Humanities desk
< November 22	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 24 >

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.

November 23

Instinct

This might be more of a science question....but i'll proceed.

I have a new kitten who was never raised by her feline parents. Watching her behavior, I assume that it's all instinctual--she behaves like a cat because she's hardwired that way. Since she's never met any other cats, it can't be socialization.

What facets (if any) of human behavior are "instinctual" like that? I guess I'm looking for the things which cross cultures--because obviously different cultures have vastly different taboos/expectations/customs etc. which would modify behavior.

Thanks192.136.22.4 (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be analagous to the situation of your kitten, you would have to find at least one human who has not been raised by, or in the company of, other humans. Otherwise, the question of "nature or nurture" remains. There are, however, a lot of theories and some professionals who consider the very question to misunderstand what makes us human. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Feral child. --Tango (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi--OP here, i think I understand that due to most humans having been raised by other humans, many cultural customs have imprinted over any instincts we might have. But I'm wondering if there is anything at all which most scientists would point to as a remaining instinct, which doesn't need to be taught and is innate in all people. If there is no such thing, okay, just wondering if there was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.22.4 (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-preservation, sex drive, social living? Julia Rossi (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little things like smiling? Screaming? Crying? --Tango (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have quite a few instincts which are shared with other animals, like breastfeeding (shared with other mammals). What I find most interesting is instincts which aren't common to other animals. I believe the tendency of babies to make up their own languages is human instinct, while the languages we learn from our parents and others are definitely not. I would argue that if you could somehow have a group of children grow up together without any language used by their caregivers, they would create their own language and could communicate basic concepts with each other when they grew up. Twins sometimes do this even though they are exposed to adult languages, since they spend a lot of time together when they are in the same language-developing stage. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is unscientific and OR, but there do seem to be some behavior patterns related to age and sex that are fairly cross-cultural. This suggests that they are instinctual. Young males tend to get into fights with one another in every culture I have experienced, for example. Adult men and women have different ways of interacting that also seem to be cross-cultural in my experience. Of course, the sex drive is a powerful human instinct. Marco polo (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The movie Caligula and historical accuracy

After umming and ahhing about whether this belonged on the Entertainment desk, I decided to ask here instead, as I know that there are many history buffs here. Just for the record, most of my knowledge of Roman history comes from movies and high-school history lessons, so go easy on me. ;)

So yeah, I just watched Caligula on DVD (they finally released the full uncut, complete-with-all-the-naughty-bits version in the UK) and I find myself curious as to just how historically accurate the events and situations depicted in this 'long misunderstood epic' actually are.

I remember reading an online review years and years ago which stated that in terms of 'sword and sandal' movies, this one is actually surprisingly (amazingly?) faithful to historical accounts of Emperor Caligula's (and his associates') life, loves and batshit insane/cruel actions (yep, I'm aware of the theory that later Roman historians may have done a complete hatchet job on the man for political reasons), as well as the decadent, opulent lifestyles of the Roman upper classes of the 'pagan' era, the general lack of respect for human life and the sexual morals (or lack of them, as some would say from a modern perspective) of the time.

As far as I can remember, the reviewer had more of a problem with the anachronistic 'human being lawnmower' scene (exactly what it sounds like - you'll know it if you've seen it) and some of the costume designs than anything else in the film and suggested that in light of what he knew of Roman history, the celluloid depictions of death, tits 'n' sodomy were probably entirely appropriate.

So, any thoughts and opinions, folks? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kurt, glancing at the critics views in the article, it seems to get the thumbs down for lack of context or conviction as a movie (bad directing, bad porn etc), which doesn't help your question, but it's a start. They don't back up why they declare it unsatisfying... Googling finds Caligula was in the top five bad emperors along with Tiberius, Nero, Domitian, Elagabalus and Commodus. Though murder, intrigue, literal and metaphorical backstabbing went with the position, Caligula seems to have taken the idea of God more literally than most. One commentator suggests Caligula "filled his four years on the throne with a reign of terror that may have been the result of a medical condition." (See also[http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Caligula#Health). I leave it to the historians here to amplify that mysterious point. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think that the main problem with Caligula (the movie) is in the editing. There's a decentish, boundary-pushing movie in there somewhere, trying to get out (the acting is actually *good*, IMO!) - but the much publicised 'issues' surrounding the production and the egos of the people involved basically screwed it. WRT to the bad (completely non-erotic for the most part, unless one's tastes run into the 'alternative') porn and scenes of horrific abuse and cruelty - it does kinda work to demonstrate the ugly, vicious excesses of the people involved and the (apparent) social mores of the time. It bludgeons the viewer over the head for virtually the entire 2-and-a-half hour running time, until you're feeling numb and drained from it all. I don't know if that was the original intent or not - but it is successful on the 'Man! Caligula's (and Tiberius's) Rome was hell on earth!' level.

WRT to the reasons and motives for Caligula's actions - it's left pretty open ended. Was he mad, bad, a political anarchist who wanted to destroy the upper classes for fun/sympathy for the poor - or simply a young guy who had too much, too soon and liked his sister a little too much? Or maybe just a combination of all of these? I'd be interested to hear what history has to say (history for dummies, plz guys) in comparison... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the acting was good; the film story was written by Gore Vidal and had such acclaimed actors as John Gielgud, Helen Mirren, and Peter O'Toole. As originally shot and envisaged, it WAS quite heavy on the sex and violence, but the sex was originally "suggestive" rather than "hardcore"; producer Bob Guccioni fired the original director after principle shooting, reshot most of the sex scenes with his own "talent" (and much more, um, explicitly) and brought in his buddies to re-edit the film. The resulting final film was so far from the original vision that most of the actors, writers, and directors originally involved "disowned" it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather hard to assess Caligula's reign, because, as usual, we have a problem with bias in the contemporary sources. --Dweller (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it go too far to say he was the Axl Rose of his time? In terms of craziness, I mean. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he'd probably have more in common with Slash. Nominally, anyway. --Dweller (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani Muslim Scholars by language

Is there any Muslim scholars in Pakistan who give lectures in their native tongue: Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi, Pashto, Hindko, Saraiki and Urdu(if the scholar was in Islamabad and claims as an Islamabadi)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.50 (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bet that Maududi gave plenty of lectures in Urdu... AnonMoos (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Languages in Tafsirul Quran

Is there any Tafsirul Quran in the following Indian languages: Bengali, Gujarati, Oriya, Marathi, Hindi, Punjabi(Gurumukhi), Assamese, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada and Kashmiri? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.50 (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a very large number of Muslims speaking the Bengali, Kashmiri, and Punjabi languages at least, so one would think that there would be... AnonMoos (talk)

The tafsir article says there are some in Bengali and Malayalam. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rigorous Education System

Out of sheer curiosity (and a wish to verify something I been told several times by people who probably aren't "qualified" to comment on it), I would like to know whether the Czech education system is really that rigorous and whether they really have frequent tests or whatever they're called. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 03:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I found these links helpful, but they don't directly address your question about how it compares to international standards. NByz (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one was from a "blacklisted site"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by NByz (talk • contribs) 03:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which site was that? What a bunch of fascists here. My God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.99.209 (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OECD tries to compare international standards in schools in its Programme for International Student Assessment. The Czech Republic has scored well in these comparative tests. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how about the testing in comparison to other countries, though the tests could probably also be considered quizzes, from the impression I got from the various teachers who mentioned it. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 11:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that no-one has systematically investigated whether the testing regime is challenging compared to other countries. The Czech school system has similarities with those in many other European countries and there do seem to be procedures in place to make sure that students have to reach particular standards before proceeding to the next class. There is grade repeating, and also only a minority of students take the academic track; others move into vocational study. If there was no rigour at all then the PISA results would be surprising. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was something about daily quizzes, or at least highly frequent ones, not exams. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 08:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this talk attributed to Noam Chomsky

http://cscs.umich.edu/%7Ecrshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html

I don't find this anywhere else. Did Chomsky ever own/disclaim it? 59.91.254.65 (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the issue? I skimmed it (not carefully enough to notice whether it contained anything surprising) but it looks like something Chomsky might have written or said. It's possible that it's a transcript of a talk that he gave that someone recorded, which would explain why it doesn't show up in more usual outlets. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's perfectly consistent with other comments I read by Chomsky on this subject, so I don't think there is much reason to doubt the authenticity. It also sounds like him. If you really want to be sure, you could ask Chomsky, chomsky at mit.edu 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not too much trouble, will you let us know what you learn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.99.209 (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I asked Chomsky himself and he replied thus:

"I do remember it. It wasn't a talk. I'm pretty sure it was a contribution to a forum run at Znet. That's the reason for the references to "this forum." It should be available in the Znet archives, I would think."

Sorry for being late to post this here. 59.91.253.45 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many US presidents are of at least partial British descent?

Obama is. Bush and Bush sr are. Clinton is. Reagan was. I would imagine it to be most or nearly all of them. Do you know the answer?-Boshinoi (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since they all have European ancestors, it is extremely likely that they all have British ancestors if you go back far enough (say a thousand years). I expect they all have much more recent British ancestors, but I haven't checked. Algebraist 15:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Martin van Buren being referred to as the "first President not born of British ancestry". The article also mentions that he was "the only president not to have spoken English as a first language, having grown up speaking Dutch." His mother's name was Dutch too (van Allen), but I didn't see a complete family tree excluding any recent British ancestry. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Boyd Roberts shows the first six generations of Van Buren's known ancestors, and they all seem to be New Yorkers of Dutch descent, or residents of the Netherlands. The only other presidents he's known to be related to are Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and that's through their Dutch ancestry, so I think Van Buren can be excluded from having any recent British ancestry. (Roberts, Gary Boyd (1995). Ancestors of American Presidents. Santa Clarita, California: Carl Boyer. pp. 13–14. ISBN 0-936124-19-9. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)) - Nunh-huh 19:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall a great deal of edit warfare on thie: who is "British?" By some definitions you cannot be British unless you were alive after 1707. See Terminology of the British Isles. Did George Washington have British ancestors? -Arch dude (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his maternal grandfather Joseph Ball was born in England in 1649, and died in Virginia in 1711 (as, of course, a British subject), so I think even by that definition he'd qualify (like his wife who didn't die until 1721). But I don't think that definition is what's meant by "British" in the question at hand.. - Nunh-huh 23:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington's family home in England is at Sulgrave Manor in Northamptonshire, although it seems to have left the family in the middle of the 17th century. Previously the family came from Washington Old Hall in County Durham. They're quite proud of the connection round there and I doubt that technical definitions of Britishness matter. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sam. I'd say "you cannot be British unless you were alive after 1707" is a bit of reductio ad absurdum. If you're defining someone's nationality, then it's half true, except that the 17th century was really more interested in whose subject you were than in what citizenship you had. Although the word Britons (for British people) is an ancient one, for a long time after 1707 people were much more likely to call themselves English, Scottish, or Welsh than British. All the same, it's hard to avoid a concept of Britishness which is older than the Act of Union. Xn4 (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British is as good a term as any for people born on the island on the right side of this picture, regardless of the date of their birth.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Kennedy have any non-Irish ancestry? - Jmabel | Talk 21:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None known as far as I can determine. Roberts has 4 generations of known ancestors for Kennedy, all American of Irish descent, or Irish. - Nunh-huh 22:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, because the Irish themselves had ancestors who were not Irish. Those ancestors in turn had ancestors who did not share their ethnicity. And so on, all the way back to the apes. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, those are putative ancestors, not known ones. In this context, what's being asked about is known ancestry, otherwise George Washington would be known as the first African American president. - Nunh-huh 22:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And so he almost certainly was. :) But I concede your point, Nunh-huh. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious council declaring excrement "Holy"

Which council debated and declared excrement "Holy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.189.209 (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Holy shit! I think you have a point! Steewi (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(still open question) about the title of a Song I played in FMEA symphonic band

I was in the all-state band 10 years ago, and there was a march that we played. The low-brass began the song with these notes (transposed from my piano to remove the flats)...

A C B G A

The first 4 are half notes (2 beats) and the last note is a double whole note (8 beats). This line repeats 3 times in the opening, and also repeats constantly throughout the whole song over & over again. Its such a popular piece, that anyone who listens to classical music would instantly recognize it. I have tried everywhere looking for "lists of 25 most popular marches" etc... and scanning youtube, and even emailed the FMEA website but they told me to contact the company which sold the CD's but that company has only contracted with them for the last 5 years. Also , the lowest pitch note is the G, and the range is less than an octave (thus the highest note is just a half-octave approximately above the lowest note) and I'm almost positive that the song has the word "March" in the title, and I believe its just a two-word title.

Here's another song we played during that event, to help you understand the style of music that we performed... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B49N46I39Y

Plus, I wish I knew how to describe the march. It was definitely not a marching band song! That's what most of my search querys returned. It was a very "musical" song, exactly in the same perceived category as Gustav Holst's Jupiter. Just something that sounded nice and talented 8th graders could play it.

Thanks a million to those of you out there who know it off the top of your head! I dont listen to classical music but have listened to dozens of songs trying to find this one. 65.41.148.101 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't watch the youtube on this computer but those notes at the beginning sound like a setting of De profundis that is pretty well known (maybe by Felix Mendelssohn). Anyway I'm pretty sure it's something I've heard.67.122.210.149 (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid that's not it. 65.41.148.101 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was it either the Florentine March (ignore the introductory fanfares) or the Entry of the Gladiators, both by Julius Fučík? (and no, that’s not a typo) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No still not it. If you heard "in the hall of the mountain king" just one time, you would instantly remember the recurring sequence of pitches. That's how strong the 5 note sequence is: it is the song! Even the melody plays lots of variations of it (such as splitting the G into 3 equal G notes of 2/3 beat each, thus still filling the 2 beat gap left by the vestigial half-note). Do any of you know people that love classical music as much as I love physics? Its such an unmistakeable melodic sequence, that it's extremeley recognizable. I tried to find this song a year ago also. If you play the sequence, you'll see that its a very powerful piece for the low-brass. Its very climactic and played soft in the intro, loud during the middle/endphase. I have read probably 500 querys returning with "March of..." which I thought was the title. It could also be "return of..." but I was almost certain I knew at least a single word of the title. During the climactic parts of the piece, had lots of timpani and symbol crashes (because both were behind me). During the "climactic melody" it goes

A C B ggg A Z Y X A C B ggg A

where I don't know Z, Y, or X but that Z is higher than Y, Y is higher than X. Y and Z are definitely higher in pitch than all the other notes. X could be higher than, or the same as one of the others.

the ggg are the three described equal-duration equal pitch "triplets" which fully fill up a half-note's duration.

I think its A C B ggg A E D B A C B ggg A

If you heard the song before, you would insta-recognize this by playing the white keys of the piano. For my tuba, the key was actually Concert-Bb so everything is transposed up a step (for those affected by perfect pitch).

So hopefully even if no one can answer this for me, I'll simply take at least one person who has heard their plenty share of classical music, to say that he or she has never heard of it and its not direly familiar. 65.41.148.101 (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went to Melody Hound. I typed in the notes you provided, said I was looking for a march, and it gave me Grieg's "March of the Dwarves". But I don't know why it gave me that. I would never have picked that melody from the notes I provided. However, I couldn't help noticing that it's by the same composer as "In the Hall of the Mountain King", so it just might be what you're looking for. I put in a slightly different search and it came up with Sousa's "Stars and Stripes Forever". If it's not either of these, you've really got me intrigued. I played the note sequence on my piano in various ways, but it didn't ring any bells with me at all. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so helpful with me. I am 100% certain on the sequence of notes and their timing. I played that song probably 50 times since our practices were 8 hours, 8 hours, 3 hours, then the concert. If I had a tuba, and a tuba-to-midi cable I could upload it exactly, but interestingly, I think we played that song too or something with the word Suwanee in the title.

Yeah, I'm hearing the piccolo part, and I definitely confirm we played Stars & Stripers forever, in the 1998 FMEA all state band thing. That and Jupiter, Orpheus overture, and like 4 more. The only one I really liked was the March. When you played the notes on the piano did you follow the durations exactly (half note 4 of them, then a double-whole note)? Now imagine its just low brass (tubas, baritones, trumbones, french horns). There are some woodwinds like 4 oboes doing their random thing, then it gets loud, then soft then loud then soft then very loud then ends. I think the reason I liked the song so much was because of where I sat. There were about 12 tuba players alone (on top of all the other low-brass), and the FMEA certainly didn't skip on our low-brass section when he allocated seats. Plus, I keep forgetting that I made my University's marching band just by telling the band leader that I got into all-state in 8th grade and I played tuba. I wasn't even that good, but everybody wants to recruit tuba players and reject drummers. Our high school band had 2 tuba players and about 30 drummers. I assure you it is as good of march as any of the others I've heard in all my searching. Its very very very climactic/intense and I hate listening to tuba, but love stuff that sounds like apocolyptica or transsiberian orchestra. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY1otyfwu1o is the best example of the intensity ebbs and flows (well nothing is quite more intense, so maybe 80%). 65.41.148.101 (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, is what you're describing (A C B ggg A etc) the bass line, or the melody line? Or both? If you whistled the "main tune" of the piece, would it still be A C B ggg A, or something else? And it is in a minor key, right? The majority of marches are in major keys. This one sounds quite dramatic, almost sinister, sort of like Darth Vader's theme. Am I in the right ball park? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have the idea perfectly! It is a very dark piece! The main melody sequence is the only thing you hear in the first 20 seconds and its the low brass playing it 3 times. To me, it IS the melody. The melody instruments play it every once in a while plus some neat variations! Its a very exciting piece, to know that you are closer to understanding it, just lets me relive it more vividly. Those notes have no sharps, no flats. I transposed it up a half step. The first note is actually concert Bb. It sounds like a minor key, but i'm not certain so don't trust it either way.

I think you should call up a few classical music buffs you know and sing a few bars of that thing. I've heard it before, I just can't place it, but it's not something terribly obscure. I am sort of hearing it in my head on a pipe organ. Jehan Alain Litanies Pour l'Orgue maybe? Saint-Saens organ concerto? It also sounds sort of Russian. Wow, while checking the Alain article I just discovered the IMSLP wiki and it has a PHP forum, maybe you could ask your question there. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I still have hope! I know it exists, I played it with 100 other people. 65.41.148.101 (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TANFF

You have the wrong poverty rates in the temporary aid for need families (TANFF) page - your poverty rates are wrong. current poverty rates (as of 2007) are 12.5% - the other years are wrong as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.82.27 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single definition of poverty rates, so it's entirely possible that the figures on that page (it's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), by the way) and your figures are both correct, just using a different definition. That page takes its poverty figures from here (one of the figures was off by 0.1%, I've corrected it), an official US government site. --Tango (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EC:I suggest you put this on the talk page for that article, along with your proof and the correct values. If you are sure you have the correct values, you can also change the article to reflect them. However, the values which are already there may have been gathered from another source. Different sources frequently will vary a bit from each other on stats like this. StuRat (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the OP's figures are for the proportion of people in poverty, while the article's figures are for families in poverty. Algebraist 23:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]