Humanities desk
< April 26	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 28 >

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 27

Why are people (namely, the majority of Americans) content with being ignorant?

Anyone have any insight? While I do find it occasionally amusing, I also find it equally as frustrating (I am American). -- 06:55, 27 April 2010 161.165.196.84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk)

Why do ref. desk posters often make broad sweeping categorical assertions, and phrase their "questions" in such a manner as to suggest that they aren't really interested in answers? -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the ambiguity and as you said, "categorical assertions." I am very much interested in an answer. You see, I am surrounded by co-workers, family, and acquaintances who have explicitly expressed their lack of interest and non-willingness to pursue truth in matters; and although trite, the term conformist comes to mind. My government sanctions the authoritarianism these people (the conformist masses, the majority). I find it troubling to know that the nescient masses are casting the "winning votes". Overall, I just want to know why people are ok with being ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are ignorant people even aware of their ignorance? -Pollinosisss (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just Americans; a recent BBC documentary sent a Member of Parliament to live with a single mum - not only did she not know what an MP was, she didn't know what Parliament was either! Alansplodge (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus wept!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Channel 4 Tower block of commons programmes? Because the MPs' ignorance of the lives of much of the population was much more shocking, to my mind. Such as the MP who, on seeing discarded needles, revealed they had assumed drug addicts were an urban myth! Or the MP who refused to stick to the shopping budget of someone on benefits, even for one week, because they didn't think it could be done. And this was an educated person who knew they were being filmed. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pollinosisss, some ignorant people are indeed aware they're ignorant. They're the ones Donald Rumsfeld was talking about with his "known unknowns" (not to be confused with known knowns, unknown knowns, or unknown unknowns). In fact, pretty much everyone falls into all 4 camps in respect of different things. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that was one of the most sensible things I've ever heard said by an American politician, and all the more surprising for being said by Rumsfeldt. He didn't mention "unknown knowns" though - are these the things that you thought you didn't know, but got right anyway in a pub quiz? See Unknown unknown. DuncanHill (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw someone else quite recently making that point about "unknown knowns" not being mentioned. This person suggested that they represent things that people don't even think of finding out about because it never occurs to them that the information is available. For example, say that 40 years ago there was technology to do THIS without THAT ever happening, so people have been doing THIS for all that time and have gotten used to the idea that THAT is impossible. Then someone invents a new technology to do THIS more cheaply or conveiently, but doesn't even think about providing a way to stop THAT. How to stop THAT has become an "unknown known". The writer named a specific example, I think something to do with computer networks, but I'm afraid I've forgotten who it was or what the example was. --Anonymous, 21:10 UTC, April 27, 2010.

If they lack interest in all matters, that's anhedonia. If, as seems more likely, what you are observing is a lack of interest in the matters you want to talk to them about, that's finding you boring. There is no moral obligation to be interested in everything, nor is it a sensible or practical policy. 81.131.39.242 (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your "ignorant" friends. Then look at yourself. Which are happier? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an American, I resent the question. Actually, I find it to be a really stupid question. But I will just make this one comment: I wonder how much richer the world would be without the contributions of ignorant Americans such as Thomas Alva Edison, the Wright brothers, Samuel Morse, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Henry Ford, Neil Armstrong, Eliza Lucas, Cyrus McCormick, Levi Strauss, J.C.R. Licklider, etc. And let's not overlook their contributions to music, literature, the cinema, sports, telecommunications......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's 11 (plus "etc") out of, very conservatively estimated, 450 million eligible ones. Not a particularly ringing endorsement ;-). I don't think this is restricted to the US - everywhere in the world I meet people who not only don't know what a Schwarzschild radius is, or the Acts of Paul and Thecla, or in what context Deus vult became prominent and what it means, or what a Ionic bond is, or how Birds evolved, but that don't even want to know this. I'm totally flabbergasted as to why someone would not want to know this stuff... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could have named more (hand on heart), but I just gave the few which immediately sprang to mind (11 out of 450 ain't bad). The thing is about American inventors is that one isn't sure whether the inventor was American or his invention was patented in the US, thus the Americans being given credit by default. Bell, Baird, Oppenheimer, Einstein, Von Braun all fall into this category. I notice how some Europeans are always ready to leap into the let's bash America gang, yet forget it's an American who has given us the means to insult each other with plenty of cyber space between us. I would love to know what a Schwarzschild radius is but it wasn't deemed necessary to know under the dreaming spires of Surf City High!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11 out of 450 million. Einstein didn't do very much work after emigration. And no, Al Gore did not really invent the internet ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Million?! I never learned how to count that high, Stephan. By the way, who is Al Gore?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore is the inventor of the algorithm. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought he was an athlete. Hmm, didn't an Al Gore run in some sort of race a while back?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

161.165.196.84, could you specify which kind of "truth in matters" your co-workers are not interested in or not willing to pursue? Could you perhaps give some examples? Moreover, when you narrow it down to "the majority of Americans", is this because theirs is the only ignorance you've experienced this closely, or are you comparing with other cultures which are, in your experience, less ignorant? I'm not sure I understand your question beyond an often repeated cliché I have found to be untrue in my own experience. (I'm not American) ---Sluzzelin talk 08:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The saying "one mans rubbish is another man's gold" comes to mind. The lady that doesn't know what an MP or Parliament is...does it stop her functioning, does it stop her living the life she wants to lead? Not likely. Yes it's a pity that more people aren't interested in politics, but we could argue it's a sign of how stable political life in the UK is. But it's irrelevant - it's like people that laugh at others for not knowing where country Y is on a map...what on earth does somebody need to know that for if they've no interest in the place? So it's in the news because a war is going on? That's a tragedy but having huge knowledge on the subject is hardly 'relevant' and not knowing the details may make me ignorant but what does that matter? What i've found is that everybody i've ever met has something that they are very knowledgeable about - be it politics, football, celebrities, embroidary, joinery or a million other things. People quickly learn about things whent hey need to - how many non-parent 20 year olds have good knowledge about raising children? Very few - but how many will be very knowledgable about it in 10-15 years when they're married with 2 kids? Necessity - i'll learn it when I need to... 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope springs eternal in the human breast......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is in some part the Dunning–Kruger effect. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is present in all cultures. I've lived in a few areas of the US and traveled to Europe a few times now. In each place I've found people who aren't interested in various things that I am interested in. They don't really care to learn about these things because they have no use for the information. A good example is computers and the elderly. Many older people don't know anything about computers and don't have any need to. So, they remain ignorant of the entire field. As a person's exposure to various things narrows, they care less and less about things outside their sphere. This may be more pronounced in Americans vs. Europeans since the Europeans have so many different cultures around them. They hear many different languages on a regular (possibly daily) basis. Many Americans on the other hand only hear English from day to day. Dismas|^(talk) 10:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed in the UK that there has been an increasing cultural shift against people being educated and knowledgeable. They are seen as uncool, swots, spoffs, etc. There is definitely peer pressure not to be "too smart". I have heard that the same is happening in the USA. I don't know why this is though -- Q Chris (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking questions is more important than finding answers. The well-formulated question is an answer, of sorts. If you are looking for ignorance, you can find it everywhere. Ignorance can also be feigned. Fun is the one thing that money can't buy, to quote the Beatles (She's Leaving Home). But after all, she was meeting a man from the "motor trade." How quaint. Bus stop (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe John Lennon wrote that song when he was in his pissed off and jaded Nowhere Man humour. Believe me, if I had money, I could find many ways to have fun. One cannot have fun if they haven't plenty of paper notes nestled in the wallet. To quote an American television evangelist: "You need some money, honey!"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to what kinds of "fun" you would do if you did have more money? 78.149.181.41 (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul sang it, so most likely he wrote She's Leaving Home. Although all compositions were credited as Lennon-McCartney, most songs were predominently written by just one of them, and usually that person sang the song on the album, unless they gave it to Ringo, in which case, I'm not sure who wrote what. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me Ringo Starr didn't write Octopus' Garden?!!!!! I'm shattered.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an interesting historical study of the purported American interest in exclusively pragmatic knowledge, see Richard Hofstadter, Anti-intellectualism in American Life, which won the 1964 Pulitzer Prize. It is a pretty interesting study (by one of the grand old masters of American history) of American aversion to the ideas of expertise and learned knowledge. It is fairly controversial and today most historians think he is a bit too sweeping and definitely a product of its time (Hofstadter was lefty and considered McCarthyism and Eisenhower to both be the result of latent anti-intellectualism). But it's an interesting read and a serious book. It is also exceptionally well-written and a joy to read. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Sounds like a bunch of useless, fancy booklearnin' to me. Besides, Hofstadter is dead, and I don't take no stock in dead people. —Kevin Myers 13:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only ignorance I perceive is your arrogant presumption that these wayward Americans ought to spend their time contemplating something other than what they already do. Vranak (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the original poster was being arrogant about what people should be studying (although s/he was unnecessarily stereotyping Americans as a whole). I think it's legitimate to ask about the origin of the attitude that "fancy booklearnin'" is something undesirable. I've met many people (not just in the United States) that mock education, and I've never really figured out why. --198.103.172.9 (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I direct him to anti-intellectualism. Vranak (talk)

You can learn more about education in the United States from the following sources.

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must point out at this point that Wikipedia editors probably are probably not the most... neutral... group of people to be asking about ignorance and education. These are people who believe so strongly that knowledge is good and ignorance is bad that they are willing to dedicate a significant portion of their lives to building a free encyclopedia. So if you want insight on why some people don't care to learn more, this probably isn't the place to be looking for it. If you know people who aren't interested in learning, ask them about it. But I can pretty much guarantee that you won't find many people like that here. Buddy432 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can do a Google search for "dropouts give reasons" and select the first result (blacklisted). -- Wavelength (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this sentiment -- however, I find it preferable to know too much, then forget most of it, than to never learn anything to begin with. Vranak (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marketers have been extremely successful at enticing consumers, both young and old, with entertainment and food and clothing and travel and electronic devices. Satisfaction of the physical senses has become emphasized to such a degree that many people are addicted to "feeling good" and maintaining "high" self-esteem. Some businesses have been profiting enormously while society and the economy in general have been negatively affected. Parents and teachers need to learn how to interact with students in a balanced way, in order to reverse the problem. In many cases, parents and teachers themselves need remediation for their own deficiencies. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a thing about America being the land of stupid, I just read an extract of Stupid White Men by Michael Moore. I've found it tends to be Moore-type, or if you prefer, Lisa Simpson-type, people, usually Americans who say this kind of stuff. Yet often in internet discussions (although never in real life) I get an "omg you're a european you're the kind of person who says these things". No I'm not. Plenty of people, notably British people, have a history of good-natured insulting of other countries. I should know I am Irish.--92.251.201.128 (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/12/10/fcc-commissioner-terms-wow-leading-cause-college-dropouts.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found that in a classroom full of about 25 undergraduates no one knew who Euclid was or what Euclidean geometry is. I told them that

Until recent years, all secondary-school graduates knew those things;
From medieval times, when Euclid's books were one of the four elements of the quadrivium, until fairly recent years, everyone who claimed to be educated was presumed to have read at least a little bit of Euclid;
That in the 18th century, Immanuel Kant used Euclidean geometry as a famous example in epistemology (of the "synthetic a priori");
That in the 19th century, non-Euclidean geometry was first developed, and surprised people;
That in the 20th century, Albert Einstein showed how to apply non-Euclidean geometry to physics.

This resulted in a written comment from a student saying I shouldn't include such historical material in a math course. He gave what he thought was an argument that would convince me—if only I'd thought of it before he'd called it to my attention this could all have been avoided. I quote verbatim: "Who cares?".

True story.

I told the class that I was completely blindsided by the question and I presume the answer to that question is everyone except the person who wrote it. (They didn't know who it was; neither did I.) I didn't tell them that people who don't care about that stuff don't belong at a university, but maybe I should have. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though, I will say, as someone who thinks history is important, the "who cares?" (or, as I usually hear it, "so what?") is not the worst question. Usually an undergrad who says that is really saying, "what does it get me to know that?" I don't think it's necessarily a bad question to ask; most people (including myself) don't believe in contemplating our navels or counting angels on the head of a pin. Even those of us who like ideas for their own sake generally like them because they are meaningful to us in some kind of practical way. I think there is definitely a good argument to be made that knowing who Euclid was and what Euclidean geometry is (and its history) is a useful and good thing to know about for the modern undergrad. I mean, you might have given them more of an argument, but from what you've presented above, all you've given them is, "people in the past thought it was important." That's good enough for some, but I don't think it's a sin that it's not good enough for all. I think what you have in mind, but have not said explicitly, is that "things that people in the past thought are important should be considered somewhat important by us today, because we are intimately connected with that past," or something along those lines. Obviously that won't resonate with all undergrads (some are certainly dullards), but I suspect it is something of what was looked for with the "who cares?" line. I mean, one of the things I like about dealing with "so what?" students are that they do force you to articulate the reasons someone should care about this, even though you (the person who has signed on to this for their life's work) take that fairly for granted at this point. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more related links.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard good things about the book Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free by Charlie Pierce. Gabbe (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Decline of Education and Morals. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cicero made similar complaints 2000+ years ago, so nothing is new. 78.149.181.41 (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to add to an already overly long discussion, but I just want to point out the concept of rational ignorance. That is, the cost of learning certain things outweighs the utility of the knowledge. Also, have some humility. All of humanity is very limited in its understanding of the universe. And the people you call "ignorant" probably know much about things you've hardly heard of. —D. Monack ^talk

I am from Sweden, and it is true that Americans in general are considered ignorant. The reason I see around me here are mainly two: 1) the fact that so many Americans are religious, which to a European is seen as embarrissingly old-fashioned and censoring to the mind, and 2), for political reasons, as Americans has no tradition with political idealogy; In USA, you elect people, in Europe, you elect an ideology; many Americans do not known the difference between, for example, Social-democracy and Communism, which is a target of ridicule here. --85.226.42.147 (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mesopotamia versus Egypt

Some claim that reference to the Garden of Eden is to the marsh area in Southern Iraq where reed houses stood before the relatively recent ruin of the marsh at the hands of Suddam. In light of other reed based communities, such as the far distant Eros of Peru, isn't it more likely reed houses originated in the Nile Delta or Lake Victoria and spread elsewhere to places like Iraq or was Iraq free of crocodiles which made origin more possible or likely there? Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you're talking about a purely fictional area (Garden of Eden), what's the problem? Wouldn't God have made vegetarian crocs? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether reed houses may have originated in Africa rather than the Middle East. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, if you look at the geographical description (such as it is) of the location of Eden in Genesis 2:10-14, and assume that the word "Cush" doesn't have its most usual Biblical meaning in this passage (because if it does, all bets are off), then it seems more likely that hilly northern Mesopotamia was actually intended (i.e. near the sources of the Tigris and the Euphrates), rather than flat swampy southern Mesopotamia (which is where the Tigris and Euphrates join, but not where they flow from).

As for reed houses, they are a case of taking advantage of locally-suitable building materials in often rather widely geographically separated areas, so I really don't think that a diffusionist explanation would be generally helpful or appropriate in most cases here. AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some years back, the was a Scientific American article about "Eden". It had been discovered via satellite that there are two dry riverbeds flowing into the Persian Gulf delta, in addition to the active Tigris and Euphrates. That neither proves nor disproves that that area was "Eden". The article went on to speculate that "Eden" was an allegory about nostalgia for "the good old days" when people lived off "God's bounty" (hunting and gathering) instead of the labor of farming. Knowing what we now know about where hominids came from, "Eden" might well be Africa. But it's always risky to try to pin down locations given in the Bible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it would be possible to locate where Eden was, because all descriptions of its location were before there was a catastrophic worldwide flood that covered the entire earth. Think about what water did to the Grand Canyon, and extrapolate. Also, the entire human population was sailing about for at least a couple of months and since they did not have ships previously, I doubt they would have the navigation skills to know where they were when they landed. Googlemeister (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not particularly true that "it's always risky to try to pin down locations given in the Bible" -- there are probably hundreds of Biblical placenames whose localizations are well-established and uncontroversial. AnonMoos (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Macbeth Versus Shakespares Macbeth

What are the differences and similarities between Historical Macbeth and Shakespares Macbeth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cut3kitty (talk • contribs) 08:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These articles should help you. See Macbeth of Scotland and Macbeth.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worship of dogs

This has descended to a clearly inappropriate conversation

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It seems that A King of England threw the dog he was holding at the head of the colonists about to embark for America when they asked the King for a Bishop and said "Here, Here is your Bishop~" and ever since Americans who are descendants of the original colonists from England have kept and worshiped dogs. Do Americans really think that Dogs are divine and should be cared for and fed and respected and worshiped like the Indians worship the cow? Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Divine, no. Cared for, fed, and respected, generally yes. Worshiped, no. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the OP is interested in anything but trolling.Rhinoracer (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Key to your comment is you "don't think." Purpose for the question is not to troll but I think your answer is. The background for the question is that there is a sect of Shiites(?) in Iraq who have a drawing of a snake at the entrance of their temple with a hole at the bottom the drawing through which the snake is supposed to have come and they worship evil but many people think they worships snakes, whereas in the US some communities handle snakes and they may either worship evil or the snake, but I don't know which. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually worship both snakes and evil, so what does that make me? By the way, your username is making me extremely hungry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're picture is giving me goose bumps, making me breath deep and sweat so I think you might be a temptress or maybe just have parts that are hard to resist. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't make any sense at all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our little troll is presumably trying to draw some obscure connection between Yezidis and snake handling... AnonMoos (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an impressive-sounding Greek word to dress up your somewhat empty rhetoric, it would be cynolatry Κυνολατρεια.
P.S. Christians don't worship their bishops (many Protestant denominations don't even have bishops)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary actually has an entry on "cynolatry": wikt:cynolatry... AnonMoos (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually worship cats, but then again my ancestors hadn't left England yet when the King went ballistic with the poor wee canine.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "Kamikaze"

I know that people use the word kamikaze for japanese attacks during WWII. But can one use the word for non-japanese attacks during WWII? Or should one simply use the word "suicide attack"? Even when the don't die? Grey ghost (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that any other combatant in WW2 developed the use of suicide attacks as a systematic deliberate strategy approved at the highest levels. Do you know of any such case? -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French word for suicide bomber is "kamikaze" (well, in Quebec anyway). I don't think I've ever seen it used like that in English, though. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans had plenty of semi-suicidal and some suicidal units. Rammkommando "ELBE" was a unit that rammed allied bombers in the air. They were expected to bail out however, and most did. Kampfgeschwader 200, the Luftwaffe's special operations wing, had a suicidal Leonidas Squadron who were supposed to pilot manned versions of V1 bruise missiles packde with explosives into Allied bombers.--92.251.140.201 (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beware the "bruise missile." Edison (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean taran? Gabbe (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Kamikaze (ride). I certainly hope people won't die on this amusement ride. --Kvasir (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography question

In the historical perspective which structure is arguably the most famous religious facility on the earth?? Excluding the Vatican ofcourse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.87.212 (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't the Pyramids religious in nature? Great Pyramid of Cholula may be the answer to your question. Did you mean only religious structures currently in use? Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would go for the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul (the largest Christian church in the world for more than a thousand years) and the Kaaba in Mecca. Alansplodge (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It depends entirely on how you define well known or most famous. Those which would be instantly recognizable by hundreds of millions of people would probably be:

The Masjid al-Haram, the mosque surrounding the Kaaba, a pre-islamic building which itself houses the Black Stone. According to Islamic tradition, the Black Stone was sent by god to show Adam and Eve where to build a temple to worship Him. The Kaaba is that temple, and as such all Muslims pray looking at the Kaaba 5 times per day.
The Al-Masjid al-Nabawi is the second holiest mosque of Islam, as the site of Muhammad's burial under the Green Dome.
Jerusalem's Temple Mount is home to both the Dome of the Rock, an important muslim site, and the historic location of all three central Temples in Judaism.
Not knowing why you would want to exclude the Vatican, but certainly St. Peter's Basilica may qualify as well recognized.
Other christian sites easily recognizable to many people include:

St. Paul's Cathedral
Notre Dame de Paris
Cathedral of Notre-Dame, Reims
Saint Basil's Cathedral
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is highly venerated in Christianity, but not physically recognizable by many people.

The Hagia Sophia was once an Orthodox cathedral, and later a Mosque, and is quite well known.
The Salt Lake Temple is the home Mormon temple, and has a famous structure as well.
If you count ruins of historic religious buildings, then perhaps the Parthenon would rank up there as well.
If you count geologic structures considered holy, then Mount Fuji may also rank highly.

Just some ideas to consider. You may also want to look at List of significant religious sites for an overview of these and other religious sites. --Jayron32 15:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stonehenge would arguably qualify, though there are differing opinions about its purpose. Gabbe (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican is unquestionably the richest, most influential and the most famous religious structure on the planet.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think OP wanted to exclude the Vatican not in the sense of not having it on his/her list but because he/she had already thought of it as obvious. --Joe^Talk_Work 18:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cross??--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican [sic] is not unquestionably the most influential and famous religious structure on the planet. List of religious populations quotes an estimate that there are 1.5 billion Muslims, whereas our Catholic Church article quotes a Catholic Church claim that there were 1.115 billion Catholics as of 2007. It's hard to estimate how much influence each church wields beyond its members. But religious Muslims face the qibla to pray five times a day, and I daresay maybe a slim majority of Catholics pray once daily; I think that because of this, it stands to reason that the Muslims are more often thinking about the Kaaba and the Masjid al-Haram than Catholics think of the Vatican palace. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed initially had Muslims praying toward the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as the Jews, but when he was rejected by the Jews, he changed the position of focus to Mecca.^{Prager, D; Telushkin, J. Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983.} So you can say that the Temple Mount, site of the two Temples in Jerusalem influenced both Jews and Muslims alike, and when you consider that Christianity is a splinter of Judaism, the Temples also greatly influenced them, albeit in a negative manner. The fact is that Judaism is the only thing common to all three Abrahamic religions. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going to the Orient, some famous and easily recognisable religious structures are

--Kvasir (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me the question is highly subjective. For example, I live in Italy, so I automatically thought of the Vatican.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our stats for number of adherents to various religions are here: Religions#Largest religions or belief systems by number of adherents. So far answers here only suggest Ankor Vat from Hinduism, with 1 billion adherents, so let me add a few more: Jagannath Temple, Puri, Rameswaram the holy island, Kedarnath Temple in the Himalayas, Dashashwamedh Ghat and Kashi Vishwanath Temple in the holy city Varanasi and the sacred mountain Kailasa. In these cases, the spot may have more fame than the structure itself (you asked about structures); many Hindu temples have been built and rebuilt on the same location for millennia. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology and careers

I begin with a fictitious scenario representative of real life. Two brothers are in a class of university students who are beginning their first year of Psychology, and the professor asks all the students to state their reasons for studying Psychology. One of the brothers states that he wants to learn how to manipulate people into buying products and services they do not need, so that he can make a huge profit. The other brother declares that he wants to learn how to help people overcome addictions, trauma, and other psychological problems.
After they both graduate and become psychologists, the first brother opens a fast food restaurant, eventually with hundreds of outlets in dozens of countries. He eventually becomes a multi-millionaire. His brother opens a weight loss outlet, with physical training and psychotherapy to help people who have become addicted to fast food. He develops many interpersonal relationships.
Where can I find statistics in numbers or percentages (preferably both) of university students in Psychology having various motives for studying that subject, and also statistics in numbers or percentages (preferably both) of Psychology graduates having various careers based on that subject?
-- Wavelength (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[I am revising the heading from "Psychology and sales" to "Psychology and careers". -- Wavelength (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Hi Wavelength, for some reason google is only returning me American material - I hope this will do. Here are a few factoids that popped up for career stats:

*University Scranton says: "the National Center for Education Statistics (1993) reports that 20 percent of psychology baccalaureate recipients work in social services or public affairs, 21 percent in administrative support, 14 percent in education, 10 percent in business, 10 percent in sales, 9 percent in service personnel, and 5 percent in health professions. An additional 3 percent find themselves working in computer science and an equal percentage in biological sciences."

*(National Center for Education Statistics)

*St. Olaf College (PDF) says: "'In 1999, fewer than 5% of 1997 and 1998 psychology BA recipients were employed in psychology or a field related to psychology.... two thirds were in forprofit business settings, usually the sales/service sector.... Most find jobs in administrative support, public affairs, education, business, sales, service industries, health, the biological sciences, and computer programming. They work as employment counselors, correction counselor trainees, interviewers, personnel analysts, probation officers, and writers."

*Indiana University says: "This study conducted by the National Science Foundation, found that 70% of the1994 psychology baccalaureate recipients were employed by 1995. Only 23% went on for further graduate study. Sixty-four percent are working outside the area of science."

*(National Science Foundation)

*Allpsychologyschools.com (?) says: "about 25 percent of undergraduate psychology majors nationally go on to graduate school and become a psychologist, or go to medical school and start a practice as a psychiatrist." Sonoma State University adds: "about 1/3 of those with a Master's degree in psychology find work in the field."

*One more possible useful link: American Psychological Association: surveys. I'm no good at searching the academic literature in this field, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology members might be able to help here. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WikiJedits, for diverse statistics in answer to the second part of my question. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychologists are insane. That is why they study psychology. ~A H 1^(TCU) 03:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did involuntary sterilization practices in the US end?

It can be debatable whether the practice has ended, although no documented cases of state funded and regulated surgical sterilization in the past several years exist there is still the practice of chemical castration of sex offenders.

I realize this may be a difficult thing to pin point a exact date for. I believe, and I could be wrong about this, that sterilization of the 'mentally unfit' ended in the 70's. I have heard and read about coerced sterilization practices which continued until the 80's.

Any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanne boleyn (talk • contribs) 17:47, 27 April 2010

See Compulsory sterilization#United States. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while the mentally impaired may sign forms to permit "voluntary" sterilization, there's always the question of whether they were pressured into it and if they really understood what they were doing, that is, whether they gave informed consent. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the literature suggests there is no "magic date" by which all of them had to end, I don't think (there is no court case that rules it illegal or anything like that; the closest you get is Skinner v. Oklahoma which says you can't sterilize criminals just for being criminals). It was a state-by-state sort of thing; I doubt there are good records of exactly when it went into total disuse. Note that chemical castration does not sterilize, and its purpose (and effect) is not eugenic. I would look into whether things like federal laws regarding Medicare put constraints on informed consent regarding sterilization in the 1970s—I seem to recall that they do. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashes in cremation

It is illegal to buy or sell human body parts (I imagine). What about cremated remains (the "ashes")? Are there any restrictions on that sort of thing? For example, if I had the cremated remains ("ashes") of, say, John Lennon or Elvis Presley (or whomever) — and they legally belonged to me — could I legally sell them to someone? That is the type of example that I am talking about. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't believe it's even illegal to buy and sell human body parts, although it is regulated. Human skeletons are frequently sold for classroom use, for example. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that they are "sold" (exchange of money)? I guess I always assumed that the dead person donated them (gave permission before death) ... no? (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

In the US, at least, I would expect any laws covering that subject would vary from state to state. For further fun information on the general topic, though, read about H. H. Holmes, a 19th century serial killer who sold his victims skeletons to medical schools. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the legal right to human remains (as an heir to the deceased person's estate or legally appointed executor), a clear provenance (to avoid the impression or act of fraud), and local laws do not otherwise prohibit, then sure. Heirs are entitled to dispose of the body as they see fit. It would generally be considered to be In Bad Taste, however, and would most likely result in other interested parties filing legal claims against you to nullify the will and deprive you of any legal power or access to the estate (and I personally would not want to be in the position of explaining to a judge why I should still be entitled to a share of the estate after trying to sell my beloved uncle's ashes for cold cash). --Ludwigs2 22:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heirs are entitled to dispose of the body as they see fit. That can't be true? What if the person were not cremated? We would normally bury the body in a cemetery. Are you saying that the heirs can sell that body? Can keep it in their living room? I can't imagine that the heirs are entitled to dispose of the body as they see fit. And if that's not the case, then why would a dead body (the corpse that we would normally bury in a cemetery) be treated differently than cremated ashes? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Given that the will is usually read sometime after the funeral, the disposition of the body has to have been previously agreed upon in some way. Typically someone will invest in a cemetery plot or vault to be used after they're gone. Once the body is in the ground or the tomb, the law takes over and you can't remove the body without a legal process. Cremation results in a sterile end product, but laws would almost certainly have something to saw about the disposition of the ashes. Try googling "cremation laws" and see what turns up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I believe the legal heirs probably could exhume the corpse, if they so desired. at least, the legal heirs have the right to authorize an exhumation (in the US, for instance, police don't need a warrant to exhume a body if they have the permission of the legal heir). Next of kin can give permission for organ donation if someone dies suddenly; next of kin can authorize the donation of the body to science; next of kin could probably store the body in their wine cellar to perform cult rites under the next full moon, so long as they reported the death to the authorities and satisfied all concerns laid out under civil health codes. once you're dead it ain't your body no more - yet another reason to treat your relatives nicely while you're still alive... --Ludwigs2 00:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, regarding exhumation; I'm just saying there's a legal process to go through; you can't just go out to the cemetery with a shovel and do it yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, there goes my weekend plans! --Ludwigs2 04:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could sell my kidney if I wanted to, no law against that even if people would think me a dickhead.--92.251.185.187 (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address suggests you're in Ireland, in which case there most certainly is a law against it (as there is in the UK, the rest of Europe, the US and most of the rest of the developed world). FiggyBee (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I used (30 years ago) to work for a small chain of Scottish academic bookshops which, in addition to textbooks, could also provide (real) human skeletons (whole or half) for medical students. Sadly, the university my branch served taught only pre-medic courses whose students did not need their own skeletons (if you know what I mean), so I never actually sold one. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable articles in this case would seem to be organ donation and organ trade. And yes, any sort of monetary reimbursement for organs is illegal in most developed countries. Dismas|^(talk) 23:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human skulls are sold for artist's use. The memento mori type of still life painting sometimes includes the depiction of the human skull. This is a good example. Also see Skull (symbolism). Bus stop (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In England & Wales there is no law requiring the executors to dispose of the body. If you want to keep it in a lead lined coffin on the kitchen table, you can do so. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you hire a taxidermist to prepare the corpse as a decoration? Googlemeister (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the original theme of ashes, I'm fairly sure that in line with Ludwigs2's suggestions, at least in the UK they become the property of the next of kin, who can retain or dispose of them (subject to Health & Safety and other laws, such as littering!) however they choose. My mother, who came from County Durham, kept her parents ashes in our successive family homes (we moved a few times) elsewhere in the UK and abroad for many years before she was able to arrange through relatives to take them back to Durham and inter them in family graves. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, in the USA, can a person (such as the next of kin) keep a dead body just laying around in his home, provided that all health laws are followed (e.g., the officials are notified of the death; the body is embalmed and does not pose a health hazard; etc.)? If not, then what prevents this? If so, then what prevents people from, say, burying loved ones in their back yards? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keeping a corpse around the house, or burying someone in your backyard, are (a) very difficult to do while remaining within health code limitations, and (b) against the normal norms of christian society. Corpses are a major health risk, and placing one in your back yard (without accounting for factors like contamination of groundwater and accidental exposure to the toxins of decay) is a problem. it's not unheard of for wealthy families to have private graveyards, mind you, but they are generally placed on extensive lots, far from inhabited buildings. standard Christian burial rites, further, require that a body be placed in sanctified ground (a churchyard or other specially prepared place), and such grounds are not generally placed close to where people live and work. A few religions do have rites involving the deceased's body - If I remember correctly, vodun has a traditional ritual where they dig up the bones after a year, dress it in formal wear, and invite it to a party - but few such rites are practiced in the US, and would probably require a license from the county coroner or health inspector guaranteeing that the risk of disease is negligible.

In general, trying to do something with a dead body, however legitimate that activity might be within the contexts of a given religion, would be viewed with suspicion and distaste by neighbors and local authorities, and would require an inordinate amount of explanation. trying to do it without neighbors or authorities knowing would would be disastrous. I suspect that doing it would just not be worth the hassle of legitimizing it, whatever the case. --Ludwigs2 23:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's time for someone to mention Jeremy Bentham#Auto-icon. Done. --Anonymous, 04:55 UTC, April 29, 2010.

Don't forget Andre Tchaikowsky#Skull. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disposition of corpse

My above question (Ashes in cremation) actually made me think of yet another question. If a family is poor and cannot afford to bury someone in a cemetery — or if a deceased person left no remaining family — who is "in charge" of the corpse? And what is done with it? Just curious. (Also, I am referring to the USA.) Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

A quick google search suggests that state laws usually make disposing of indigent corpses the responsibility of the county (who usually have a standing arrangement with local funeral homes to do burials or cremations at or near cost). See [1] for the relevant Texas law, for example. FiggyBee (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bottomline is, in most developed, industrialised countries, the disposition of human body is regulated and licensed to certified and qualified agents like an undertaker. Private burial in one's property without proper documentation is generally forbidden for legal and health reasons. It generally arouses suspicions otherwise. --Kvasir (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Detroit, the indigent get tossed into a big freezer: [2]. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and left in it?????? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left in until such time as a future budget permits proper disposal, yes. StuRat (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew that?! Are you serious, StuRat?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you actually read the linked article, you'll see why; the county has responsibility for burying the bodies, but their budget ran out. FiggyBee (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope there isn't an electricity blackout. Then what?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. There'll be plenty of people raising a stink about it then!!! Bill Reid | (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine they would use generators to supply electricity until the power failure ended. StuRat (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all for all of the input and feedback above. This was helpful. Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]