Humanities desk
< January 11	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 12

Old coin

I have a coin with stamped inscription as follows: maximilianus 1493 pot max I Inv caes, in the center is a mans image. The backside is identical to the front, only in reverse, caused be what appears to have been hammer stamping. A spot of silver is in the backside.72.86.23.48 (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a coin (or a replica of a coin) of Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor ("Maximilianus potentissimus maximus et invictissimuus caesar" is presumably what the inscription means). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the description, the disc of metal has been hammered over a hardened die, in a technique called repoussé, which gives the effect of an intaglio on the reverse. Not a coin.--Wetman (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

poorest city in USA

Is Buffalo, New York the only city that is the poorest in the nation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.34 (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo and Antelope roam the List of the poorest places in the United States, but neither is at home at the top of its respective range. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, there can be only one "poorest" city, whatever it is. "Poorest" means "the most poor," and when applied to a singular object (like a city) it means there can only be one. There are a group of the poorest cities, but only one of them is strictly the poorest. Just trying to clarify the terminology here, as it seems crucial to the question; not trying to be pedantic. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not trying, but you did anyhow. 207.235.117.115 (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alas. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is certainly unclear to me. It isn't being pedantic when one is trying to make sense of what you're asking. Corvus cornix_talk 19:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very unclear question. How is the person defining "city"? What is poorest: the city or the population of the city? How is poor defined: net income or gross income or net assets or total property value...? Without having a great deal more information, the best answer is: Look at the List of the poorest places in the United States. -- kainaw ™ 20:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 100 largest metro areas in America, the one with the highest poverty rate in 2009 was McAllen, Texas, on the Mexican border, with a poverty rate of 35.4%. The Buffalo area had a poverty rate of 14%, near the national average of 14.3%. ([1]). The lowest poverty rate was in the Washington, DC area (7.5%). Buffalo city itself had a poverty rate of 28.8%, which is lower than several other large cities, including Rochester. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that still doesn't explain the question, as to how more than one city can be the poorest. Corvus cornix_talk 02:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above "poorest" has many different meanings, so there will be many different answers, though some will coincide. Dbfirs 09:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Organizations that might assist with funeral expenses.

Hello: I am not soliciting, but asking one basic question. Can anyone who may be reading this, offer any suggestions or solutions regarding a debt with an undertaker? I am in the Northeastern part of Pennsylvania. I have visited many sites; none of which could help. Thank you, HJP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.86.43.133 (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the undertaker? Presumably, he'd like to get paid by somebody, he may have some recommendations of such charities. You can't be the first person ever who had trouble paying his bills, he may have dealt with others in your situation and may be able to recommend a charity to you. --Jayron32 06:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Way? 71.198.176.22 (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the deceased was well and truly indigent, and has no funds with which to pay for funeral expenses, you might consider calling the city in which he/she died. Some cities offer assistance for indigents, ranging from a paid cremation to burial in a city-owned plot at the local cemetery. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's last will and testament?

Where might I find a copy of Albert Einstein's last will and testament? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] might give you a copy for free, since it's how they make so much money from all his other documents. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it on the Web, but if it's worth $5 to you you could buy it here. --Antiquary (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising that a commercial enterprise lists it and a comprehensive scholarly listing does not.

Thank you. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerian King's Palaces

Hello, my question is regarding the Sumerian King's palaces. I am asking for a summary of what a palace consisted of, including the rooms and where certain rooms are. If you are able to, I would like a mapped out picture of the palace. As you can see, I am doing a project on this subject and I am having a lot of difficulty finding resources to rely on. I have found several books and a few websites but I need more information. Thank you for the help in advance.Kit kat4314 (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The kings of Sumer lived so long ago, it may be hard to identify specific buildings as a kingly residence, or know for certain their layout. The article Uruk, a major Sumerian city, does have some nice archeological maps, however, so you can get a general sense of how buildings were layed out. --Jayron32 06:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can recommend Seton Lloyd, The Archaeology of Mesopotamia. It was the standard textbook for the archeology of Mesopotamia 101 back when I had did that course, and it has a lot of nice ground plans of palaces and temples. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a ground plan of the Palace of Ur-Nammu (Wikipedia article sadly lacking). --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, that looks like a map for some RPG - you know, with rooms 29 and 37 being boss chambers and 33 and 41 their respective treasure rooms. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was the interior in the dark all the time? I cannot see any windows. Did they have skylights? It reminds me of the labyrinth with the Minotaur in it. 92.24.181.36 (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think room no. 2 and 7 are open courtyards, which would provide light to the adjacent rooms. Some Mesopotamian (and Syrian iirc) palaces contains remnants of stairways, and the massive walls as can be seen on the ground plan, would most likely have been able to carry at least one extra floor (possibly made of lighter materials). But unfortunately on account of the state of the remains, only ground floors have been found, so that question cannot be answered conclusively. It is likely that some of the centrally placed rooms contained skylights that, like the court yards, would provide lighting to the adjacent rooms. But I agree that overall the Mesopotamian palaces do not look particularly inviting, it seems they reserved their finer architecture for their temples and ziggurats. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the surviving parts are just the cellars. 92.24.181.36 (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is firmly established that it is the ground floor, based on its position in the stratigraphy and comparisons with the positions of the other buildings in the temple precinct of Ur. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London capital city status

Please could you tell me when did London officially become the Capital City of the United Kingdom and which monarch signed this agreement? Iain1955 (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read History of London? It says London was already the capital of Roman Britain. Perhaps it simply remained the capital over the ages, without any official royal proclamation declaring it so. Pais (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it became the capital of England. The interesting question is: when England united with Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain, was London ever proclaimed/decreed as the capital of the new kingdom, or was it simply just assumed that it would continue as the capital, relegating Edinburgh to the capital of a sub-national entity? I wonder how the Scots felt about this; after all, it was supposed to be a merging of two states to form a new one, not one conquering the other, wasn't it? At least in theory? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Then it became the capital of England" is not quite correct. As the history article says, the town was abandoned for a period after the Romans left, but then grew again as a port. It wasn't the "capital" of any kingdom for a period - it was on the border between Essex and Wessex, and was also contested over the centuries with Mercia. The historic capital of Wessex was Winchester, but bear in mind that, at that time and for several centuries afterwards, the king and court travelled around between different palaces, rather than being based in one place. London came under Mercian control in the early 8th century, but part of Wessex by the early 10th century. "Although it faced competition for political preeminence in the united Kingdom of England from the traditional West Saxon centre of Winchester, London's size and commercial wealth brought it a steadily increasing importance as a focus of governmental activity. King Aethelstan held many meetings of the witan in London and issued laws from there, while King Æthelred the Unready issued the Laws of London there in 978.....Following the extinction of Cnut's dynasty in 1042 English rule was restored under Edward the Confessor. He was responsible for the foundation of Westminster Abbey and spent much of his time at Westminster, which from this time steadily supplanted the City itself as the centre of government." When England and Scotland were united in 1707 as the Kingdom of Great Britain, ~~London~~ Westminster became the ~~capital~~ centre of government of the united kingdom (lower case), and later of the United Kingdom (upper case). Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Britain stopped south of Hadrian's wall Antoine's wall a little further north was never settled by the Romans. King Aethelstan was killed in Scotland by the Scots. I have read the treaty of the union 1707 but find no where the proclamation of London being made the Capital City of the united kingdom(lower case). I also cannot find any legal documentation that states London as The Capital City of the United Kingdom (upper Case), it is legal documentation stating the the claim of London that officially made London the Capital of the United Kingdom? 86.156.124.238 (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that Aethelstan died in Malmesbury - not Scotland. If the question is "when did London (or Westminster) become the centre of government of a unified kingdom containing both England and Scotland?", the answer is in these pages - when a unified Parliament of Great Britain was established by the decisions of both the English and Scottish Parliaments in 1707. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the concern that you do not find the phrase "London is the Capital City of the United Kingdom", welcome to the British legal and political system. Anything which just has been since Time Immemorial is sorta just accepted as existing without the need for formal declaration, see Constitution of the United Kingdom; it's all "written down", just not as a formal document. The capital status of London is like that; you can find laws which make it clear that London is the capital, but like many things, the Government has not found the need to declare what everyone already knows is true. Formally declaring, by acclimation, that "London is the Capital City of the United Kingdom" would be akin to formally declaring that the sky is blue... it does not change reality to formally declare what is already plainly obvious. Also, the "center of government" is not synonymous with capital city. There are several countries, notably the Netherlands and Bolivia where the seat of government is NOT the same city as the (constitutionally declared) capital. You could even claim this is true for the UK, where "London proper" (the City of London) is properly the Capital while Westminster is the seat of government. --Jayron32 15:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think I'm right in saying that there's no law to say that the Union Jack is our national flag, or that God Save the Queen is our national anthem. Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the City of London is the capital, is it? Per this discussion, "London" is the de facto capital, within which Westminster is the centre of government, but I don't know any references that say that the City, per se, is the capital. Am I wrong? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How modern is the distinction between London and London proper? Bear in mind that London hasn't had suburbs for all that long, relatively speaking, and even Southwark used to be part of London proper. My point is that if "London" was the capital at the time of the Act of Union, it would presumably have been the City that was meant. As to what the capital is now, either it's still the City since it always was, or alternatively it's ill-defined because the distinction postdates the designation as the capital. (This last part is all out of my own reasoning and not references, fwiw.) Marnanel (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where the idea of the City of London as capital in 1707 has come from. Parliament was at Westminster, and the Queen at that time lived at Kensington Palace. Both were within (or adjoining) the built-up area called "London", but both were outside the City of London boundary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And before that, it was Whitehall which is in London but also well outside the City. In the middle ages, the Crown and the City were often at loggerheads over who had the power to do what, and even today, when the Queen processes into the City, she has to stop at Temple Bar and touch the pommel of a ceremonial sword before she can enter. Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above, maybe you missed it, but the "Capital" is NOT synonymous with the "Seat of Government". Amsterdam is defined by statute as the official and legally designated capital of the Netherlands, but the Seat of Government of said country has always been The Hague; Amsterdam has never housed any functions of the national government, as far as I can tell. Likewise, in Bolivia Sucre is the designated capital, while all government functions have moved to La Paz. Historically, the France of the late Ancien Regime had its seat of government at Versailles, though Paris retained its status as France's capital. --Jayron32 18:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know that. It doesn't answer the question of why people think that the very tightly defined "City of London" was the capital, when there's no evidence that it ever was. But, de facto, "London", the wider built-up area, is the capital, and has been since Saxon times. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the capital of what? See my question above about what happened when England and Scotland merged in 1707. There was one country with a capital in London, and another country with a capital in Edinburgh. These countries became one new country. Someone, somewhere, had to make a decision about where the capital of the new country would be, and announce that decision to the general populace. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone have to announce where the new capital was? Could it not be that the fact that the new parliament of Great Britain sat in Westminster meant that London came to be seen as the capital of the UK? Stanstaple (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) They most certainly did not become one new country! They remained two countries under one crown even after the Acts of Union 1707 and Edinburgh remained the capital city of Scotland. In the subsequent 3 centuries the locations from which various powers of governance have been exercised has varied (and will doubtless continue to do so in the future), and latterly many have returned to Edinburgh with a reconvened Scottish Parliament, but the Union of England (together with the previously-conquered Wales) and Scotland, and later (latterly Northern) Ireland as the United Kingdom was never a matter of "merging" the four countries involved into one country. They have always remained four countries, each with its own capital, united under one crown. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stanstaple is correct. I don't know when the emphasis on the word "capital" came in, but there was certainly no need for anyone to "announce" it in 1707, or at any later date. It just was, or became. More relevantly, it was both the centre of government, and the centre of the monarchy, in the united kingdom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really know when or if all of the centuries-old capitals were "announced"? Obviously that had to be done for a new nation such as the USA, or when the capital changes. But there's a fair amount of de facto in history. The idea of a press release is relatively modern. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bugs. I think the OP and/or some of the other contributors miss the point that things like "designating" a capital city are a relatively recent invention (or adoption) in the Western world. That London is the "capital" of the entity from which it is ruled derives from custom and usage rather than some proclamation.

In fact, under a Western conception of statehood, a state does not even need to have a capital city or a single seat of government and its actual or symbolic government functions can be nomadic or dispersed.

The situation is different in Asia, where from a very early time a regime must necessarily have a name and a seat (usually expected to be a walled city). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding states without a single seat of government and dispersed government functions, see South Africa. --Jayron32 14:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actualization of disgust

Dears, I am doing a research work on the actualization of the emotional concept "disgust" in modern English fiction. Please, provide a list of contemporary English fiction (novels)men and weman writers (preferably of those who are still alive)including lists of their works.Give a prompt where and how to download books free-of-charge. Thanks.Uliana stg (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what "the actualization of the emotional concept 'disgust'" is supposed to mean, but I doubt you will find a place where you can download contemporary English fiction free of charge, at least not legally. When you do get a list of titles together, I suggest going to the library. If they don't have all the titles you need, ask them about interlibrary loan. Pais (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can download e-books free of charge legally from many public libraries in Canada in the US and probably anywhere else that has public libraries, so if you have a card at your local library, check out their website. 207.81.30.213 (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you were told when you asked the same question a couple of days ago, there is no link where you can just download modern fiction books free of charge. They are all copyrighted, and you are supposed to pay for the books. As for lists, I found Category:American fiction writers, which you might start with; but it is very very incomplete. (Not that American fiction writers are the complete answer to Uliana stg's question, but that's the only relevant category I found after 20 seconds of searching.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese style toilet and toilet paper

Being from the West, I have never used a Japanese style toilet. I know it squirts water in your you-know-what, but what happens after that? Do you dry your you-know-what? Does it blow air there? Does it make toilet paper redundant?Quest09 (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for "How to use a Japanese toilet" provides many results... including YouTube videos. Given where I am, I'm not going to preview them for you... sorry. Dismas|^(talk) 12:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these are about squat toilets. I was interested in these new high-tech toilets. Quest09 (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Toilets in Japan (WHAAOE!)? Incidentally, there's nothing uniquely Japanese about bidets. I imagine they're used there much like they are in the West. Pais (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(multiple damn ECs, grumble grumble)I lived in Japan for two years, and I only used the washlet maybe two or three times. It's not like all of their toilets are like that - a large part of public toilets are squat toilets, another large part of public toilets are regular siphon toilets like you are probably used to, and washlets are mainly reserved for toilets in private homes, per preference - some people don't like them. Having said that, yes, you can dry yourself afterwards with toilet paper, you just don't need as much, or (depending on the model) you can blowdry yourself, and in either case you walk away guaranteed to be clean. Oh, and there's really no need for the "you-know-what"s - we're all adults here, we can manage to see the word "ass" and not bleed out of our eyes. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: If you are planning on going there, chances are you won't even get to use one, unless you stay in someone's home or in a high level hotel. In either case, you can still just opt out of using the high tech capabilities of the washlet entirely and use the toilet like any other toilet and clean yourself with paper afterwards. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not all adults here. This is a family web-site. Anyway, is there any sort of OAR in these high-tech variants? Quest09 (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Washlet says, "A sensor may exist that detects human sitting presence to prevent firing water when a person is not present at the seat." It doesn't say whether the sensor is optical or weight-sensitive, though. Pais (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does "family" imply the presence of non-adults? Everyone in my family is an adult. Pais (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I found the title a bit misleading. "Japanese toilet" suggests squat toilet to me, since that's how they are labelled in Japan - "Western toilet" vs "Japanese toilet" means sitting vs squatting. As has been pointed out, there's nothing uniquely Japanese about butt-washing implements - I found bidets in continental Europe as mystifying as water-squirting toilets in Japan.

Whether you encounter a squirting toilet and how much technology it comes with depends on what types of toilets (in the sense of "bathrooms") you will encounter - as TomorrowTime pointed out. My experience with squirting toilets in Japanese hotels range from a conventional toilet modified with a simple squirter, to something with a whole electronic control panel, which did include water squirting and also blowdrying. One function I found strange was playing the sound of flushing water (without any actual water being flushed) - apparently to mask any noise from your bodily functions. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure most children learn the word "ass/arse" very soon after encountering their first playground. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the majority of these extra functions are optional. If you just want to use a washlet as a standard sit-down flush toilet, without touching the fancy buttons on the control panel, you can do. No, toilet paper is not redundant, and appears to be provided even when there is a squirt option (in public and hotel room washlets certainly). Some offer a simple squirt, some a choice of front or rear squirt, some a blow-dry function, and some even a warmed seat. The electronic "flushing" noise option I encountered only in public washlets, to enable you to mask any embarrassing noises from the person in the next cubicle. My experience was that it was a separate piece of equipment from the washlet itself, operated via a button on the cubicle wall rather than on the washlet control panel, the latter being usually round about seat level at the side of the toilet pan. I'm a convert, once I got over the minor unease of sitting on something filled with water and wired up to the mains, and was most disappointed that Father Christmas didn't supply one with my name on this year. Ka renjc 17:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrowtime, you are mistaken, they are much more common than you think. I have never used a toilet seat anywhere in Japan that did not have an electric system. All airports public toilets, nice hotels, workplaces, homes etc. have them. To answer the question from the OP, you are supposed to use the toilet paper to dry yourself out. --Lgriot (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, could be we just moved in different strata - I was there as an exchange student, and the student dorm toilets or the toilets in the cheap eateries I went to or the ones in convenience stores sure didn't have them. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key word in Lgriot's post there is nice. There are certainly non-nice hotels and other places that have non-squirting toilets. Many public toilets also lack the seat warming function (shocking, I know).--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction and embarrassment

I am trying to understand something which has puzzled me for a very long time.

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-01-10/News_and_notes#In_brief, the second item is the following.

"Four essays every Wikimedian should read!": On her personal blog, the Wikimedia Foundation's Executive Director Sue Gardner recommended Four essays every Wikimedian should read! from Less Wrong (a rationalist community blog co-founded by Eliezer Yudkowsky, see also the entry LessWrong on RationalWiki). As described by Gardner, the four postings are about "collaboration, dissent, how groups can work together productively". In another posting, she described her recent travels in India.

The second essay is "Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People - Less Wrong" at http://lesswrong.com/lw/372/defecting_by_accident_a_flaw_common_to_analytical/, and includes the following passages (which I have not corrected).

--(beginning of first quoted passage)--

If you're at a meeting and someone gives a presentation and asks if anyone has questions, and you ask point-blank, "But we don't have the budget or skills to do that, how would we overcome that?" - then, that seems like a highly reasonable question. It's probably very intelligent.

What normal people would consider, though, is how this affects the perception of everyone in the room. To put it bluntly -it makes the presenter look very bad.

That's okay, if you decide that that's an acceptable part of what you're doing. But you now have someone who is likely to actively work to undermine you going forwards. A minor enemy. Just because you asked a question casually without thinking about it.

Interestingly, there's about a thousand ways you could be diplomatic and tactful to address the key issue you have - budgeting/staffing - without embarrassing the presenter. You could take them aside quietly later and express your concern. You could phrase it as, "This seems like an amazing idea and a great presentation. I wonder how we could secure the budgeting and get the team for it, because it seems like it'd be a profitable if we do, and it'd be a shame to miss this opportunity."

Just by phrasing it that way, you make the presenter look good even if the option can't be funded or staffed. Instead of expressing your concern as a hole in their presentation, you express it as a challenge to be overcome by everyone in the room. Instead of your underlying point coming across as "your idea is unfeasible," it comes across as, "You've brought this good idea to us, and I hope we're smart enough to make it work."

If the real goal is just to make sure budgeting and funding is taken care of, there's many ways to do that without embarrassing and making an enemy out of the presenter.

Defecting by accident is lacking the awareness, tact, and skill to realize what the secondary effects of your actions are and act accordingly to win.

--(end of first quoted passage)--

--(beginning of second quoted passage)--

You might not realize it, but in almost all of human civilization it's considered insulting to just point out something wrong someone is doing without any preface, softening, or making it clear why you're doing it.

It's taken for granted in some blunt, "say it like it is" communities, but it's usually taken as a personal attack and a sign of animosity in, oh, 90%+ of the rest of civilization.

In these so-called "normal people's societies," correcting them in front of their peers will be perceived as trying to lower them and make them look stupid.Thus, they'll likely want to retaliate against you, or at least not cooperate with you.

Now, there's a time and place to do this anyways. Sometimes there's an emergency, and you don't have time to take care of people's feelings, and just need to get something done. But surfing the internet is not that time.

I'm going to take some example replies from a recent post I made to illustrate this. There's always a risk in doing this of not being objective, but I think it's worth it because (1) I tend to read every reply to me and carefully reflect on it for a moment, (2) I understand exactly my first reactions to these comments, and (3) I won't have to rehash criticisms of another person. Take a grain of salt with you since I'm looking at replies to myself originally, but I think I can give you some good examples.

The first thing I want to do is take a second to mention that almost everyone in the entire world gets emotionally invested in things they create, and are also a little insecure about their creations. It's extraordinarily rare that people don't care what others' think of their writing, science, or art.

Criticism has good and bad points. Great critics are rare, but they actually make works of creation even in critique. A great critic can give background, context, and highlight a number of relevant mainstream and obscure works through history that the piece they're critiquing reminds them of.

--(end of second quoted passage)--

When I think of a correction being described as making someone look bad, I think of it as making someone look imperfect, but if everyone already knows that everyone is imperfect, then it only confirms what everyone already knows. Why do some people think of it as making someone look bad?

When I think of people being described as being a little insecure about their creations, I think about the multiple gifts that each person has from birth, and which a person can develop according to such things as interest and opportunities. If a person is secure about his or her successes, then why should there be a sense of insecurity about areas of less success?

My knowledge of different languages and my skill in using them vary widely from my first language, English, to others, where I know only a few words or even only a few characters, and to the majority, whose very existence is unknown to me. Probably for any level of language proficiency, from complete ignorance to native fluency, I can find one or more languages where I can relate to that level of proficiency. If I or others find a mistake in my use of a language, even English, that just confirms that I am imperfect. (Sincerely disagreeing with a "correction" is another matter.)

Linguistic ability is only one area of expertise. People vary widely in their respective areas of expertise, such as mechanics, computer software, computer hardware, mathematics, science, and geography. Why does linguistic ability seem, more than most areas of expertise, to be a matter for embarrassment when someone is corrected? Is it because a person's use of a language is on public display? A person's clothing is on public display. Do most people associate public correction of one's clothing with embarrassment?

When I think of someone embarrassed by a correction, I think of someone who has possibly received too little encouragement and too much discouragement from parents, teachers, employers, and their own experiences. Are most people living from day to day with a perpetually low self-esteem?

Please help me to find logically consistent answers to my questions.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My WP:OR indicates that most people are indeed embarrassed by public 'correction' of their clothing. I think you may be on to something regarding people being embarrassed by linguistic errors because language forms a large part of our public persona. To me, the key of the quoted work is that there are many different cultural norms for correction, and you will probably be happier and more productive if you try to align your habits with the culture you are interacting with. For instance, at certain academic conferences, framing and softening criticism 'too much' could lead to others being annoyed with you for wasting their time by not getting to the point succinctly. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there will be a degree of self-esteem in play, but it's not a simple cause-effect relationship: being constantly or disproportionately criticised also lowers self-esteem. You say, "When I think of someone embarrassed by a correction, I think of someone who has possibly received too little encouragement and too much discouragement from parents, teachers, employers, and their own experiences.", which suggests that actually you are aware that people need a good balance of encouragement in comparison to discouragement. When you criticise people bluntly, you are joining the ranks of people who have discouraged this person without encouraging them. And I say this as someone who has marvelled at the almost magical effects of swapping negative criticism for positive comments, containing a correction if necessary. Few realisations have had such a dramatic effect on my life experience!

But really, I think you need to think about this differently. Most people, in their daily lives, aren't really trying to do everything as close to objectively perfectly as possible. Humans are social creatures, and mostly people want to receive positive social feedback and want to believe that other people view them positively (although what qualifies as 'positively' is going to vary: a nice person? a competent person? a person not to cross?). This is what the quote "What normal people would consider, though, is how this affects the perception of everyone in the room." is getting at. (Almost) everyone else is playing a social game, and they all assume you are playing it too. When you only bring up bad things about a person, without bringing up good things, especially if you make it personal, that is viewed as an attack on that person, and an attempt to make them look bad to everyone else. Half the weasely phrasing you use is supposed to be making the comments as un-personal as possible, and the rest is adding some balance so it doesn't look like you're just trying to bring someone down. If you like, the standard assumption is that you are playing the game. If you do not want to play the game, and do not want other people to treat you like you are playing the game, you need to make sure nothing you say or do can be perceived as an opening volley! An entirely or mostly negative comment, or an unnecessarily negative comment (such as commenting on spelling when someone is trying to discuss a new type of engine), is viewed as an attack within the game. A comment that attaches negative attributes to a specific person is viewed as an attack within the game. Since you do not want to play, do not do these things. Simply stating that you are not playing is not enough, as that is considered a move within the game! 86.163.214.50 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably read her essay(s) before replying, but it sounds as if she's either read or come to the same conclusions as Don Maruska, whose lecture is part of the Stanford Leadership classes (Module III). His point (and perhaps her point) was that when a number of people have to come together to make an important decision, even small disappointments or losses of face can prevent the group from functioning properly if the group isn't careful. It's not so much that a person thinks "That jerk embarrassed me, I'll stick it to him the next chance I get..." (though that does happen), it's the lack of further input that takes place when someone feels that their ideas aren't being met with due respect. Yes, there's a touch of people being too sensitive, but it's more about how most people are somewhat out of their element when mixed into a large group like that. People easily become defensive when they're uncomfortable. Ever told a joke that didn't go over well? No matter how different or funnier your next joke might have been, you're not very likely to tell it if nobody laughed at the last one. Not a big deal, but what if the group was supposed to come up with a bunch of jokes - your reticence could endanger the success of the whole enterprise. So, it becomes necessary to make sure you keep telling - for the good of the group, even if it takes more hand-holding than you might think. Matt Deres (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]