Science desk
< December 18	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science 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.

December 19

Oh, you scared me!

We've all experienced it. You turn a corner on a footpath or enter/leave a room or a building etc, and you meet another person coming in the opposite direction, who wasn't expecting anyone there and they get startled and they say "Oh, you frightened me!" or "Oh, you scared me!".

I've always wondered what goes through people's minds just before they utter these words. Taken literally, they mean you deliberately caused them fright, but if questioned, they would admit there was no intention on your part to do so. So, it's down to your mere unexpected presence being fright-inducing. That's understandable enough; anything that's unexpectedly somewhere can cause a shock. If I turned a corner on a footpath and found a huge 6-foot tall pile of gold there rather than other pedestrians, I'd be shocked too. Frightened? Not too sure about that. Even if I were frightened, I wouldn't think of the pile of gold as having "frightened me".

So why do people tend to "blame" humans for their fright in these sorts of situations, when they wouldn't blame anything else that elicited a similar fright response in them? How do psychologists explain this? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would never say "scared" or "frightened" in that situation, but only "startled", which does not connote fear in the usual sense of the word. This actually caused me problems in learning Italian, where the normal expression is prendere paura. I always wanted a direct translation of "startled", which doesn't exist in normal speech. There is an exact verb, trasalire (or far trasalire when used transitively), but it's essentially unused outside of 19th-century novels. --Trovatore (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reaction to anything that startles me by its sudden proximity is "jee..." or "sh...", and then, if it is a person, I feel the need to explain: "You scared me." I seldom explain things to inanimate objects, though, to be honest I could not always be certain with some of my lecture audiences. Bielle (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't interpret any intent in "you scared me". You could just as easily say "a spider scared me", doesn't imply the spider did it deliberately. I think it is synonymous with "your presence scared me". Vespine (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term I would use is "startled", and I wouldn't say we're "blaming" the other person, just communicating with them. We could be startled by a loud noise or a creepy critter or most anything else, but telling a thunderclap or a spider, "You scared me!" would be kind of a waste of breath. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is "You scared me" simply an abbreviation of "Your sudden appearance startled me" which, being much less colloquial, we would be far less likely to say? HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so. It's like saying "Hi" or "Hiya" instead of "How are you?" or "Bye" or "Goodbye" instead of "God be with ye" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar case: If you enquire about someone's relative and hear they're dead, you'll likely say "I'm sorry", even though it's not your fault. (Presumably - that would make for an interesting argument in court; "He apologised, so effectively admitted he did it!" :) ) What matters in both cases is not what you say. Ignoring the event would be rude, so you have to say something. What it is you say is relatively unimportant because the other person understands what you mean. DirkvdM (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, it is a language issue, not a psychology issue. The verb scare has several meanings, including one that is for involuntary scaring of someone else or something. --Lgriot (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back here, DirkvdM. It's been a while. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropped in for something different, had a bit of a look around and couldn't restrain myself. :) But maybe you'll see more of me, depending on how busy I'll be. Just as long as it doesn't become an addiction again. :) DirkvdM (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure it isn't a psych issue. A psychologist who subscribes to the view that humans remain responsible for their own experiences and their own feelings, and practises what he preaches, might, if startled in such a scenario, say "Oh, I felt slight fear when I saw you there unexpectedly", rather than "Oh, you frightened me". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually responded that way, the other person might well figure that you need to see a shrink. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard someone say it to a cat that suddenly appeared. It probably depends on what sort of entities you tend to talk to. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe that "you scared me" implies it was deliberate?

As a verb "scare" means "to fill, especially suddenly, with fear or terror; frighten; alarm." There's no mention of intent.

In fact, if you'll often hear people say "the storm scared me" or something similar. APL (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because in my experience people will say it with much the same voice tone and facial expression as when blaming others for some hurt or offence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 17:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oftentimes the one who did the scaring may actually be "to blame", even if it was not consciously intentional. Like swiftly turning a hallway corner without looking to see who might be coming the other way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or walking out of a shop onto the footpath, apparently in the weird belief (a) that there would be no passing people to potentially collide with, or (b) if there were, that you would have total right of way over them, they understand that you own the footpath, and they have cleared a path for you because they know your every move. I see it all the time. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as I indicate below, the degree of being startled is likely a function of anticipation. Some folks are just oblivious to their surroundings and are easily startled. Yet anyone can be startled by something that's totally out of left field. For example, a soldier in battle might expect to hear bombs exploding. But a citizen in a fairly calm public place (the 1996 Summer Olympics, for example) is likely to be startled by a bomb exploding. The only one not likely to be startled is the guy who planted it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My own two cents stems from two things: one, the need (or the feel that it is required) to say something. "You scared me" is so overheard and oversaid that we absorb it and it becomes as much a reaction to say it as the actual startling itself. Two, overreaction. I have often told people (even angrily at my own family members) that they need to cut it out with screaming or jumping at every tiny thing. (Not to generalize, but girls shriek at everything lol.) I have read that you can easily unlearn these otherwise-silly reactions, which perhaps stems from a need for acknowledgement or something. (Apparently, very few things should actually scare us: extremely loud noises, extremely deep frequencies, maybe a few other things.) I know that when I walk around a corner, if someone is there, I'm usually quick to sidestep them, and they're the ones "wasting time", as it were, with jumping and laughing at the situation, and I've passed them by the time I realize they're telling me they were scared. People yank on the steering wheel for situations that really require a slight movement of caution. So in summary, I don't think people are scared at all... rather, they've trained themselves to think they are. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is paying attention. You anticipate there might be someone there, so you're not startled when there is someone there. That's how you've trained yourself. There are also degrees of "jumpiness". But suppose you're in a darkened office late at night, watching and listening intently to the latest webinar on the subject of the risks of working alone in the dark, and then the night watchmen accidently sets off a chain reaction of tumbling file cabinets. If that doesn't scare or startle you, then you've got nerves stronger than those steel cabinets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping your head

Why is it that if you walk underneath a low overhead obstacle, and manage to accidentally bump your head into it, that you always instictively glance at what you bumped into, knowing very well what it was? All though, it would look peculiar if you just keep on walking and just ignore the whole thing. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, why is it that when there are others around, and you bump your head, you always give a forceful overreaction, just to make sure that everyone notices your silly mistake? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no I don't. --Lgriot (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be evolutionarily advantageous, from the point of view of survival, for people or animals who are hit on the head to look in the direction from which they are hit. In times when low doorways were rare and it was more common to encounter predators, enemies, or falling rocks and branches, quickly assessing why you were hit would be useful. In such situations, an instinctive reaction would allow you to immediately orient on a potential threat without having to consciously think about it.

It may also be related to the well-known fact that if you tap someone on the shoulder they always turn round. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could be that it also saves face a little if people are watching. Only an idiot would trip over or bang his head against something he knew was there. So, when you do exactly that, you pretend it wasn't your fault. APL (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the second question, but the first is an example of an orienting response. Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a relatively conscious level, at least re the first part, I'd check back to see whether I'd bumped my head on something (a protrusion, etc) that I hadn't initially noticed, or whether I'd misjudged the height/clearance, and try to learn from that so that in future I would be more aware and observant, and hopefully improve my judgement. --jjron (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking about the second part, I'd personally say I disagree. If I bump my head, trip, whatever, in public I tend to downplay it, essentially pretending that nothing had happened or that I had 'meant' it. Now if I'm alone, then I overreact. :) I wonder if there's a cultural aspect to this; i.e., do different cultures/countries tend to react differently in this situation? --jjron (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has yet mentioned the relatively common (in my country anyway) habit of shouting out expletives upon bumping one's head. These tend to override any other attention seeking behaviours. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That's part of the overreaction I mentioned above when I'm by myself. :) --jjron (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch National Science Quiz 2011

I have translated the questions of the Dutch National Science Quiz 2011 and put them on a subpage of my user page, so the ref desk squad can sink their teeth into them. Nothing to win (anymore), just for fun. Enjoy. DirkvdM (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probability

Hello everyone. Let's imagine there's a betting house whose only objective is to break even, not to make a profit. Is it correct to say that it should offer odds of $4 per dollar bet for an event that only has a 25% probability of happening? Or have I calculated the odds incorrectly? Thanks. Leptictidium (mt) 09:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. Red Act (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they don't return your original stake along with the $4 prize. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if the same betting house were to offer odds of $2.20 per dollar bet for a given event, what would be the probability of that event happening? Would it be 45%? Leptictidium (mt) 11:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not precisely, but you apparently understand the math involved. Red Act (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a chance that they might make a profit anyway. If a customer suffers a series of losses they may run out of money and have to go home, even if long term odds would indicate that they would expect to break even. The 'house' has deeper pockets than its customers. --Frumpo (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think that's right. Every play by any player is indistinguishable to the house. So some players leaving can't make any difference. Perhaps you're thinking of the martingale which purports to guarantee a win, but fails when the player must go home. --Tardis (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A betting house that always tried to break even would eventually go out of business because of a combination of chance factors meaning they lost all their money. Dmcq (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elasticity

Which is more elastic, rubber or iron? --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 15:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the modulus of elasticity (iron has a higher modulus of elasticity) or ductility (rubber is more ductile)? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much idea, it is a question that I encountered which read: Which has more elasticity, rubber or iron? --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 15:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then the point of the question is probably to make you think about the different possible definitions of elasticity. An iron bar will be hardly deformed at all under a tension that would snap a rubber band, but a rubber band can be stretched to twice its resting length, and that amount of strain would snap an iron bar. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skin. In the bible it states that Moses tied his ass to a tree and walked for a day and a night.

Or at least that's an answer Gzuckier gave a few years back. Alas it only works in AE. DirkvdM (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first Biblical reference to bungee cords? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So iron has higher Young's modulus, but that's mainly because it's stiffer, according to the article. Is there an elastic modulus that's normalized to material stiffness? SamuelRiv (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cities in southwest Greenland

Is Qaqortoq a separate place from Narsarsuaq, or Qaqortoq is the same locale of Narsasuaq. I try to enter in Qaqortoq on wundergrounds, it clicks back to narsasuaq. Is all of southwestern Greenland subarctic or is it just Narsasuaq. Nanortalik's summer is similar to northern coast of Greenland, i did look it on wunderground summer to be exceed 50F is like being the hottest days of the years. That is 60N, southern part of Greenland. Is Nanortalik tundra, or is it subartic maritime? Is Qaqortoq a different place or it is similar location of Narsasuaq.?--69.228.24.198 (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Narasarsuaq lies about 57 km northeast of Qaqortoq, and is much closer to the icesheet, whereas Qaqortoq is more coastal. Other than that they both lie on small fjords. I would expect both to be classed as tundra. Mikenorton (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anchorage and Northern Iceland in Trewartha climate class

Does northern Iceland and Anchorage, Alaska qualify as subarctic maritime (EO) in Trewartha. Becuse Anchorage, Alaska have strong maritime influence, is it going to be EO or EC in Trewartha's plot. Does Northern Iceland count as EO subarctic maritime oceanic climate or is it still tundra.--69.228.24.198 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animals with humor

In the Dutch magazine Elsevier, the respectable science reporter Simon Rozendaal mentions dolphins and apes having forms of humor, art and science. Science (as in: having a culture, learning tricks from each other) is ok with me, I could image art (though I've never heard about that), but is there any proof of animals understanding humor or even making jokes themselves? Joepnl (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chimpanzee#Laughter_in_apes may be somewhere to start looking. I believe play behaviour in all these species, especially as youngsters, is pretty well documented, and humour is perhaps regarded as aspect of that. I certainly don't think that you'd have be looking for them to be making what we would regard as 'jokes' though to consider that they'd have some understanding of humour. --jjron (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with labrador dogs certainly shows they have a sense of humour and play jokes. Example: at one time we had two dogs. One one particular day, they were both in the back yard. Suddenly, one dog looked up alert down the driveway beside the house and began rapid barking. This resulted in the other dog racing round the front of the house, where nothing was in evidence. The first dog slowly walked far enough down the drive to see the other, and barked once. It's expression seemed definitely "fooled you! fooled you!". I have another dog now that likes me to throw tenis balls. Being a dog, it has poor colour vision, and sometimes cannot find the green ball the grass - if so I will call directions - "yip" for forward, "awwk" for turn. I'm convinced that sometimes it pretends to not find the ball so as to see what I'll do. Many labradoors and labradoor crosses like to play games, such "try to take the stick from me" but make you play by their rules, even though they otherwise do not try to be the alpha dog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.215.223 (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Elsevier, the Dutch publishing company? It has several magazines, but, as far as I know, no one is called Elsevier. 88.8.69.150 (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. DirkvdM (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think you are wrong on this one. I still maintain that no magazine from Elsevier is called Elsevier. The Elsevier magazine is not from the Elsevier publishing company, but from Reed Business Information BV. I suppose the OP meant some magazine published by Elsevier, and not the Elsevier magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.69.150 (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I did mean Elsevier magazine which is published by Reed Business, which is part of Reed Elsevier. Joepnl (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humor, art, and science? I think chimps will sometimes respond to physical comedy, so I understand the humor part. (I wonder was passes for slapstick among dolphins?) But it seems like you'd need almost uselessly broad definitions of art and science to make it work. If a squirrel attempts two dozen different ways to defeat an anti-squirrel bird-feeder, is that squirrel a scientist? Or was he just engaging in mindless trial and error? APL (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]