Humanities desk
< April 19	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 20[edit]

Not social and yet successful[edit]

How many famous people like scientists, writers, politicians were not very social but they were successful to have a career? When I mean not social, I mean did not attend dinner parties, have social times with relatives and family and go to places that involved talking with strangers and no, I don't mean the term anti-social that does criminal activities. I asked this question because I heard some famous people were anti-social and yet were successful to get a job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.36 (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dirac has been described as once "suffering agonies if forced into any kind of socialising or small talk". I also remember reading a book that said something along the lines of that he considered declining the Nobel Prize for fear that he would gain attention. →Σ τ c. 00:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The one time I saw him, was at a lecture by John Archibald Wheeler. Wheeler said we are honored by Professor Dirac's presence here, so Dirac stood up, and bowed and said nothing. But his head didn't explode, so I don't think he was sooo terribly antisocial by anti-social nerd standards.John Z (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See list of recluses. I seriously doubt a politician could be successful without being sociable. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not nowadays, anyway. But supposedly Jefferson was so averse to public speaking that he would actully mail his state of the union report, to be read into the congressional record. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe many successful bloggers are not social by OP's definition. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had the impression that the oral SOTU was a late innovation, though not so late as television. —Tamfang (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interesting article. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Gould was a very successful classical pianist who performed on stage in his early years, but latterly would only make recordings. He was notoriously anti-social and could not bear to be touched. Bielle (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except by Cornelia Foss, with whom he had a long-running and, by her own testimony, very sexual relationship, putting the lie to rumours he was gay. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most prolific and active Wikipedians are also probably not social. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. --Jayron32 02:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^{[original research?]} →Σ τ c. 03:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two that spring immediately to my mind are J. D. Salinger and Thomas Pynchon. Dismas|^(talk) 04:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I received a most active wikiaward and I'm not social. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it this way: if I were social, where would I find the time to accomplish such a feat? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw a distinction between socialising with what we might call the outside world and being comfortable in the presence of one's family. Charles Darwin, for example, spent most of his time at Down House, with his wife and their many children. She handled the entertaining, and he travelled as little as possible, only visiting London when he had to. Was he a recluse? No doubt many scientists of the day thought him such. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Coolidge was often known as "Silent Cal" and there is an apocryphal story about a dinner party he attended at which a woman made a bet that she could get more than two words out of him, to which he responded "You lose." 24.92.85.35 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Hey Giorgy! These Uzbeks bet me twenty kopeks I couldn't get three words out of you!" "You lose...comrade." Adam Bishop (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This presumably in a language in which "you lose" is one word, such as Russian. —Tamfang (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's having a go at the stupidity of Russians, which has always been a rich mine of humour in Russia. This particular Russian is extremely dumb in that, having been apparently smart enough to limit himself to "You lose" (which is 2 words in Russian), he immediately forgets that he cannot say one more word, not even the canonical "Comrade". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think it's meant to mean anything, except maybe a slight against Uzbeks. It's from SCTV, see here if we're allowed to link to YouTube. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. In that scene, Giorgy adds "comrade" as a favor to his friend, after pausing to tease him. —Tamfang (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Jung wrote: Talking is often a torment to me. I need days of silence to recover from the futility of words. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why IRBMs are not used anymore?[edit]

From the article Intermediate-range ballistic missile, it can be seen India, Pakistan and Israel are the only present-day users of IRBMs. The US, France, Russia and China operated IRBMs once, but they no longer use it. Why IRBMs are not used anymore by the major military powers? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because they agreed not to, see Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. India, Pakistan and Israel were not parties to those treaties. --Jayron32 01:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why IRBMs? Surely ICBMs and SLBMs are more of a threat than IRBMs would be... Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The shear destructive power of ICBMs and SLBMs (especially MIRVed) may have been greater than IRBMs, but that isn't the only thing that factors into threat. ICBMs take about 30 minutes to reach their targets. Pershing II IRBMs took 10-15 minutes to reach their targets. In the former case, there is enough time after detecting an enemy launch to fire your own missiles back before the warheads hit you. In the latter, you may not have enough time to react. This is a destabilizing factor. A nation possessing IRBMs has less reason to shy away from an attack as they may succeed without reprisal, while a nation threatened by IRBMs is in a position of "shoot it or lose it," fearing at any moment of tension that the enemy has already fired their missiles. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An additional problem with IRBMs is that they have to be placed in intermediate range. ICBMs can be shot from the U.S. and reach Russia, and visa-versa. IRBMs need to be placed in places like Turkey or Cuba to be effective, and that tends to destabilize things more than just a bit. --Jayron32 03:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRBMs also make states nervous because they look a lot like first strike weapons — the sort of thing you might be tempted to use for a surprise, decapitating attack ("nuclear Pearl Harbor" was the phrase tossed around a lot), as opposed to just a deterrent. Some SLBM systems also run into this issue but the superpowers love them because they have fairly guaranteed second strike retaliation ability. The other issue of the decreasing time is that you also decrease your ability to screen out false alarms, of which there were quite a few during the Cold War. If you have 20 minutes to figure out if it is a computer bug or not (which happened a few times!), then you're more likely to avoid accidental armageddon than if you have, say, 30 seconds to make that call. Slowing things down makes deterrence more rigorous, less accidental, so the thinking goes. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is a case of "we agree to not carry knives, but keep the guns".Oranjblud (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like, "we agree not to carry handguns, but will still drive tanks." --Mr.98 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Muzong of Tang[edit]

Did any of Emperor Muzong of Tang's sons or grandsons leave any descendants to the present day? His line was replaced by his brother's in 846, but he still had descendants living at the time. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Germany in 1970-1990[edit]

Was there a shift towards conservatism during this time in Germany? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which Germany? There were two for most of that time period. --Jayron32 03:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, do you have any leads? See Elections in Germany or, for an inside view of German feelings in 1981, see Marianne and Juliane. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is anecdotal, but during that period, I spent some time in West Germany, had friends there, and followed culture and politics. There was an alarmed reaction to leftwing terrorism (and terrorism in general) during that time, which led to public support for tighter security. That could be said to be a conservative shift, I suppose, but otherwise, I don't think that there was a general shift to the right. The recession of the early 80s led to dissatisfaction with the (left of center) SPD and an electoral gain on the part of the CDU/CSU, but this was more voters expressing dissatisfaction with the economy than an ideological shift. As the economy improved during the later 80s, the political pendulum began to swing back to the left. Also, this period saw the rise of the German Green Party, which was anything but conservative, and a very strong left-wing protest movement against the NATO Double-Track Decision to deploy nuclear cruise missiles in Germany. This movement included demonstrations involving hundreds of thousands of Germans and opinion polls showing majority support for the protesters. Lastly, this period saw a number of political and cultural gains by feminists and gay activists. So, no, I don't think that there was a clear conservative shift during this period. As for East Germany, the 70s were a conservative period (if we define conservative as defense of the status quo and existing power structures) of communist retrenchment, but the 80s began with the Solidarity movement in neighboring Poland, which inspired liberal dissenters in East Germany, followed by Soviet glasnost and perestroika, which encouraged the liberal Peaceful Revolution that led to the downfall of the communist government. Marco polo (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

religious teachings against contraception[edit]

It is well known that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception is sinful, but are there other Christian denominations which do the same? In particular, is this an issue with the Christian Right? I looked at Protestant views on birth control but it wasn't too helpful. --Halcatalyst (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on the beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, In most instances, the church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control among married couples. It's sourced if you want to go look it up. Dismas|^(talk) 04:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The protestant view is going to be confusing because there is no "Protestant View" on anything. The term "Protestant" in many contexts can mean "Any Western Christian tradition which isn't Catholicism, with a few exceptions". There are mainline Protestant denominations, but even they aren't going to agree on much of anything. You're literally going to have to go denomination-by-denomination to find what each teaches on the matter; and in some denominations, there may be considerable room for individual conscience. As a devout evangelical Christian myself, I will leave out my opinions on the Christian Right, except to say that those opinions are not very charitible towards them. --Jayron32 05:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Christian views on contraception? The Orthodox churches seem to have some variation, according to that page; most oppose abortifacient means of contraception (that's a bit vague; e.g. people argue whether the morning after pill is an abortifacient), some go further, some are more liberal. The Greek Orthodox church seems to oppose all contraception[1]. This page suggests the Coptic Orthodox church isn't opposed in principle, but recommends the rhythm method (calculating fertile periods). The Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada allows except for abortifacients, but again prefers natural methods.[2] --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And some will argue for a distinction between contraception (under this narrow definition, that which prevents the union of sperm and egg) and contragestion (that which prevents the fertilised egg from implanting in the uterine lining). You might be interested in the quiverfull movement, Protestant Christians who oppose all limitations on their family size. As far as I know, they only exist in English-speaking countries. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists and mental disorders[edit]

Is it true that most if not all exceptional scientists, in can credit their success to some form of mental disorder, such as Asperger's syndrome? Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Since Asperger's wasn't recognized until the 1940s we might never really know. As times change, the way people interact with each other changes too, sometimes profoundly. Many if not most of us these days have most of our social interaction staring at glowing rectangles so who's to say that those with a predilection towards that sort of interaction aren't more mentally ordered rather than disordered? The sorts of mental skills necessary to succeed in industry and academia depend on such vagaries of progress and are constantly changing. 71.212.228.14 (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are trying to point to this article, it's from The Onion, so it's just a joke. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, at the moment neither of those URLs are working for me, but I suggest there is more than just a grain of truth in the premise. As for the original question, PMID 11439754 says, "we report on a new instrument ... the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ).... scientists (including mathematicians) scored significantly higher than both humanities and social sciences students, confirming an earlier study that autistic conditions are associated with scientific skills. Within the sciences, mathematicians scored highest...." 71.212.228.14 (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a hunch: the outcasts are leading the world. If it weren't for us, were would the world be? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a saying: "To be a genius is to be misunderstood." This addendum is often added "The converse is not necessarily true". Think on it a bit. --Jayron32 14:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you infering? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a question to Jayron's post (in which case it should have been indented under it), it means that just because someone is misunderstood, does not mean they're necessarily a genius (they might have a habit of explaining themselves very unclearly, for example). If it's not a question to Jayron's post, then I have no idea what the question is about or to whom it's addressed. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It means that it's rather amusing for some guy on the Internet to arrogantly assume he is one of the genius outcasts leading the world. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not imply that I was a genius, simply that I am an outcast. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that appears to be a reply to Adam Bishop, but it's not indented under it so at first glance it might be seen as unrelated to anything Adam has written. Please indent your posts where necessary, by use of the appropriate number of colons (:). For example, if you reply to my post, you'd start with 2 colons. For more information about this, see WP:Indentation. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to follow these rules, but as a note: this type of comment belongs on my talk page, not on the reference desk. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you did:[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evaporative cooler[edit]

How common are evaporative coolers nowadays in households? The article does not have the information. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common in desert climates with a good, cheap supply of water (piped in from dams elsewhere), but rare otherwise. StuRat (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In our household, despite the need for a cheap and portable cooling method we dont use evap coolers because of the moister they put into the air, especially because of the books in the house too. Benyoch ^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} 06:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs)

We have one, which resides on the roof of the house, with water pumped through it. We have to turn the pump on for several minutes before actually turning the cooler on, in order to get the water flowing. Unfortunately, with the temperature floating at around 90 degrees today, our cooler isn't working, as it needs a new pump and someone to install it. :( I live in Central California. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the Olympic Games such a nationalistic display?[edit]

Flags, anthems, biased coverage by the media... Where did all that come from? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your "question" is ambiguous. You could be saying any one, or more, of the following:

Why it is that nationalistic?
What are the origins of it being nationalistic?
A rhetorical question, formed as a way of saying you find it nationalistic and [implied] distasteful

Answering them in order:

Because it lends itself to being a nationalistic display.
Good question. I wonder how focused the original Olympics/early modern Olympics were on state of origin.
The ref desk is for questions that can be answered, but I'll note that apart from biased coverage, the other elements you mention are neutral, it's just your [implied] perception that they're bad

Now I'll look into Q2 because it intrigues me, even if it wasn't your question. --Dweller (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism is a bit of an anachronistic term to use for Ancient times, even for the well-developed Greek city states, but it seems from our article on the ancient Olympics that you can trace the origins back to those days. --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it is because the teams are, and have been, organized by National Olympic Committees, and so the athletes, loosely speaking, represent nations. Look at the early history of the IOC. There have been attempts to make it less so; Avery Brundage, for example wanted to replace the anthem of the winning competitor(s) replaced with a fanfare of trumpets, but he was not successful in selling it to the IOC.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broadside Perceptor -- It's possible that without the national competition element, the broad public would be a lot less interested in the Olympics than they are now... AnonMoos (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, the modern Olympic Games began during the heyday of nationalism, so it was natural to organize them according to national teams. Second, I think AnonMoos is on target as to why the national structure persists. It attracts people who are interested in rooting for or supporting "their" team. That is in the interest of the athletes and organizers, who receive more funding as a result, and in the interest of broadcasters, who gain advertising revenue. Marco polo (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as the athletes are still entered by their NOCs, it would be almost impossible to change today. Too much of an organized power structure, and what would be the alternative anyway?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Modern Olympic Games" were clearly started based on a premise that nations could fight for prestige and pride in the sports arena as opposed to the battlefield. Remember that in the pre-World I era, wars were still viewed by some naive folks as having some kind of almost moral quality, as tests of courage and manhood rather than as merely brutal slaughter and murder. Cf. Games Without Frontiers (song). Wnt (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say that you live in Bolivia and have television access; you're more likely to care about Bolivian athletes than about Mongolian ones, so if you're informed about which players are from where, it might make you more interested. Granted, you should be able to see which of two people is a typical Bolivian and which is a typical Mongolian; however, without national identifiers you'd have a hard time distinguishing the Bolivian from the Peruvian. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pride in one's nation's achievements cf. those of other nations is a very alluring idea, and sporting achievements are right up there alongside scientific, artistic and humanitarian achievements. De Coubertin etc knew this. So did Walter Scott: Breathes there a man with soul so dead, Who never to himself has said, "This is my own, my native land"?. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the Olympics that the media shows bias to. All sporting events will cause certain sections of the media to display this. If you watch a report on a game between teams in two different cities that is broadcast on a channel available to a large section of the country it will tend to be more neutral. On the other hand if the broadcast is from a station in one of the cities then a bias for the home team will be present. The media knows their audience and it isn't the people living in other countries it's the people in the home nation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]