4 kids and at my age looks roughly the same. That is look like we where/are in our late 20's at age 40. Genetics goes a long way.

Are you both rich? Being poor can really help assist in looking old. Stress is a killer and being poor is nothing but stressful.

edit: removed as low quality comment

They don't mean that people look like they are from an older time. They're talking about the age people look (as in this person looks like they're 30 or this other person looks like they're 70).

Physical aging features like wrinkles and spots on their skin.

People take a lot of cues from clothes and hairstyles. Virtually none of the "people looked older" examples normalize that.

Is this really just a case of hair and clothes? To me this looks like a movie filmed in a high school where all the actors are nearing 30 but they try to pull it off anyway.

https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/shodpt/h...

I’m open to the idea that it’s as simple as sun damage. Kids especially are spending so much more time indoors where their skin isn’t being ravaged by the sun.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trucker-accumulates-skin-damage...

Pretty sure it was sarcasm, given the dinosaur reference there, Mr. Pat

Plant based diets, cosmetic surgery, smoking -- nope, nope.

Not being married: maybe. Hairstyles, maybe.

Generally being more independent and responsible: yep.

Our androgens so low bros :( It's like being Bobby Hill and thinking you'll grow into Hank Hill but just staying Bobby forever because of phthalates in the water and sugar in the food.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com