Humanities desk
< November 4	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 6 >

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 5

cal/osha

where can i find the cal/osha law online? is there a checklist of everything that a business can do wrong online somehwere? what are the most common mistakes employers make i.e. missing osha posters? is there a consumer website that covers these issues? a law firm that has a inspection list that you can flip through? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California's Occupational Safety program is described here. Laws requiring employers to provide a safe workplace for their employees can be more constructively thought of as things to do right. You can find the most frequently cited violations as listed and also by an employer's Standard Industrial Code here. One resource seems to be the Cal/OSHA Consultation Service, state program consultants who appear to work with various employers to improve the workplace safety and health conditions for employees.--Romantic Mollusk (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Le Pont de l'Anglois

Hi I believe I recently acquired the original water color of this painting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vincent_Willem_van_Gogh_070.jpg in a charity shop in the USA, from your web site it says it was last known to be in a private collection in Berlin, Germany, but it does not specify when ? or with whom ? so it really could be anywhere, hopefully with me, can you supply any further information which may help me get my painting authenticated, I will gladly send you photo's of my painting if you request them, please let me know, thanks. Yours faithfully Benedict McGowan —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenM66 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Elgar's Van Gogh: a study of his life and work (1966) says it was then in a private collection in Berlin. Other sources may suggest it was acquired by the Wildenstein collection (see our article on Daniel Wildenstein). If you think your water-colour could be the real thing, I should take it to a major auction house. They will be able to access someone with the expertise needed. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art students, hobbyists and forgers love to paint copies of famous works of art. Could your acquisition possibly be such a copy? Deepest congratulations if it is. If it is not, then I hope you paid an amount appropriate for a nice copy to decorate your wall with. Edison (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Westboro Baptist church

how does westboro baptist church get the money to pay for their many protests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.180.19 (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're a church, so I don't know why they wouldn't get it from their parishioners and others who agree with what they do. Besides, protests are fairly cheap. Much of it is volunteer driven, after all it doesn't cost anything to stand on a street corner. And the signs are likely made at home or by businesses who either support what they do or don't turn away jobs based on political or religious reasons. Dismas|^(talk) 14:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. Their expenses are not limited to the cost of their "God Hates Fags" signs. The Phelpses & Co. travel extensively and stage dozens of protests every year--their travel budget cannot be insubstantial. If you go to their website, they claim they do not accept donations, and, as AnonMoos points out, they probably don't make much money via the traditional collection plate either. Besides pointing this out, I don't have an answer to the OP's question.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're really not structured as an ordinary "church"; the majority of members have a family relationship with the original founder and live in closely neighboring houses in the same neighborhood in Topeka, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read several articles (which I cannot myself corroborate) suggesting that they (several of whom are qualified lawyers) live mainly off the legal damages they are awarded in court cases after they, by behaving provocatively but remaining within the strict letter of the law, have successfully provoked others into violating their legal rights. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also heard this, but the one time I tried to track down good sources I was rather frustrated in the attempt. (This is mostly a matter of picking search terms for a quick web search; proper scholarship might dig them out...) Wnt (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's true... for those who haven't been disbarred for gross misconduct already, which is at least two of them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coin or Fiddle (Antonín Dvořák)

The question: What's the original title of the work Coin or Fiddle by Antonín Dvořák and when was it published? Two top-ranking Slovene ballet dancers were awarded the highest national prize (the Prešeren Award) for the ballet choreography Coin or Fiddle (Slovene: Cekin ali gosli) in 1949. Google offers only one result. ([1]). Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why is an idea a deeply worthless thing?

Can someone explain why my ideas are deeply worthless things, and that I need to do something stupid, rather than capitalize on them? Thank you. 84.153.205.142 (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because everyone has lots of of them. APL (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supply and demand. Assume you need 1 idea. Given 10 people, you will get 100 or more ideas. The value of the ideas is very small. What is valuable is implementation of the ideas. Assume you need 1 implementation. Given 10 people, you will be very lucky to get 1 implementation that succeeds. So, to capitalize on your ideas, you must pick one idea and put your effort into implementing the idea yourself. A common failure is to assume that someone else will be happy to implement your idea. Why? Everyone else has ideas of their own. It is up to you to implement your own idea and prove that it is a good idea. -- kainaw ™ 13:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not anything we can answer on the Ref Desk, because we don't know whether your ideas are good or just worthless — what you are being told might be eminently practical, or it might be misleading. But it does bring to mind one of my favorite quotes, attributed to Linus Pauling: "If you want to have good ideas you must have many ideas. Most of them will be wrong, and what you have to learn is which ones to throw away." --Mr.98 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even a good idea is near worthless on it's own. No one will buy an idea off you on its own.

An invention might be very valuable, but it takes a tremendous amount of effort, and often money, to get from an idea to an invention. (Other things that come out of ideas that are valuable : Books, Movies, Political movements, works of art, scientific discoveries, religions, and more. All require effort before they become valuable.) APL (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An idea is both a deeply worthless thing and the most valuable thing. Now I will take my philosopher's cap off and swab the deck, matey. Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I almost deleted this question for not being "answerable" or "serious" or whatever the applicable problem with it might be. But, since others have already partaken, I might as well bite, too.

So, clarification please: what makes you ask whether you "need to do something stupid"? Why would that necessarily be "rather than" capitalizing on your ideas? If your ideas truly are deeply worthless, then that is most likely why you cannot capitalize on them. But: not being able to capitalize on them does not in itself prove that they are deeply worthless. Assuming they are, though, per your question, there is a wide variety of reasons as to why that might be. Mental illness could be one reason (certainly, at least, that you are perceiving them to be worthless), and if so there may be medication you could take to help with that! If you think that may be it, you should consult with a medical doctor or clinical psychologist. Otherwise, perhaps some of the responses above will help. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Notice that this question is asked by the same IP who asked about finding investors that would be interested in investing after hearing "A few words" about his idea. That gives a hint to the sort of "worthlessness" he's thinking of. ) APL (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas are not necessarily worthless, if they are combined in such a way as to represent a convincing plan for generating income. For example, a product innovation that meets an unfulfilled market need, combined with a plan for producing this innovation cost-effectively, could well be worth a great deal. The usual way to turn ideas into revenue is to create a solid business plan and market it to investors. Investors usually need more than "a few words" to make an investment, though a few well-chosen words from the right person might interest them enough to take a look at the business plan. Your plan will be more plausible if you can demonstrate a record of experience in the field of the innovation, which would help to create confidence that you know what you are doing. Marco polo (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's idea of Special relativity is not worthless. 92.15.2.255 (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Einstein's theories are of little or no practical use to the average citizen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They sure were to Einstein (about 120,000 kronor worth). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's idea of special relativity would have been worthless if he didn't put effort into turning it into a viable explanation for what other scientists were seeing in experiments. The idea was worthless. The effort is where the worth was created. -- kainaw ™ 23:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's Law of Triviality. Everyone has ideas about simple stuff that doesn't require expertise. You are expressing ideas about simple stuff, or your ideas are not original when compared to other ideas that other persons have, or you don't have any special characteristic that allows you to have interesting ideas about the topic (you don't have expertise, the right kind of thinking, fame of having good ideas previously on that topic, no superficial additions that could make you look more intelligent or more expert like a beard and pipe, etc) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darn this infernal machine!

I came across this article in my local Vermont paper yesterday and it got me wondering, what is an "infernal machine" according to Massachusetts law?

Note: I am not seeking legal advice. I don't live in Massachusetts, I live in Vermont as my user page has said for years. I am not in my 70s. This is a legal curiosity only. If I happen to lose a game of trivial pursuit or a pub quiz based on the information given to me here, I swear not to hold Wikipedia, its owners, or editors libel for my losses. I may, though I am not promising, reward Wikimedia financially if there happen to be any financial gains from the knowledge gained in receiving an informative response for the question I have posted here today. Dismas|^(talk) 14:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's a quaint equivalent of "bomb." Acroterion _(talk) 14:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a stub on infernal machines. DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This link gives the definition in the Massachusetts Code as follows: The term “infernal machine”, as used in this section, shall include any device for endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both, by fire or, explosion, whether or not contrived to ignite or explode automatically and whether or not disguised so as to appear harmless. DuncanHill (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thus we see the major difference between Vermont's legal situation and much of the rest of the Northeast, with its very restrictive anti-gun laws. As far as your question — Chapter 266, §102a of the Massachusetts General Laws defines an infernal machine. You'll notice that the wording was removed from the law in July, but I'd be very surprised if there were any other definition in the General Laws. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Alas, it appears the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has decided to do away with their charmingly antiquated terminology, and rename an "infernal machine" as "an explosive or a destructive or incendiary device or substance", which is much less jolly as effective from 15th July 2010. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Thanks! I should have known to check for an article first. Dismas|^(talk) 15:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno, infernal, and inferior all refer to things that are "below", with the term "infernal" literally meaning "hell-like", i.e. something that burns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Testament believers

Is there a title for people who accept only the Old Testament as the word of God, and reject the Torah, New Testament, Books of Mormon etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.240.226 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Torah and the Old Testament overlap. If one rejected the Torah—wouldn't one be rejecting the Old Testament? Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they might mean reject the Talmud but I don't know anyone that accepts only the Torah. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the overlap. So the question should be, "what do you call someone who accepts only the Old Testament and no other 'holy books' as the word of God and sole source of religious/spiritual authority?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.240.226 (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would call such a person a human being. (Just being funny.) Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Karaite. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Jews were uninfluenced by Mishnaic/Talmudic writings... AnonMoos (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the right answer, but Samaritans have their own version of the Pentateuch. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on - I think Jews in general accept only the Torah (i.e. the first five books of Tanach (roughly the "Old Testament") as the word of God. The other parts of Tanach and other writings such as Talmud are studied and revered by most sects, but are regarded as human not divine. --ColinFine (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fornication in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Chapter 272, Section 18 of the Massachusetts General Laws prohibits fornication, under penalty of three months or $30. What do they mean by fornication? It's not adultery, as that is punishable under another section, as are unnatural and lascivious acts, the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, and incest. DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extramarital sex needn't constitute adultery (if neither partner is married, for example). Along this line, it often signifies premarital sex. See also article on fornication. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that article, but it isn't specific as to what fornication means in Massachusetts law. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Compendium and Digest of the Laws of Massachusetts (William Charles White, Munroe, Francis, and Parker, 1810, p634) defines it as "the act of incontinency between single persons; for if either party be married, it is adultery." ---Sluzzelin talk 15:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope "incontinence" had a different meaning to the one used now!! "Fetch the rubber sheets nurse!" Alansplodge (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Living in Massachusetts, I had no idea before I got married that I was engaging in criminal acts! I don't think this law is enforced much. Marco polo (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, neither is it "made the subject of prosecution" nor is its constitutionality seen as watertight "at least as applied to the private, consensual conduct of persons over the age of consent."". ---Sluzzelin talk 16:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably any trial would end in the law being invalidated based on the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, though not all the Justices who voted with the majority agreed with Kennedy's rationale. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts certainly isn't the only state with laws that are constitutionally invalid but yet remain on the books. Nebraska (among many others) has a Flag burning law on the books, and many states also have old common law torts and sometimes crimes on the books (the common law tort of seduction is fun). Most states also criminalize adultery although the constitutionality of that is questionable (Lawrence doesn't speak to this, but the argument's been made both ways). Finally, it's ironic that Massachusetts still has this law on the books; contrast that to the political tenor of the State's recent court headlines. Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article might be of interest: Elizabeth Fones.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowjams, I'll do you one better; in Virginia, any house with six or more women with different surnames is automatically considered a brothel. My cousin is at George Mason, and her sorority can't get a house because of this law. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is good, and I've heard similar things before. But I'll raise you again. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 700 to Texas v. Johnson. Shadowjams (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, that is good. The only one I can think of on quite that level is a Montana law decreeing that seven or more Indians is considered a tribe, and may be shot at. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tantalizing... if you find that cite I'll concede defeat! Shadowjams (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems they finally repealed that one... but according to this, they still have a law in force barring married women from fishing on Sundays, and umarried women from fishing at all. They also seem to have another one stating that the missionary position is the only legal way to have sex (not quite sure how they ever planned to enforce that...). But I didn't realize some states still had their flag-burning laws on the books; remind me not to go there!! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC) (Just in case you thought the US was the only country with this problem, if you want an international example, Cambodia has a law forbidding water guns at festivals.)[reply]

Dumb laws used to have a sizeable collection of non-hoax dumb laws, but someone's pruned it right back. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Police in Eastern Europe, after 89-91

Dear Wikipedians, I am a student of the history of Central and Eastern Europe, ca '45-91. I was wondering if any of you could help me to a question that has me puzzled: What happened to members of the security forces/secret police (securitat, Stasi, etc) in the different CE European countries after the war? (EDIT: Not after the war, but after the fall of the communist rules!)

The answers may exist in the different articles, but don't seem to be easy to find. I imagine that, while for instance Hungary might have had a process where it cleared up its ties with its organizations (did it?), Albania might still retain some of the same members and politicians high in the political system.

Does there exist a summary anyone of you can give me on this matter? I would be deeply obliged. Thank you in advance! 88.90.16.74 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The situation varied from country to country, but in most countries, the former "security" personnel were dismissed and forced to find new livelihoods or else lived on state welfare benefits. In some countries, individual members of the secret police, such as Erich Mielke were prosecuted for crimes they committed in their former jobs. Marco polo (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article you link states that Mielke was prosecuted (symbolically?) on the murder of the police officers before the second world war--not at all about his involvement with the security forces. This in itself begs the question I just asked, about how involvement with the security police was handled after the fall of communist rule in these lands.88.90.16.74 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OP: The confusion probably stems from the way you worded your question: "What happened to members of the security forces/secret police (securitat, Stasi, etc) in the different CE European countries after the war?". Since there was no war in most Eastern European countries following the fall of the Soviet bloc, most people would think that you asked what happened after the Second World War (which was the only war that affected most of the Soviet bloc countries). --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That was an awkward mistake to make. I've added an edit tag up there. 88.90.16.74 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them just kept right on working for the new regimes. The new governments still needed people with highly-specialized training, and this isn't something you can pick up just anywhere. In Dealing with the Communist Past: Central and Eastern Experiences after 1990, it states "Dealing with former high-level communists and security apparatuses were clearly among the central tasks facing governments immediately after communism disintegrated in much of Central and Eastern Europe. ...in all countries, the extent of decommunisation was quite limited in nature." This CIA document, Intelligence Reform in Europe's Emerging Democracies, also mentions the problem of "legacy intelligence services" and how "The states that negotiated their revolutions--Hungary, Poland, and, initially, Czechoslovakia--'grandfathered in' substantial numbers of personnel from the former regimes." The more enterprising probably used their influence and knowledge to enrich themselves, particularly in Russia. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skinner v Freud

hey all. I'm starting to study psychology, and in class we're talking about the two most influential psychologists, BF Skinner and Sigmund Freud. Whil we're not actually going to read them in class until Psych II, i plan to supplement our discussion by actually reading Freud's and Skinner's work. Which should I read first? That is, how do Freud and Skinner compare not in terms of content, but in terms of how easy their arguments are to follow, how consistent they are with their content, how well they support their theories, how organized their writing is, and really how much they "make sense"? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skinner comes later, and his Behaviorism is, in part, a response to Freud's introspective theories, so it would make sense to read Freud first, to understand exactly what Skinner was objecting to... --Jayron32 21:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freud's Introductory Lessons on Psychoanalysis are eminently worth reading. (No comment on Skinner – ptah! ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The theories of both have fairly major problems from the modern point of view (and neither provided a solid foundation for later developments in the same way that Darwin's theories did for evolution, etc.), so I'm not all that sure what the point of going into great historical detail in an introductory survey course would be. AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, why not just recommend that the OP change majors? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would I recommend that someone studying astronomy change majors because the first several thousand years of astronomical work were carried out under mistaken views of the basic relationship between the sun and the earth, and often mainly for astrological purposes? No. But I would recommend that an introductory survey course on astronomy not go into great detail on the history of Babylonian astrology... AnonMoos (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP did not ask for advice about whether to read Skinner and Freud, but what to read, and which of them is more readable. I think the question indicates that the OP is most likely an excellent student, and ought to be encouraged, especially here. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wikidao, you are risking me calling you bad names. Do not disparage the highest of all philosophies because you worship the lowest common denominator of intellect... so there, hah!

Not sure what you may mean. I have a philosophical dislike for some Skinnerian assumptions, but respect the work, as far as it goes and for what it's worth. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read Freud first, because you will not understand Skinner's complain about psychology unless you understand Freud. After you read Skinner, read G.H. Mead. Freud developed a (rather questionable) clinical approach to the human psyche based on (what he assumed to be) the unseen internal processes of the human mind. Skinner objected to the clinical approach as a theoretical model (and in the process, rejected all unseen processes as irrelevant), leading him to a very mechanistic view of the mind. Both Freud and Skinner are still used in limited contexts, and both have suffered some fairly heavy (and largely well-deserved) criticism. --Ludwigs2 05:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to that, Skinner's work on behaviourism is the direct ancestor of some popular modern psychological theories and therapies such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. Whereas I can't trace a modern therapy directly back to Freud - anyone?--TammyMoet (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All psychotherapy comes from Freud, Tammy. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think TammyMoet is either saying that psychotherapy is not a "modern therapy" or that most therapeutic versions are pretty distanced from Freud (e.g. via Jung or what have you). But there definitely are practicing Freudian psychotherapists, either way. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CBT is a psychotherapy, one of many, and owes its general existence to Freud, who "invented" modern psychotherapy. Its specifics are heavily influenced by Skinnerian Behaviour Therapy, it's true. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, Freud isn't mentioned in its article at all. Probably because his influence is pretty minor. I mean, OK, all forms of the modern "talking cure" derive in some way from Freud starting the trend, but that doesn't actually mean that Freud's theories have anything interesting to do with them. Reading over CBT, I see absolutely no Freudian influence whatsoever in its therapeutic approach or theorizations, other than the fact that it is a form of therapy that often involves talking to people. You can say, "all physics goes back to Aristotle," but that doesn't actually tell you very much about physics, and obscures some pretty big changes that have happened. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Attributing Newtonian physics to Newton does no disservice to Watt" would be a better analogy (if one wanted to be generous to Skinner ;), and optimistic about CBT's lasting impact on psychotherapy as a whole) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But attributing Einsteinian physics to Newton is incorrect. Do you see my point? --Mr.98 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are still in a "classical" realm of psychology, especially clinical psychology. There has been no revolution comparable either to relativity or quantum mechanics in (clinical) psychology after Freud. (And Skinner, in any case, was no Einstein -- whereas Freud is a comparable historical figure.) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CBT was invented specifically as a complement/alternate to psychoanalysis. If I remember the rationalization correctly, behavioral therapy was losing steam in the discipline (pure behavioral therapy was never particularly effective), and therapists wanted to go back towards some type of cognitive therapy, but they wanted to avoid depth psychology (both because it was theoretically suspect and because involved years-long analysis, which was not practical for most patients or most problems). Beck designed CBT as brief therapy: it took the basic Freudian talk-therapy model modified it by (1) introducing directed therapist interventions (Freud's model asked the therapist to be entirely passive except as a guide), and (2) setting aside deep analysis in preference to an assortment of cognitive assertions (on the theory that for relatively minor problems conscious changes belief structures would resolve short-term problems and eventually percolate down to lower levels of the unconscious without any direct effort). --Ludwigs2 21:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If for some reason you are really going to read Skinner, you might also want to check out Chomsky's "A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior".

No, it's the other way round. Skinner wins :-) --Radh (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol - the only way Skinner's research ever got measurable results was by reducing the body weight of the rodent test populations by 25%-33% and then making food contingent on learning. If I starved you down by 45-60 lbs and then told you to learn a maze in order to get a cheeseburger, how fast and thoroughly do you think you'd get that maze memorized? That's not to say that Skinner was entirely wrong, mind you, but his theory was tremendously myopic. --Ludwigs2 21:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what college you attended, or whether you studied psychology, or took a course in which you had to do operant conditioning, but at my college pigeons prepped for operant conditioning were food deprived down to perhaps 90% of free feeding weight. This is comparable to what they would weigh in the wild, where food is not always right there in front of them and where they got exercise rather than being in a little wire and plastic cage. If they were starved down 33%, they were apt to refuse food and die thereafter, rather than being super motivated and easily trainable. Rats were water deprived for 24 hours. Edison (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a real-world example of the impact of behaviorism, read Mariette Hartley's autobiography. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Tell it in Gath" (Biblical reference)

I have come across a number of books entitled Tell it in Gath [2] [3] but am unsure of what the precise reference is and what it means; it seems to be something to do with Samuel II 1 and/or Micah 1 – can anyone help? :) ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 22:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is actually "tell it not in Gath...lest the Philistines rejoice" (KJV 2 Samuel 1:20). It appears in the original negative form in several Charlotte Bronte novels... AnonMoos (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it means...? ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 23:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What else do you need to know other than that the Philistines were the traditional enemies of the Israelites during that period? AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like what/where is Gath? ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 23:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gath was a Philistine city. You can read more about it at the linked article, but the only thing that's important in this context is that it's a Philistine city. In the original Bible verse, it's paired with Ashkelon, which was also a Philistine city. AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Perhaps why one must not tell it in Gath, and why if "it" was told in Gath, would the Philistines rejoice? And lastly, what is "it"? --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to have been several Gaths, according to our article Gath (city). DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The phrase could have several exact meanings depending on the context -- TT, are you curious about a specific use of the phrase? Consider that Gath is the place of origin of a great but famously defeated champion (Goliath); what would be the significance of telling something there? Our article on Goliath makes the interesting point that the David-Goliath conflict was later framed as a Church vs. Satan one; there's lots of ways you could go with this. Antandrus (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who actually bothered to read the second half of II Samuel chapter 1, in combination with a little fairly-easily acquired background knowledge, could tell what it meant without much need for speculation. I'm kind of tired of spoon-feeding in mini-teaspoon sized doses. AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a qualification in English Literature, and I am a paid teacher of Hebrew & Jewish Studies, extremely familiar with the Old Testament, as my userpage notes. However, clearly not everybody is perfect in their knowledge and their ability to make inferences; that is what the RefDesk is for. Sorry if it offends you. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't. You don't have to post here. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to post relevant factual information or participate in intelligent discussions; what can annoying is when people seem to consider it too much effort to make fairly obvious inferences, or do a simple search for a specific word in Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This place is maintained by volunteers who enjoys knowledge, both in the giving of it and acquiring it. And this is without regard for the level of learning of the questioner, as long as the questions are posed in good faith. If it ever feels like a burden to answer questions, I would seriously advice that you take a break from the ref desk for a while. At least just for as long as it takes to regain that sense of enjoyment in sharing knowledge just for the sake of it, even if it has to be spelled out (or "spoon-fed" as you seem to prefer). --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Samuel II 1:20, David, having just learned of the death of Saul, says:

"Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph."

And then I'm not entirely sure what is going on in Micah 1:10. But it seems to be an injunction against giving "aid and comfort" to one's enemies. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verse 17 of (the previously linked) II Samuel tells us that this verse's context is a Dirge. There is some hint of a ruse by who is apparently Saul's armor-bearer. The amalekite tells David that he has put Saul to death because of Saul's request, apparently to gain David's favor. Being one of Jehovah's anointed servants, however, made this a serious crime and David had the amalekite put to death. Saul had actually killed himself. Saul did what was bad in Jehovah's eyes and most likely took on the practice of "honorable" suicide from the Philistines. The later part of I Samuel in chapter 31 (a page before the account in question) tells that the Philistines already knew about Saul's death and took their bodies and "fastened [them] on the wall (1 Samuel 31:10)," quite a gruesome picture. Later on in the days of David the bloodguilt incurred by Saul was washed clean by the slaying of some of his descendents (2 Samuel 21:1-9). I hope this enlightens you as to the content of Samuel's history books he wrote (n.b. Gad and Nathan also contributed to the books of Samuel). schyler (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this – so then the context of those books entitled Tell it in Gath would be, essentially, "Publish and be damned," then? ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome. By the way, I forgot to cite one of my references. I already cited I and II Samuel, but I also read from Insight on The Scriptures to answer this question. It is a pleasure to help a seeker of knowledge!
  
  As for your secondary question to have told it in Gath would be like not reading The writing on the wall or not telling people about The Kingdom of Heaven; for lack of a better term, blasphemy, but in a song! :) 71.21.143.33 (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)(schyler IP)[reply]

The first book you list, TreasuryTag, Tell it in Gath by Joseph Osgood, 1918, seems to be a defense of Southern US literature in the face of "The Tradition of New England Ascendancy" (the title of the first chapter). Given the feelings that some Southern writers have had about that ascendancy in cultural matters, I expect that the fact of publishing the book at all at the time was considered "telling it in Gath" by the author in this case (but suggests that he had something to say in the book that was a "cause of woe" to disenfranchised Southern writers, so may have been a unintentional misuse of the phrase).

I'm not entirely sure though what might be meant by the phrase in the second book you list, Tell it in Gath:British Jewry and Clause 43, the Inside Story. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second book is mentioned in this pdf, search it for clause. "Clause 43" appears to be something to do with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and the impossibility of getting orthodox, reform, liberal and progressive congregations to agree on anything whatsoever. DuncanHill (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Micah reference

Please read the second half of Micah 1 for some context: this whole portion appears to be a collection of ironic puns. Footnotes in my NIV say that "Gath" sounds somewhat like "tell" (i.e. "Tell it not in Tell"), and the further verses have similar parallels, such as "Those who live in Zaanan will not come out" in verse 11, with a footnote of "Zaanan sounds like the Hebrew for come out". Although such comments for the community names aren't given by the NJPS Tanakh, it too says that this section is full of puns. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]