Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 December 18

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.

December 18

Human Relationships

Why is it that people can't get on well with everyone they meet? People throughout their life meet many people, surely in principle, anyone can get on well and/or form a friendship, if there's no prejudices. 2.121.172.172 (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You'd need to have something in common or there's just no basis for a relationship. StuRat (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume it's strictly a matter of ability -- more a matter of motivation. Why would I want to get along with that guy? He's weird. She's ugly. That kid is loud and annoying. That grandma looks schizophrenic. And so on and so forth. Let me just get to my destination; I don't need to waste effort trying to like someone that I have nothing in common with, perhaps even someone I look down on, perhaps even someone I feel has little use living here with me on earth. Vranak (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Monkeysphere. 86.164.79.174 (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It also needs to be pointed out that the majority of people one encounters on a daily basis are for the most part, assholes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

somehow, I suspect that an attitude like that is not likely to improve one's relationships with the people one encounters on a daily basis. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

True, but at a certain point you have to ask yourself if it's really your own attitude problem -- or whether the folks in question really are heinous, amoral, immoral, and the like. Attitude re-adjustment will only take you so far. Vranak (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I realised (too late) that one cannot get by being a nice girl with a friendly smile and hippie-at-Woodstock goodwill and fraternal love. Most people are greedy, selfish, spoiled and malicious. It's typically manifested by drivers of vehicles, partners/spouses and co-workers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Jeanne Bielle (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

... the majority of people ... are ... assholes.

except those on Wikipedia. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean "especially", surely? Adam Bishop (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The basic reason is that people naturally compete for social dominance, and frequently for other valuable things as well. Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, competition and envy also play leading roles. I would imagine that during a war or disaster where everybody suffers an equal measure of hardship, people are more inclined to be pleasant and helpful towards their fellow man.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

To quote Tom Lehrer: "I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that." Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The OP's question was about getting on well with people (and maybe forming friendships with them, which might apply in a limited number of cases, but not the typical case). It wasn't about becoming the BFF or lover of every random person you ever meet. It was about getting on with them, which is about civility, dignity, respect, tolerance, and not carrying guns or knives "just in case" when you go to the supermarket or to work. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

When I read the OP's question "Why is it that people can't get on well with everyone they meet?", I immediately thought of an email copied to me last night where someone I want to get on with wrote something very rude about me to someone else. This has been going on for years. I keep making polite overtures, only to abused either to my face or behind my back. (A lot of mutual "friends" tell me about the "behind my back" incidents.) So, the reason I can't get on with this person is that he has no intention of getting on with me. I just think he's nuts. HiLo48 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's your problem. You have a low opinion of his sanity, but wonder why he doesn't like you.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we really want to get along with everyone we meet? If we meet someone like Stalin or Hitler, is it really better to aim for peace at all costs instead of opposing their genocidal policies at every turn? Throwing morality out the window in favor of an unnatural peace doesn't seem like a policy that would lead to the greatest common good. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Really, when was the last time you met Hitler or Stalin or anyone remotely like them? If you live in a place where that's actually likely, you have my commiserations. It's not an "unnatural peace" to assume the best of random strangers. Assuming they're the Spawn of Hitler, and acting accordingly, that's what leads to bad outcomes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Simple pragmatics: 'getting on well' with someone requires some modest investment of time and energy, and there are just too many damned people in the world (or even in a small city) to invest time and energy for everyone. So people use cognitive shortcuts, but cognitive shortcuts rely on stereotyped assumptions, and stereotyped assumptions will (inevitably) rub someone the wrong way. It takes an incredible amount of presence of mind to live life without those kinds of cognitive shortcuts, and most people aren't up to it. --Ludwigs2 19:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you (the OP) are entirely right - in principle, any two people (slight modification there) can get along well, if there's no prejudices. It is, however, normal to have prejudices, in the sense of preconceived assumptions about other people - necessary, even, as an aspect of theory of mind. Prejudices are not entirely rational, and we should strive to be more rational, but this is an eternally ongoing project - such is the human condition - and so there will continue to be incidents of two well-meaning people meeting and one of them nevertheless being fearful of the other. This is sub-optimal, but often I think blameless and understandable.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

From a purely biological basis, Dopamine receptor D2 is a big factor in whether two people get along and become good friends. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Judging by the list in the enormous infobox, the gene for this is also a big factor in whether those two people can walk, digest, smell, remember, learn, and have skin pigmentation. The article doesn't say anything about the function of the dopamine receptor specifically - what did you have in mind? Dopamine can affect basic movement, and grooming behaviour, and all sorts of stuff.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Attention span

I saw an infographic on Singularity Hub a few days ago that said that the average attention span nowadays is 5 seconds long. What type of attention are they talking about? Lighthead ^þ 00:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

collapsing sidetracked discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, I was going to raise this is as a separate question but I may as well bring it in here. I'm not having a go at this particular speaker, but what Julia Gillard said recently is very typical: It's just simply wrong that in a nation of our resources that there are kids who, from disadvantaged backgrounds, get a substandard education and will be destined to be behind the eight ball for the rest of their lives. Nothing wrong with the sentiment, but look at those two "that"s. If that doesn't denote a short attention span, I don't know what would. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC) I don't follow your line of reasoning here. How can a perfectly grammatical sentence denote short attention span? An unfinished sentence, perhaps, but a complete sentence?99.245.35.136 (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC) The second 'that' is extraneous and ungrammatical. I think there is a whole list of Sarah Palin quotes that would fit into this category, including ones where she has been corrected (e.g. North Korea, not South Korea) but has still continued to make the same mistake. Plus my all-time favourite of mistakes on the BBC website. In my job, everything written has to be perfect. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC) (ec) Perfectly grammatical? Take out the parenthetical "in a nation of our resources", and what's left: It's just simply wrong that that there are kids who .... Only one of them is required, and I don't get how a speaker can forget they just said "that" literally only a second earlier, and feel the need to say it again. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC) This is all quite off topic. I wonder if isn't meant to be a demonstration of the lack of attention span amongst Ref Deskers? Anyway, spoken grammar has nothing necessarily related to attention span. Verbal speech is often full of poor grammar. Problems with grammar seem to me quite a different thing than changes in attention span. Problems in fact — of the Sarah Palin variety — seem even further off the mark from what the OP is asking about. (Palin does not confuse South and North Korea because her attention span is poor. She confuses them because she is ignorant.) In any case, two anecdotes, however relevant (and these ones aren't) are not the same thing as demonstrating trends. Especially if you take into account the fact that politicians are probably atypical in many ways for a variety of reasons. Focus, people... --Mr.98 (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC) I consider it to be exactly on topic, which is why I contributed it. The OP may be wanting a broader handle on the issue, but I'm giving a concrete example. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC) In future, perhaps it would help if respondents answered questions directly, rather than.... no, forgot what I was going to say, sorry.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC) I also don't think JackofOz's example is an example of limited attention span. If you removed the second that the sentence makes sense. In colloquial speech we are constantly following "false paths", just to leave them, but leaving behind a broken sentence. 88.9.213.105 (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we have an article on Attention span, which may help in the OP's question. From that article, I would guess it meant 'Focused attention', which is the shorter term one. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, attention span generally refers to the ability to maintain focus on a given task or object. Modern life tends to give certain disadvantages to long attention spans - try working at a service job or in a factory and see how long you can maintain full attention on the task without going stark raving mad. --Ludwigs2 04:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

collapsing sidetracked discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To Jack of Oz; first of all I didn't say that that. You're making me sound like a complete re-tard. And to KageTora, I figured it was focused attention, but in scientific circles I would think that there is a big difference between 5 seconds and 8 seconds. Lighthead þ 05:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC) As JackofOz said, the "that . . . that" comment was made by Australia's prime minister. I believe Jack was employing it as an example of a short attention span; she had forgotten the first "that" in the time it took to her say six intervening words. The remark had nothing to do with you, Lighthead, as far as I can tell. Bielle (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Exactly, and thank you, Bielle. I have no idea why Lighthead has taken such personal offence (expressed both here and on my talk page) to my remark about what the Prime Minister of Australia is reported to have said. "This particular speaker" was a reference to her, not to Lighthead. I thought that was clear, but maybe not. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC) The contributors to this thread should be made aware that the comments here have been raised at WP:ANI - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Reference_desk.2FHumanities.23Attention_span. Colonel Tom 06:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Cute. So instead of even trying to answer the question the OP asked, we've had a totally tangential thread about a politician's quoted grammar, and thoroughly confused the OP in the process. Gold star, Ref Deskers! One of our finest moments. :-/ --Mr.98 (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC) My initial post was provided as an example of what to my mind was exactly what the OP was asking about. Others have disagreed it was relevant, as is their right. It may not have been the best possible response, but please don't charge me with "[not] even trying". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The two collapsed discussions throughly prove humans' short attention span. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And to KageTora, I figured it was focused attention, but in scientific circles I would think that there is a big difference between 5 seconds and 8 seconds. I realize that it was my fault about the discussion getting sidetracked. But could I still have a response to what I've italicized? I mean, I do want a response to my question. I don't want the whole thing archived and forgotten about. Lighthead ^þ 21:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, the term isn't all that scientific. It's more of a socio-political pseudo-statistical term used to decry the fact that people don't pay as much attention to important issues as they should. Scientifically there's no real difference between being able focus on a video game (which people are generally very good at) and being able to focus on a news report (which people are generally very bad at). The 5-8 second thing is (I think) more of a TV broadcast measure - how long a show can stay focused on a particular point before it loses the interest of the least disciplined segment of the population (who are the people most prone to impulsive action, and hence the prime target of advertisers). It's more a function of profitability than an actual measurable quantity of the human psyche. --Ludwigs2 23:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

So they're both an average that differs based on the study that's done. I can't explain how I got that from what you've just said, but thanks. I like your comment about the TV broadcast measure. Maybe that's where I got it. Ha ha. Lighthead ^þ 05:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article about marketing and the 8-second attention span that might be enlightening. Bielle (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to know when that 8 second span was last noted? Could the above mentioned 5 second attention span be a modern development (and based on the latest research) from us being so wired? That's actually what the above mentioned article was about; i.e. the negative effects of technology. Maybe the article on attention span needs to be updated. Sarcastic tone, not intended. Thanks for the link, though. Lighthead ^þ 07:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Munich, Tennessee

The chicken eyeglasses article contains a link to this patent, whose inventor lived in Munich, TN, which was apparently in Jackson County, Tennessee. Munich isn't listed there now, and the few towns we do list don't say that their old name was Munich, München, or anything like that. Munich (disambiguation) doesn't list it, only Munich, North Dakota which is 1,000 miles away. I can't see a Munich on the Google map of the area, and a naive Google search finds nothing. Where is, or was, Munich TN? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I searched GNIS at [1] and it had no Munich in the state of Tennessee. It must be lost to history, or maybe it's just a nameless place today... ;) --Jayron32 19:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd initially suspected that, given it had a German name, it had changed its name in 1917/18 (in the US' first "freedom fries" moment), and Nameless TN would be perfect ("we'd rather be nameless than German"), but that's not the case. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find it in Category:Former populated places in Tennessee or Category:Ghost towns in Tennessee, and although I found longer lists of the latter by googling, I couldn't find a single ghost town in Jackson County TN. I can't imagine a reason for giving a false location when filing a patent, either. It's all very baffling. Maybe the application went through some intermediary who misheard the name of Andrew Jackson's home town, and you should be looking for a location in Jackson County that sounds like Munich. (By the way, Andrew Jackson is also the name of the President who Jackson county is named after, but I guess that's not very strange.)  Card Zero  (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't found it yet, either—even on on the USGS topographic map. Maybe it's now at the bottom of the Cordell Hull Reservoir in O Brother, Where Art Thou? fashion. Deor (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Do county boundaries (or even names) change over time? Is it possible that Munich is or was in a different county? The first witness (edited to clarify: first witness to the patent) seems to have been a notary public in Tipton County around that time. bobrayner (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

One would hope it would still show up in the dab page; the only US Munich is in North Dakota, and the boundaries didn't change that much. I guess it's possible it changed name and is in another county, but I think all these failed searches show that if it ever did really exist, it can't have been much of a place. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If it was ever on any USGS topo map it should be in the GNIS database, even if it is now vanished, under a reservoir, renamed, etc. It should also be in there if it is a known older name for anyplace. Since GNIS has no Munichs in any county of Tennessee (whether historical, variant named, etc), I think there are two probable conclusions: 1) It is a misspelling of some place with a similar but different name, 2) it was/is overlooked by the USGS, perhaps due to being extremely insignificant. I think the number of overlooked/unconsidered/forgotten place names is higher in Tennessee than most states. Pfly (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There's also New Munich, Minnesota, which is perhaps 200 miles closer to Tennessee. So, at this rate of progress, we'll find the right one in four more guesses.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

UKIP multiculturalism

I notice that UKIP meaning United Kingdom Independence Party are against multiculturalism but they have some members who are non-white. Does it mean that they are attracting the visible minority vote or they are doing that not to get criticized as a white nationalist party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.6 (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The opposing view to multiculturalism is assimilationism ("a melting pot"); being of an ethnic minority group and favouring assimilation isn't necessarily a logically incompatible position. Assimilationism, which I think we could fairly describe as how the US views its way of accommodating a large and diverse population of immigrants and their immediate children, doesn't mean a "whites only" or anti-immigrant standpoint. Whether assimilationism is how UKIP members and leaders really feel is for you to decide. UKIP leaders are clearly sensitive about being seen as a white nationalist party, or of the party being the subject of entryism by nationalist or anti-immigrant groups. In this BBC story Nigel Farage talks about UKIP being "infiltrated" by BNP sympathisers. This Northern Echo story covers an attempt by UKIP to expel a member who it said had previously been in the BNP. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There is some information on the UKIP's stance in the obvious place, i.e. here UK Independence Party#Immigration and asylum (admitedly mostly coming from their manifesto) Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)That's correct. According to our article, the UKIP "rejects 'blood and soil' ethnic nationalism...promotes uni-culturalism, a single British culture embracing all races, religions and colours". It states that Britishness can be defined in terms of belief in democracy, fair play and freedom." As Finlay said, it's not impossible to be an ethnic minority and support assimilation. In Canada, for example, most Chinese immigrants bring their culture with them. That culture promotes racism, sexism, tax evasion, corruption, academic dishonesty, greed, and fraud of every type. Their restaurants have questionable hygiene, their businesses ignore Canadian laws, and their neighborhoods simultaneously have the highest property values and lowest income-tax payments. Many Chinese hate these kinds of practices and would fervently support "a single culture embracing all races, religions, and colours" with a "belief in democracy, fair play, and freedom". That doesn't necessarily mean abandoning chopsticks or fried rice, but it does mean abandoning outdated beliefs in gender roles or superstitions.

Lastly, the founding principle of UKIP was euroskepticism, not skepticism towards non-European ethnic or racial groups. Most Europeans would not be considered minorities in Britain, so at least at the time of its founding, UKIP was not anti-minority. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The most intriguing quotation in Genesis

In Book of Genesis 3:22, (NIV) it says

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

This suggests that God is talking to some other god-like entity, when in fact the Abrahamic religions are monothestic. What does "one of us" actually mean—does it suggest that humans too have godlike ability? Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a similar question on one of the ref desks recently. There are several possible answers, depending on your beliefs. Some of them are: (1) God was talking to Himself; (2) it was the Trinity; (3) it was a relic of polytheistic mythology; (4) "It's a mystery." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(5) Something something angels, or something. Whatever they are. Big scary wheel-shaped creatures with many eyes, I think, is the biblical description.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(6) 'Error in translation' is always possible. I've long thought that it would be interesting to take all the different translations of the (canon books of the) OT and create two versions, as different as the existing translations allow, and see what results. Colonel Tom 20:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

But but... What if God was one of us. Just a slob like one of us, just a stranger on the bus trying to make his way home. :D-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If one approaches the Old Testament as a collection of diverse works rather than as the Word of God, it's pretty clear that the monotheism in it emerged gradually over the course of centuries. Looie496 (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This makes me wonder: what happened to the blog "An Anti-Theist's Commentary on Genesis"? It was at [2]. It used to be great, and it certainly had things to say about this quotation. I expect it probably explained it in terms of the Bible being plagiarized from various earlier myths, adapted to suit, and badly fitted together by multiple authors in various combinations over a long period of time, with some of the polytheism not perfectly edited out and the nature of God not staying at all consistent. (Which, after two edit conflicts, is I see what the two people above me have just said.)  Card Zero  (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the relevant passage of the Genesis Rabbah, an ancient rabbinical commentary. A Rabbi Pappyas says God is referring to himself and the angels. However, Rabbi Akiva says the proper translation should be that "Man has become like one (who knows good and evil) of himself." The Hebrew can apparently be first or third person. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That quotation is explained in our article on Elohim. The Hebrew word Elohim can be either singular or plural, but the verb following it can also be either singular or plural. Gen 3:22 reads "Then Elohim said (singular), 'let us make (plural) man in our image'". This implies that in Gen 3:22, "us" is being used as a pluralis excellentiae. However, other passages are more interesting, as noted by the article. Gen 20:13 says "Elohim caused (plural) me to wander"; Gen 35:7 contains "because there Elohim had revealed (plural) himself to him"; in many cases, passages that imply a plural Elohim were translated in the Greek Septuagint and later English versions as angels or judges.

Also, Judaism may be monotheistic now, but in its early history it was henotheistic. Earlier, I asked a question about whether the Old Testament specifically mentions that other gods exist. I don't think there was a conclusive answer, as the OT mentions numerous gods to denounce them, but that's consistent with the belief that those gods don't exist. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

See http://mlbible.com/colossians/1-15.htm; http://mlbible.com/colossians/1-16.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the word in question in Genesis 3:22 is mimenu, not Elohim. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those passages has anything to do with the question. I'm highly suspicious of your motives when you randomly post links to Biblical passages and Watchtower articles that not only do not answer the question in an appropriate, scholarly manner, but that don't pertain to the question in any way. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Genesis is full of mystery. Rashi, regarded by orthodox Jews as the foremost biblical commentator, explains the passage as follows (I paraphrase): that man and God have become alike, for just as he is unique among the animals [now knowing the difference between good and evil, because he's eaten the forbidden fruit], so God is unique among the heavenly beings. In which case Rashi is saying that God is using it as a royal "we". --Dweller (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The more mysterious question is the implication that before man ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he was more or less simply an animal - innocent and ignorant. That puts the whole "in his image" thing into question. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

By that def children are also animals, until they learn right from wrong. StuRat (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A simple question: if Adam murdered Eve for the heck of it, would he feel remorse? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

But a question to which there is no simple answer, or, indeed, any answer at all. Which reference work or body of research could one consult to learn the answer? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, some animals may feel guilt. I know dogs and cats that have an "accident" on the floor can act very guilty (slinking away and not looking at you) afterwards. Perhaps this is just fear of punishment, but perhaps not. In any case, they seem to know that they've "done wrong". StuRat (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Could it be the royal we being used in the translation? RJFJR (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why monotheism is so popular in society?

I am fascinated at how the Ancient Hebrews managed to convince that their god is better than other gods. What makes this god so special? What happens if this superior god harms the Ancient Hebrews instead of help them? How can they attach so firmly to a god that can allow evil to happen (famine, war, disease, crime, etc.) and still defend that their god is superior than other gods? If their god fails them, whom do they pray for help? How come this monotheistic religion is so popular today? In popular culture, people appear to worship "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "The Invisible Pink Unicorn" or even the "Google" search engine, all of which contain only one god. Seriously, is there a reason why people tend to favor monotheistic religions over polytheistic ones? Wouldn't it be safer to worship many gods instead of one? SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

People tend to worship whatever seems powerful, to them, and which they don't understand. Early on this tended to mean animals. But, soon people began to understand and control animals, while forces like the Sun, Moon, oceans, weather, etc., remained powerful and beyond their understanding, so they made gods of them (this likely also corresponds with moving to an agricultural society).

Later, once people understood the cycles of the season, tides, weather variations, etc., then people became the most difficult to predict and powerful force they needed to worry about, so we got anthropomorphic gods. Simplifying this to one seemed natural. Leaders like Moses may also have seen one God over all the "nation" as a way to unite various tribes that otherwise would have each had their own gods and fought among themselves.

Now that we understand a bit more about human motivations and actions, perhaps our understanding of "God" is moving away from an old man with a beard to a less tangible "underlying consciousness of the universe". StuRat (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt your theory. Even early humans were experts in animal behavior because they simply couldn't survive without knowing every detail about the animals trying to kill them and the animals they needed to kill for food or fur. 10,000 years ago, humans managed to hunt the wooly mammoth to extinction in North America shortly after arriving from Asia, and there are few animals as big or impressive as the mammoth. Also, the animals that tend to be worshipped are domestic animals that humans managed to control long ago, like the cow/bull/calf, not wild and untamed species.

I also doubt your theory about controlling the natural elements. The ancient Greeks understood the heavens better than anybody else, yet they were polytheistic. The ancient Hebrews had a much less sophisticated cosmology that posited, amongst other things, a flat Earth, yet they were the origin of the world's major monotheistic religions. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Our Hindu readers may disagree, but it certainly seems to be that monotheism is a "step forward" in human consciousness over polytheism. One can agree or disagree with the concept of God, but it seems a lot more logical than the stories of Zeus and Apollo and the like. I mean, monotheism is compatible with the kind of modern concept of the supernatural that StuRat mentions, but polytheism is harder to square with that, I'd think. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is quite an arbitrary conclusion. I see nothing inherently progressive or more logical about monotheism vs. polytheism. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is a variation on Occam's Razor. That is, one god is a simpler explanation than many, and can explain things just as well. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

In any case, it would be underestimating Hindu philosophers to presuppose that they couldn't reconcile quasi-polytheism and quasi-monotheism in their own particular way (see Adi Shankara, advaita, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You are proposing an extension of Pascal's Wager. Pascal said we should gamble on the existence of one god rather than none; you are saying we should gamble on the existence of many gods rather than one. It's not clear how many people approach religion in such a pragmatic way, however. What's supposed to be going on here is belief, not minimising risk. Choosing how many gods to believe in implicitly acknowledges their existence (or that they are all fictitious, or that their numbers are uncertain) before the choice is made. Monotheism#Origin_and_development says something about the belief in one god tending to emerge from the belief in several gods but mainly one god - but that isn't much of an explanation. My explanation is politics: it's all about not believing in those other gods, the ones that belong to those other people over there who we don't currently like. That would cause a trend towards belief in fewer total gods, I think. I am delighted to discover from that article that the Sikh holy book contains the line "my god's got no nose".  Card Zero  (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You also mentioned the problem of evil. It turns out that either God can't be all-powerful, or can't be all good. That is, either the "Devil" is beyond his control, or is within his control and yet allowed to continue creating evil in the world (with the "Devil" being either a separate being or a manifestation of God). StuRat (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Is any religion truly monotheistic anyway? They've all got various hierarchies of god-ish beings. And on the other hand, the ones that are more blatantly polytheistic usually have one god that is more powerful than the rest. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The three major Abrahamic religions profess to be monotheisms, but I've never understood how they can do so with a straight face, what with their pantheon of angels, devils, demons, and even djinns. (It is interesting to note that the more recent their foundation, the larger their pantheon, and the louder their declarations of monotheism.) Sikhism and the Bahá'í Faith are also supposedly monotheisms; are they more deserving of the classification? -- ToE 04:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

My local Catholic Church seems to more statues, images, symbolism and worshipping of Mary than of Jesus. Admittedly, it is a St Mary's, but I've found it difficult to balance their obsession with the "no other gods" and the "no idols" rules. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that actually true? Surely it has 14 stations of the cross, each one centred on Jesus, a crucifix, centred on Jesus, and probably at least one other image or statue of Jesus: I doubt it has 16 images of Mary. It also probably has Mass every day, and two or three times on Sunday, which is centred entirely on God and Christ's sacrifice: in England and Wales, Mass generally features a Hail Mary, but this is a special dispensation, not the rule for the rest of the world. It might have the Angelus every day, I suppose, but that is almost entirely quoting from Luke, and pretty short (shorter than a Mass, even a quick daily Mass). I doubt it has the rosary every day, which is , in any case, focused on meditating on Jesus's life as seen through Mary. "My soul magnifies the Lord" and all that. I've only heard such things said in the past by people who admitted they'd never actually stepped into a Catholic church, so I'm interested how much this is exaggeration or a seriously odd church. 86.164.79.174 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I did say "seems to". I am not a Catholic, but I've certainly been inside that church many times. You know, weddings, funerals, etc. No idea of the detail of which you speak. Never been explained to me. I sit there bored through the formal bits, looking at the statuary, etc. Just an impression, but a strong one. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

How bizarre: this just raises further questions. If you're looking at statuary, are you assuming every statue of a woman is Mary the Mother of God? This is not a safe assumption, even if the Church is named for her. And are the 14 Stations of the Cross not clearly visible to a person in a pew? That weddings and funerals give you the impression that worship is centred on Mary is even odder: I'm struggling to think of where Mary would even be mentioned in either rite, as opposed to Jesus who is constantly name-checked (variously as 'Jesus', 'Christ', 'Jesus Christ', 'Our Lord', 'the Son', 'the Lamb of God', etc). Maybe if you didn't know all these names were Jesus? But you'd still have heard the actual name 'Jesus' many times in the murmuring, and Mary hardly ever. Thanks for replying: I'm just trying to work out how the impression could have happened. 86.163.212.160 (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

See "Hyperdulia" for the official Catholic church answer (doesn't seem to have a separate article on Wikipedia, but is merged into the general veneration article). Around about the 3rd century A.D., the fact that Christianity attempted to reconcile monotheism and a prominent feminine element was an advantage in the competition with Mithraism (since Mithraism was an exclusively or almost exclusively male religion, in membership and doctrines). AnonMoos (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

(Responding to the original question) There's an interesting essay in Discover magazine from 2005: Are the Desert People Winning?. The author argues that it is the climate that influences whether a group develops a monotheistic (desert people) or polytheistic (jungle people) religion. The predominance of monotheism, then, can simply be attributed to the fact that desert people have done pretty well for themselves in the history of the world. I'm not sure how much I buy it, but it's an interesting read, anyway. Buddy431 (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's true, as Egypt was very much polytheistic in ancient times (and the surrounding peoples), as are the vast majority of tribal religions across the whole of Africa, as well as Australia, and North America. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too much impressed by the desert hypothesis; the first more or less broadly national monotheistic society in the world (as opposed to speculations among a few philosophers or small royal court circles) happened during the reigns of Hezekiah or Josiah of Judah, along the southern half of what is now known as the West-bank hill chain (i.e. the central core of ancient Judea) -- not the desert -- when the religious reforms demanded by strict monotheism advocates (or "prophets") were adopted by the royal government of the kingdom of Judah. Some prophets sometimes retreated to deserts for inspiration or refuge, but I really don't know how Judaism could reasonably be called a "desert religion", and Arabia and North Africa were flagrant haunts of polytheism before Islam. AnonMoos (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"(also responding to the original question) I'm not sure whether monotheism gained traction simply because it was popular. Judaism used to be isolated to a tiny geographical area (a part of the Levant), and in the entirety of human history, has not been popular outside that area. Christianity spread because the Roman Empire, after centuries of persecution, became Christian under Constantine the Great after he converted to Christianity. When the most powerful empire in the world and the birthplace of Western civilization officially embraces a religion, that tends to have an effect. After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the majority of Europe remained Christian. In the centuries after the Age of Discovery, Europeans didn't shy away from replacing indigenous populations in the New World with Europeans, or from forcing their religion on the natives. That's why the Americas and Australia are Christian--because their populations are mostly descended from Christian Europeans. The centuries-long world dominance by Europeans and their descendents--first by the British Empire, and now by the United States--explains the "popularity" of Christianity.

A similar set of historical circumstances explains the "popularity" of Islam. Muhammad managed to unite almost all of the Arabian peninsula under a religious polity, and even before his death, his armies were already threatening Europe. The Rashidun Caliphate, formed shortly after Muhammad's death, became the largest empire in history (up to that time) after only 30 years. After that, the Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid, Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires brought huge amounts of territory into Islamic control. Islamic caliphates once controlled not only the modern Middle East, but also northern Africa, Spain, the Balkans, Persia, and India. Not surprisingly, the areas that Islamic empires have controlled the longest are today's Muslim countries. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

People really didn't "tend to favor monotheistic religions over polytheistic ones" until the Late Antiquity historical period, and they still don't in many areas of South Asia, East Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa today. From a broad historical perspective, the rise of multi-ethnic or "cosmopolitan" empires, embracing peoples of many nationalities and backgrounds (Seleucid Empire, Roman Empire, etc.), served to somewhat undermine the individual national mythological pantheons -- the traditional public religious rituals were kind of tied to the details of the yearly agricultural cycle of one particular city-state or mostly-monoethnic realm, and the tales told of the gods were not very morally edifying, while by Roman times many residents of the cities were looking instead for individual salvation, and sometimes also a quasi-universalistic morality (then found more in philosophies than traditional religions). This led to the spread of what are sometimes called "oriental mystery religions" (worship of Isis and Osiris, Mithraism, etc.), the non-oriental mystery religion of Orphism, and also eclectic or syncretic systems such as Gnosticism, Manicheism, etc. etc. The "cult of the genius of the emperor" was somewhat encouraged in order to provide some common religious basis for the Roman empire as a whole, but it was rather superficial. In this situation, Judaism commanded respect among many for its severe monotheism and strict morality (though of course some thought that Jews were "atheists"), and at some moments it seemed not impossible that chunks of the Roman empire might convert to Judaism. However, to become a Jew, you not only had to adopt a belief-system, but also kind of renounce your old ethnicity and embrace a new ethnic identity, and follow ritual practices which were somewhat alien (in a few cases even repellent) to Greco-Roman culture (starting with circumcision) -- and the First Jewish Revolt, Second Jewish Revolt etc. added political complications. In this context, the "gentile Christianity" of Paul offered a similar monotheism and elevated morality as Judaism did, and retained the Jewish scriptural heritage, but didn't require non-Jews to renounce their ethnic group affiliations, or become circumcised, or observe detailed ritual purity requirements. And Christianity didn't have the taint of armed rebellion which Judaism acquired (though of course many in the Roman empire regarded Christians also as "atheists", and politically disloyal if they refused to worship the genius of the emperor). These are some of the reasons that Christianity spread fairly widely, especially among the urban lower classes (some estimates are that 10% of the population of the Roman empire had become Christian by 325 A.D., and a much higher percentage of the urban lower classes). AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Put very succinctly, there are some nice accidents of history that explain why a few specific religions became quite large. Population-wise, monotheism is significant primarily through Christianity and Islam. (Judaism of course gets a lot of cultural credit, but its numbers are quite small by comparison to those two.) Both of these forms of the Abrahamic religions were explicitly evangelical and imperialist — they were political as well as religious tools, and the empires they became hitched to are responsible for their high numbers worldwide. I see very little evidence to argue that monotheism vs. polytheism is particularly responsible for any particular cultural success, and I see no reason to consider monotheism more logical or progressive than polytheism. There are arguments that specific variants of religions (e.g. Calvinism or Catholicism) led to certain economic or political practices that aided various groups and various times, but it's worth noting that in anything as varied as religious beliefs, there are going to be innumerable cultural differences, and the ones that end up being useful are the ones that are going to gain dominance. (It's evolutionary, in other words.) So I'm not sure that monotheism or polytheism is really the relevant variable there. There are certainly better and more convincing ways of explaining the fates of various societies. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No doubt some aspects of religious history are dependent on contingent details of history, and one can speculate that things might have gone differently if just a few things had been changed. However, some anthropologically minded scholars of the history of religion are convinced that the meteoric rise of religions of individual salvation and universal morality (most conspicuously Christianity and Buddhism) is not an accident, but that such religions were specifically suited to thrive in cosmopolitan empires (Rome, Asoka, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is all just opining: there's no real answer to the question as the OP phrased it, but it's the kind of thing that people (such as I) do love to gab about. I'll limit myself to pointing out that monotheism dovetails nicely with 'nationism' (the conception of a people as a political unity above and beyond racial, cultural, and regional identifications). that's really at the core of monotheism, anyway - One People, One God - it's just that the idea needed a sufficiently multicultural, cosmopolitan setting to take root. In other words, you need a broad mess of conflicting cultures and beliefs that existed in something like the Roman Empire to tear the notion of 'One People' away from its natural identification with some single ethnic group and reattach it to a political abstraction. That never happened in Judaism (even to this day Jews strongly associate Judaism as an ethnicity with Judaism as a faith), and it happened in somewhat different ways in Christianity and Islam (not to mention the spread of Buddhism and Vedic Brahmanism, which lacked the iconoclastic tendencies of Abrahamic religions and so tended to absorb regional differences rather than expunge them). --Ludwigs2 04:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading Hume's Natural History of Religion. He gives some interesting and reasonable hypotheses, but they are not grounded in a rigorous method of anthropology. Many of his theories are still espoused, though. See [3] and [4] for some criticism of it. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Why the English Wikipedia is racist in some articles?

Hi: Sometimes i like to compare the different version from some articles that i read in wikipedia; i read at first in spanish (i'm colombian) and then i check the english version, that like i see it, it's the first one, the original article, and the others just translations; but some times you can find "differences" not the translation, it's what the article want to say about something or somebody, and my example today it's the article about Rubin "The Hurricane" Carter, you see in the spanish article well the article talk about his troubles with the justice and his boxing career and how he finally can go utside prison, and that's it nothing more, nothing less.

When I read the article in english, I have to read it to times, why? well because in this article Rubin Carter doesn't look like a person who had been some troubles around his life. In the english article he looks like a punk, like another negro who broke the rules and pay the price for all their faults.

And I'm asking ¿Why this is happen? at this point i'm thinking, many people around the world check wikipedia at list one time a day and they preffered to check the english version because all of them (including myself) considered better. This year i was thinking send money to wikipedia for all your efforts but i'm sorry i'm not going to do it because it's like give you a permission to write all you want, but not the truth.

And there is some other articles that do exactly the same especially all the articles that talk about something o somebody who live in The United States, or some facts that happened in the United States. so I want to ask something. "WHO WRITE WIKIPEDIA IN ENGLISH, ¿FBI?, ¿THE CIA?, ¿THE DOD? WHO?.

I'M ASKING THIS BECAUSE WHEN WE CHECK THE HISTORY FROM A POINT OF VIEW SOME OF THIS FACTS MAKE LOOK "BAD" TO THE U.S, AND I FOUND THAT THIS ARTICLES TRY TO CHANGE THE HISTORY AND THE TRUE.

¿THIS IS THE REFERENCE THAT YOU CAN SHOW TO THE REST OF THE WORLD? THAT EVEN PROYECTS LIKE WIKIPEDIA STILL TRY TO HIDE FACTS OF THE HISTORY WHEN THE U.S HAD BEEN RACIST, CRUELTY, WITH YOUR OWN CITIZENS AND SOMETIMES WITH PEOPLE FROM OTHER PLACES AROUND THE WORLD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemesis638 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The proper place for this complaint is on the Rubin Carter talk page. However, let me add that it's equally possible that people from his culture (or boxing fans) are more forgiving, perhaps too forgiving, of his shortcomings. Can you give us specific examples of racist statements in the article ? You might compare this with the OJ Simpson trial, where many whites saw overwhelming evidence of his guilt and many blacks thought he was being framed. StuRat (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Unfortunately, you are right about biases in Wikipedia, but it is very difficult to build any source without bias. Every source will have some sort of cultural/political bias, although I think Wikipedia is better than most sources (read the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the USSR, for example). There is no concerted effort to "hide facts", though; it all depends on what editors are writing the article. InverseHypercube 21:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You ask "WHO WRITE WIKIPEDIA IN ENGLISH....?" The answer. You did. Well, you haven't yet, but as a registered user there's nothing to stop you making it better. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It is sometimes true that the English article is translated into other languages but sometimes they are written completely independently and sometimes the English article starts as a translation of some other language's article. There are probably articles in the Spanish Wikipedia that have no counterpart in the English one. You could be the translator. Rmhermen (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the article and realised it was about the Hurricane of the Bob Dylan song. I would have expected more coverage of the Dylan connection, not just a short mention under "Popular culture". Did Dylan's highlighting of the case not have any effect? If not, it would be good to know why not. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to compare the POV of the en and es (translated) versions of this particular article as they differ so much in quality. The "en" version is nearly ten times the length of the "es" version and has 31 inline references in addition to four "Further reading" and two "External links" entries. The "es" version has no references at all but does have three "External links" entries and is illustrated. Where the "en" version's lede presents a good summary of the article, the "es" version's lede consists of a single sentence which translates to, "Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was born on May 6, 1937 in Paterson New Jersey, which was then one of the most racist cities throughout the United States." Perhaps the OP can suggest a higher quality "es" Wikipedia article for comparison. -- ToE 01:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Further examination suggests that the "es" version is, in its entirety, a copyright violation of this blog. (I first assumed that the blog was a verbatim copy of the es.wikipedia article, but if I understand the dates correctly, the blog preceded the related version of the article by two years.) I am now rather skeptical of public domain status of this commons photo, as it is sourced from the blog as well. -- ToE 02:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the article should be tagged for deletion in the Spanish wikipedia. With a thank you to the OP for inadvertently bringing this to our attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be sufficient to revert the 19 may 2011 edit which copied over the blog, restoring the earlier version which is about twice the length of the current "en" article's lede. Perhaps, with help from the work already done on our well cited article, the OP would like to build up a more complete and NPOV "es" version. -- ToE 20:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)