Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 September 13

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.

September 13

American Citizenship

Hello everyone. I'm interested in various colleges but I will need scholarships. However, I am a (mainland) Chinese citizen holding permanent residence aka a Green Card in the united states. My question is, how much will my scholarship opportunities be limited by my citizenship? Is this more or less at a better college (i.e., Ivy League). Additionally, what are some drawbacks if I at the end choose naturalisation? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC) [EDIT: REWROTE UNCLEAR INFORMATION]

As a general rule, there are plenty of private scholarships available, as well as special programs for international students. I'm sure other people can flesh this out in more detail. 61.7.120.132 (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

For your second question: If you take out U.S.-based loans while in college, such as Federal Student Loans, you must pay them back if you remain in the United States. If you return to China, U.S. law does not apply. While the U.S. would like you to pay back the loans, they cannot force you to or deduct what you owe from your wages. -- kainaw™ 05:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement "U.S. law does not apply [in China]" is a gross oversimplification of a very complex legal situation. China will probably not extradite you, but we can not interpret your particular legal situation. Nimur (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that such loans are made by banks, not the government, and the bank would be very interested in your willingness, and ability, to pay back the loan. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Federal Direct Student Loan Program handles a majority of student loans in the United States and it is backed by the U.S. Department of Education, not a bank. -- kainaw™ 13:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Are those loans available to foreign nationals though? Googlemeister (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I know many foreign students who have Federal loans. -- kainaw™ 14:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are relevant links: you must file a FAFSA application and determine if you are an eligible non-citizen. Kainaw's point about "skipping the country" may have legal ramifications; the debt is not "forgotten" just because of non-payment. There are easier ways to "get out of paying" - there are many programs to forgive or cancel some or all of the debt, subject to conditions. Nimur (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If you leave the country without paying your loan and return to China, as has been stated, you probably won't be extradited back to the United States. Should you ever apply to return there, though, you can expect a less than friendly welcome. As Nimur presents above, it's not the best option and you'd be better off paying off your loan even if you return to China. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You also asked about getting citizenship yourself, which I don't think has been answered. Typically, it's (relatively) easy for foreign nationals to get visas to go to school in the United States, but much harder to get work visas (and eventually citizenship) after they're done with school. Sometimes you'll hear complaints in the United States about us helping give foreigners a good education, but then not benefiting from it because we ship them back home after we're done. Do you have a specific reason why you think you could become a citizen after you get your degree (have close family here, for example, or have a lot of money to start a business)? Buddy431 (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I should have clarified. I am not a foreigner or visa student, I am a Permanent Resident ie holder of a "Green Card". Would this change anything? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you received no reply to this. A green card will make it easier for you to get jobs on and off campus. I don't think it has an impact on scholarships, but I might be wrong. 61.7.120.132 (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Why tax capital gains less?

Why is capital gains tax in the United States lower than normal income tax? Has the effect of this on the actual progressiveness of federal taxation, or on class mobility, been studied? NeonMerlin 01:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically because of risk. If you make money on your investments you pay taxes, but if you lose money afterward, you don't get your taxes back. You can average your gains over multiple years, but there still is substantial risk. For example, right now I personally have paid several thousand dollars in capital gains tax over the past few years and have less money than I started with. Looie496 (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The article says "Capital gains are generally taxed at a preferential rate in comparison to ordinary income. This is intended to provide incentives for investors to make capital investments and to fund entrepreneurial activity." --Sean 15:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Biography Request

Hi, Wikipedia,

My professor and I have hunted all over for this bio on Robert Loring Allen was apparently educated at Harvard in the 40s, probably putting him in his '80s now if he is still with us. Quite a mystery about why we cannot find him. I did the searches as well, and only called on you when I knew my skills were quite inadequate for the task.

Also, can you ask the library to find a short bio of Robert Loring Allen. He was the biographer of Joseph Schumpeter. His 1991 book on Schumpeter, "Opening Doors" (Transaction Publishers) is the classic in the field but I can find nothing about Allen any place. See what you can find out. Thx. D

Richard N. Foster, Ph.D.
Senior Faculty Fellow
Yale School of Management
Assistant: Camille Costelli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.33.95 (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, they wanted a sort bio, here it is:Robert L. Allen --Aspro (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That (Robert Lee Allen) is obviously not the same person. Robert Loring Allen is mentioned on a WP-banned site, from which we at least know he was Professor Emeritus of international economics and economic history at the University of Missouri, and is now deceased. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What is that WP-banned site? (Is this what it feels like to be a North Korean?) 84.153.184.12 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It will probably come up if you search for <"Robert Loring Allen" Missouri> Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it a spam-blacklisted site, or something...? (Does it sound like a warrior-woman, or a river, maybe? Strange). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPB. Anyway, the same (minimal) information is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed email artifacts per WP:REFACTOR. Astronaut (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The dude might also be found if the questioner were to walk over to her own college library and look in The Who's Who in Collegiate Faculty™. Even if he's now deceased, the library may own an older edition of this standard reference work that would list him and his bio. Textorus (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Philanthropy

Why do actors, singers and other public figures practice Philanthropy? Do they truly want to help the causes they support, or are they just doing it for public relations? No she can't read my poker face (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Since each actor, singer etc is an individual, you will find a spectrum, where some give because of true support, and others give simply for a tax write-off and to look good. Googlemeister (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Philanthropy article would be the place to start. It has links to other articles, external sites and books to read. It is a big subject. The Greeks had a word for it - the same one we have - and the Roman great and good operated on the principle of noblesse oblige. Modern philanthropists have come up with arguments as to why it is a duty to be philanthropic, which don't tend to be so hard-nosed as the Romans were: Andrew Carnegie's The Gospel of Wealth for example, the idea of venture philanthropy or philanthrocapitalism for another. Start with the philanthropy article and you can make your own mind up. But ultimately April Lavigne is the only one who can know for sure why she's giving her money away. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OP, are you sure it has to be either one or the other? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that many charitable donations are tax deductible as well. If I had a lot of money to spare, I might find it more convenient to spend my tax quotient on specific organizations that I thought would actually do much good with it than put it into the general pool of government to be diluted and siphoned off for all sorts of typical bureaucratic nonsense (or wars, or other things I didn't support). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Poker_face -- Geoffrey Miller's book The Mating Mind has some interesting speculations about unconscious motivations for charitable efforts... AnonMoos (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember also that Philanthropy doesn't necessarily have to involve giving money. We Wikipedians donate our time to help the cause of human knowledge. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Or at least the cause of telling people that they're wrong and we're right. ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrational attachment to prior investment

After having written on the Computing desk about "the psychological principle in which people become irremediably attached to their previous investments of time and money", I have to ask what this principle is called, and whether we have an article on it. The context was one reason why there has been such an acrimonious divide between Windows and PC users, but the principle was also cited by Brian Reynolds of Zynga on why people keep coming back to play FarmVille every day: Their 700 mouse clicks and 10 minutes of "game" time per day are remembered at some level as an investment, and there's a psychological impetus in lots of people to keep working on their farm every day, in order to validate the previous investment. Note that despite the title of this question, I'm not really asking about money investment, but the investment of time and effort. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It relates to sunk costs. 92.15.4.94 (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

See Psychology of previous investment. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

See Escalation of commitment as well as Lock-in (decision-making). Looie496 (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethics - are they universal or only species-dependant?

Is it ethical for a Barn Owl to kill and eat a Field Mouse? I know that vampires are fiction. But if we were vampires, would it be ethical for us to kill humans for food with a clear conscience? 92.15.4.94 (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the article on Ethics and dig through the references. The short version: for the actions of any creature on earth other than humans, ethics are an irrelevancy. To act ethically requires sentience, which (as far as we know) only humans possess. A barn owl killing and eating a field mouse is just a barn owl being hungry and doing what it does. A lion killing and eating a human is a lion just doing what it does. Vampires don't exist so it doesn't much matter, but the question there would be whether or not one is an intelligent and sentient vampire or merely a human-shaped animal who eats blood. → ROUX ₪ 20:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ethics of eating meat may illuminate, a little, but your two questions differ quite a lot, because your first question is about what rights are possessed by a nonsentient nonhuman mammal, and the second is about the rights of a human. The default moral and legal stance in most places these days is that animals enjoy essentially no rights, except, again in most places, for the right to not be abused outrageously by humans. The quick answer is that, no, vampires would not have the right to simply kill humans for food, because over the past millenia humans have created ethical systems in which humans have a special place: they are not to be slain. (Except in a few rare circumstances like extreme cases of self-defense or capital punishment.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If self-preservation is at stake, then True Blood offers one way out for the Vampires: a "synthetic form of blood called "Tru Blood"'. Roux is correct about the owl, and you sort of answered this yourself in one of the versions of your question, by specifically asking about an "ethically-aware lion" before you removed it [1]. The lack of ethical awareness in owls and lions didn't stop us from the occasional animal trial in the past though. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. If an animal is smart enough to act in a manner which deceives a human to achieve some end of interest to the animal (say, food), is that merely the animal being an animal—or because it involves a human, the human feels lied-to and that the animal has used unethical means to achieve an end? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you, but the animal doesn't get a break just because it doesn't take ethics into consideration. When humans find beings that are outside of human ethics (like lions), what they do is either confine them or shoot them. What we cannot reason with, we treat as wild, and that isn't so hot for the animal. (A tangential article: Great ape personhood, the question of whether great apes should be treated as less "wild" and more "human" than most other animals.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethics requires meta-cognition (abstract reasoning - what should a creature do in a given situation). Animals (outside some of the higher mammals like chimps and dolphins) do not show signs of meta-cognition of this sort, and not even all humans are good at it. --Ludwigs2 22:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer is very much dependent on the type of ethical system that you're applying - unfortunately, ethics isn't clear cut. For example, teleological ethics, such as utilitarianism, isn't so much concerned about the actions as the outcomes. Thus the death of the field mouse (or the person) isn't the issue so much as the amount of good and "evil" that results from the action. In the case of the owl that may be difficult to calculate. In the case of the vampire, it may be that killing many people to keep one vampire alive would be on the wrong side of the equation, but that would depend on a number of factors.

To further Ludwigs2's comments, one thing that might help is Tom Regan's distinction between moral agents and moral patients. According to Regan, animals and people may both have inherent moral value based on being subjects-of-a-life, but this doesn't mean they each have the same responsibilities to act morally. The owl is not a moral agent, so there is no expectation that the owl will spare the field mouse. I have no idea where vampires sit, but if you assume that vampires are capable of ethical reasoning then I guess they are moral agents, while if you take the Buffy approach (disregarding Angel) you might want to argue that they are merely moral patients. - Bilby (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to add that, ultimately, ethics are merely snapshots reflective of their society. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad bird! BAD bird!! You better stop eating that mouse or you'll go to Hell! Hey, why aren't you listening to me?! Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethics aren't even universal across human cultures, or even individuals within one culture let alone species. Googlemeister (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Kurt Vonnegut addressed a similar question in Cat's Cradle. His answer: "Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand." --M@rēino 15:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It is the exploration of the question as it applies to vampires which plays a significant part in the longevity and allure of the vampire myth. It is in essence Faustian, the promise of immortality and power in exchange for your morality / soul. Vespine (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Mosque near 9/11 grounds

Wouldn't that be breaking the amendment of Freedom of religion in the United States not to allow them to build it? 98.21.135.69 (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, it's a cultural center and not a mosque. So it is not breaking the amendment. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but anyone who is opposed to it apparently thinks it's literally a mosque and that it will literally be on "ground zero", so it is still an issue of freedom of religion. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite the US's First Amendment, one very limited way that various local governments can lean on religious groups is zoning. The city might say "Sorry, a mosque doesn't fit into our urban master plan, so your permit is denied." However, I found this 2008 link from "Christianity Today" informative; it points to a federal law that apparently requires that "religious assemblies and institutions" must be treated by zoning laws and regulations the same as "non-religious assemblies and institutions" under zoning laws. So if a theater or community center would be allowed under the zoning laws, the city or county isn't allowed to deny a permit to a church. Or mosque. Looks like it's controversial, though; this NY Times link mentions several dozen challenges involving the law as of 2002. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This whole issue will abruptly disappear after the elections (except for a few fanatics) so it doesn't pay to get too invested in it. --Ludwigs2 00:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The odds are that if they were going to deny the permit, they'd have to deny an entire class of other (secular) institutions to be there as well, otherwise they'd face a pretty strong chance of a lawsuit. It certainly goes against the spirit of the First Amendment to vehemently argue that Muslims can't congregate in that particular space (and raises other troublesome practical questions — would it be OK if they were 500 ft away? 1000 ft? A mile? How close is too close?). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As a New Yorker who lost a college classmate on 9/11, there are several things that need to be set straight:

• The center, which as I understand it will include both a mosque and interdenominational places of worship, is 2 blocks away from the northern end of the World Trade Center site. There is a strip club that is only one block further over, nearly as close to Ground Zero as the center/mosque. No one is complaining about naked breasts being wobbled about by strippers dancing on the graves of those murdered, although the center/mosque is described as Islamic extremists gleefully dancing on the graves of their victims. Two or three blocks away in the canyons of downtown Manhattan is like a mile away in middle America, and is far enough away that visitors get lost. In fact, I'm regularly asked for directions by people who are completely lost who are no more than a block or two away from their destination.
• There are numerous places of religious worship downtown right in the middle of all the rest of the commercial properties. The center/mosque is no different.
• Behaving as if Islam globally has been hijacked by extremists is the same as contending Catholicism and Protestantism were hijacked by Irish terrorists at the height of the conflict there—or do I need to remind people of the annual parade celebrating the victory (slaughter) by one set of "Christians" over another set of "Christians." (And see my final point on excuses.)
• If it were not for Islam, which historically has been a religion of enlightenment, all the ancient works which we now associate with Western civilization would have been lost forever. It is up to those of us who are NOT of Islamic faith to reach out to support mainstream (note I am not saying "moderate" as if it were some minority) Islam. To NOT do so is to fuel the small number of extremists.

Let's not pretend that every religion, every society, doesn't have its extremists looking for excuses to pour lighter fluid on the fire, shouting "YOU made me do it!!" I appreciate the pain of those who lost family and friends, there is no New Yorker I know that is more than one or two degrees of separation away from someone who died that day—or, who, by the grace of their God (or dumb luck for the atheists) happened to not be there that fateful day for some innocuous reason. But to allow anti-Islamic rhetoric to win is to only lessen ourselves. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

All good responses; unfortunately, I don't think Sarah Palin is listening.

Anyway, OP asks if it would violate Freedom of religion in the United States if the Park51 Islamic community center were not allowed to be built because Islam might get practiced there (and it is close to ground zero). Answer: yes, it would be a violation of religious freedom. So, it could not be legally prohibited in the U.S. on that basis. And as the Park51 article points out, "Most Americans and residents of New York State do, however, believe the Park51 developers have a legal right to proceed with the project." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The part about "Ancient Islam conveyed lots of vital ancient works to the west, therefore we should support modern Islam" isn't a good response. Ancient Islam isn't modern Islam, religion had a completely different relevance in the ancient world, and it's not clear that religion even helped back then, just because it happened to be the case that their enlightened society of the time had a religion (whoopee-doo). You might as well say we should revive Roman religions because the Romans were quite scholarly. 213.122.59.149 (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

They also didn't save all the works of western civilization; some Greek scientific texts were copied by them, but Greek science wasn't all that great and sometimes an adherence to ancient Greek medicine (for example) was actually a hindrance to progress. A lot of Greek texts were preserved by the Byzantines, who never lost them. Anything that was in Latin was usually preserved by the medieval west (including some early translations of Plato and Aristotle). It is true that some things came to the Latin west through Arabic translations, but not everything. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The transmission of Arabic works (some original, some translations from Greek) to Western European culture was fairly significant, but it was kind of a time-limited episode (12th-century etc.) -- by the 15th-century, Western European scholars had an overwhelming desire to dispense with such middlemen and go back directly to the original Greek sources, and they were deeply interested in whole areas which had never been translated into Arabic at all (such as ancient Greek belles lettres and history. AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't forget the destruction of the library in Alexandria, as the result of which (my understanding is) there are ancient works preserved only in Arabic translation. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there? The Library was destroyed in the fourth century, long before the Arab conquests. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There once existed a real ground zero mosque, a space for muslims to pray on the seventeenth floor of the south tower of the WTC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

We're getting sidetracked. The original question was if a mosque would violate the First amendment's Establishment clause. The answer is contained in our article on that topic, but the general response is that the establishment clause only applies to government action. The government isn't trying to put in any kind of religious center, private parties are. Shadowjams (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the question was if not allowing it would violate the First Amendment. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue was touched upon when the governor offered considering a property swap for state land elsewhere downtown further away. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I misread the question (a little confusing). Nevertheless, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment article has the answer. It's a question of equal access, etc. Shadowjams (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is just exactly how some veterans of the great war would say "don't trust the Japs" until their dying day. It's sad really, those people should get help, but how do you give therapy to maybe a hundred million people?. Sorry i know this isn't supposed to be a discussion. Vespine (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We underestimate the mass-herding mentality; what is required are political and community leaders who take the moral and correct course, not pandering to xenophobia, however tragic or understandable its origins. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)