Fashionistas Are Still Stupid

This is one reason why we need better science education (although in the case of fashionistas, that's like trying to escape a black hole): maybe people will be able to recognize the difference between actual chemistry and bogus marketing "chemistry" when they encounter it. I mean, WTF is a "patented catalyst enhancer"? Why would you even need any to make existing "hydration" and "smoothing agents" to, you know, hydrate and smooth (unless the existing ones don't, you know, work)?

And even if "hair type" is merely "conventional wisdom," why ought it then be "eschew[ed]"? Wouldn't it be more sensible to create cut–and–hair-type products: e.g., one for oily straight hair cut in a bob, oily curly hair cut in a bob, oily curly hair cut in a pixie, &c., &c.? And if not, what's the evidence for preferring, say, a cut-targeted product to a hair-type product?

On the other hand, if you pose all of these questions, the heads just asplode, making it moot.