Humanities desk
< April 13	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 15 >

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.

April 14

Women on Facebook

I'm not sure if this should be here of the Computing reference desk but here it goes. Is there any psychological reason why on Facebook girls seem to be more active than boys? For example, on my homepage most, if not almost all of the statuses and pictures are by girls, and they seem to be more likely to have more than a thousand friends on Facebook than boys. I also have a lot of male friends but they don't post as often as my female friends. Why is this the case? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of research in the educational area that shows that females are more verbally inclined than males. And in the teenage years (when Facebook is BIG) they are significantly more advanced in verbal skills than males. All that suggests that "playing" on Facebook may be more attractive to them than males, who tend to prefer shoot-em-up type games. As a high school teacher I'm throwing some of my own OR in there, but your observations agree with mine anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know my youngest son! Whilst my daughter is fairly active, my son surpasses her in the sheer amount of time he spends on Facebook.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women tend to be more social than men. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case wouldn't they be going out more, thereby spending less time in front of a computer screen?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because before the advent of the personal computer, people talked on the phone or wrote letters to each other. That's still social interaction. Not being physically present has nothing to do with it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Being physically present is essential for social contact. I agree that females tend to write letters and talk on the phone more frequently than males, but I believe the latter spend more time in front of their PC screens.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this video filmed?

I'm wondering where this was filmed. It looks like some sort of debate cross-examination type thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lixYEZ9M_dU&feature=endscreen&NR=1

--128.54.178.202 (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page states that it is from the local Boston TV debate show of the 70s, 'The Advocates'. This particular episode was filmed in 1978. I can't find any information immediately on the venue used, but I suspect somewhere in the Boston area, maybe even MIT itself, or more likely in some TV studio. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Muslims think that God is dead?

There is a word for a creature who will never generate another intentional message. You know that you can instantly reject any new message from an author if and only if that author is dead. While we may in the future discover previous writings of William Shakespeare, he will not be writing any more new plays.

So when we have the very last words from any creature, then we say that creature is dead. The reports of the death of Mark Twain are not an exaggeration.

If and only if the Koran is the final and unchanging word of Allah, then Allah must be dead.

Why do Muslims worship a God that they think is dead? (Allah: 13.something billion BC to 632 AD, R.I.P.) Hcobb (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find us just one, independent, reliable source that says Muslims think their god is dead. Without that this reads like provocative nonsense. (Your original research and synthesis don't count.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quran#Significance_in_Islam: and view the Quran as God's final revelation to humanity.

Where else are somebody's last words not equivalent to their being dead? Is there a single counter-example please? Hcobb (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who's living as a hermit or recluse. Someone who believes the world is going to end imminently and decides to face it alone. Someone who's shut themselves away to do important work. Someone suffering from demential, or in a coma. (Of course since God exists outside time, it doesn't make sense to think of God as ceasing to exist, or of stopping doing anything. His final message was composed before the world existed. God had already done everything logically, if not temporally, prior to the existence time.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty creative to reach that conclusion on the basis of a snippet of information.

Tawhid has some detail on the nature of Deity in Islam.

ALR (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hcobb -- The philosophy of Occasionalism says that God is constantly intervening in the universe from moment to moment, so that nothing in the world can be the cause or effect of anything else in the world, but rather everything is directly caused by God. This philosophy was prevalent for a number of centuries in the Muslim world (some have said to the detriment of the development of science there), and sure doesn't sound like "God is dead" theorizing to me... AnonMoos (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mormons do believe (I think) that God was once a man. Never heard about Muslim thinking that Allah is dead however. We Catholics believe that God was alive, God is alive, and God will remain alive and to my knowledge, Jews and Muslims do as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Death of God, there are some Christian theologians and at least one rabbi who believe so. --Michael Fleischhacker (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this verse of the Qur'an. Two out of the three translations say that Allah answers prayers (the other translation just says he listens to them, but I expect there are other verses where that translation does mention 2-way communication with him). The Qur'an may be intended as the last sacred text to be revealed, but it isn't a belief of Islam that Allah no longer communicates with his creation. --Tango (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HCobb, your initial deduction is false; there are plenty of authors who have lived a long time after writing their last works. And deities are not generally expected to die (I'm aware of exceptions, naturally) - so you'd need to produce more specific evidence that any significant number of Muslims hold the view that you ascribe to them.

I'd also distinguish between general and special revelation. (I studied theology at university, and when I discussed this with a Muslim colleague, he broadly agreed with this approach.) The Qu'ran is held to be the last special revelation, but general revelation includes the whole of creation. A believer will see the hand of God in the deeds ascribed to the Prophet in the Hadith, and in the scattering of galaxies throughout the heavens.

A similar concept arises in Roman Catholicism: the prophetic era is said to have ended with the death of the last of the Apostles (which is why no-one is canonised just for having visions or making prophecies these days), but God still speaks to people privately in prayer, and the interpretation of Scripture constitutes a continuing unfolding of the message from God that it contains.

But honestly, you should not ascribe views and beliefs to people that they do not, in fact, hold. Muslims simply do not say what you have said they say. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... no-one is canonised just for having visions or making prophecies these days: Jacinta and Francisco Marto were beatified in 2000. True, they made no prophecies, but they did no other good works of any significance either, because they died at the ages of 9 and 10 respectively. They were beatified for no other reason than receiving a series of apparitions of the Virgin Mary at Fátima, Portugal in 1917. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume (although I can't confirm) that the children of Fatima could only have been beatified if a miracle had been attributed to them after death; certainly they will only be canonised if another miracle is attributed to them. But I concur that this process substantially exists to legitimate the popular acclaim in which these visionaries are held. The official line about the end of the age of prophecy is regarded as fine in theory but useless in practice, as far as I can tell; devotion to visionaries and prophets (at Lourdes, Medjugorje, and elsewhere as well as at Fatima) is petty widespread. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the key point the OP is missing is that in Islam, as in most of the Abrahamic religions, god is omnipotent, omniscient & omnipresent therefore there's no reason why they can't reveal their final unchanging word whenever and whereever they want/ed to. Trying to apply human concepts to such a being is a bit silly, but in any case as others have pointed out, there's no reason why a person final word can't be long before they die (the only thing is we won't actually know for sure until they either die or lose so much brain function that it's close to the same thing). Nil Einne (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because God allegedly doesn't talk to humans anymore doesn't mean He's dead. Maybe He simply prefers talking to Angels. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Austen: an Aspie???

Why is Jane Austen often included on lists of people specolated to have had Asperger's? Did she get the facial expressions wrong in her novels? Wiwaxia (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

she was a lady novelist. --84.1.177.43 (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does being a "lady novelist" have to do with Asperger's? Dismas|^(talk) 01:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe somebody once diagnosed Darcy as having Asperger's; I don't really understand why Jane Austen herself would be called that... AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a serious problem with diagnosing dead people, incapable of being diagnosed by qualified medical professionals, as having some disorder, disease, or other medically defined distinction (whatever lavel you want to use) like Aspergers. If they have not been diagnosed, then it is completely unsubstantiated opinion, and has no purpose in being perpetuated, i.e. don't say its true and don't pass it on since there's no way it can be confirmed as true. --Jayron32 02:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Painting of a galloping black horse, nude female rider

In Na'arah (Am Oved, 2009), the second published volume of her memoirs, children's author and illustrator Alona Frankel describes the painting that most impressed her in post-WWII visits (ca. 1946–1949) to "all the museums in Krakow": a wildly galloping black horse ridden by a "very nude" woman. As my initial Google images search was fruitless, I'd appreciate guidance in identifying this painting. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is this painting? File:Podkowiński-Szał_uniesień-MNK.jpg (article Frenzy of Exultations) - Lindert (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite likely! The description matches, and according to the page, the painting - originally (and sensationally) displayed in Warsaw - was given to the National Museum in Krakow in 1904. If I have the opportunity to confirm with the author (who's speaking at my workplace next week), I'd like to add this information to her Wikipedia pages. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware that the author's verbal confirmation is not enough for the information to be included in Wikipedia. You would need that fact to have been published in a reliable source. Rojomoke (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bramladesh

Brampton, Canada is called Bramladesh because of Bangladeshi population there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.207 (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New year in the Malayalam Calendar

When does the year begin in the Malayalam Calendar followed in the Indian state of Kerala? Is it on Vishu or on Onam?

Gulielmus estavius (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"All science fiction is about evolution"

It's a paraphrase of an idea I heard or read many years ago - was it Brian Aldiss who said it? Can anyone find the original quote for me? Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of science fiction credits "Science fiction is hard to define because it is the literature of change and it changes while you are trying to define it." to Tom Shippey. That article has a rather dissimilar definition from Aldiss. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how Flash Gordon, for example, has anything to do with evolution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, Baseball Bugs - I was tempted to say Flash Gordon was fantasy, but that's a cop out; and Terry Pratchett said sf is fantasy with rivets painted on... Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that truism makes a lot more sense. And I could argue that not only is all fiction actually fantasy, a significant amount of "fact" may well be "fiction" - although that's another story. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Lowe used to say that there was a small box within fantasy called science fiction, that dealt with the scientifically plausible, and an even smaller box within that called mainstream fiction, that dealt with worlds that happened to exist. --ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes perfect sense to bigpicturists like me. Any mathematician can confirm that the natural numbers we work with every day (1, 2, 3 ...), of which there are an infinite number, are a fantastically small sub-set of real numbers. There's an infinite number of them too, but they in turn are a fantastically small sub-set of complex numbers. In general, all numbers have an "imaginary" component, and most are purely "imaginary". The natural and other real numbers we think are terribly important to human life are simply an infinitesimally small group of special cases where the imaginary component just happens to be equal to zero. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

what makes someone gay?

What makes someone gay?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it true that gay people used to be considered inferior? Are they still considered inferior? If not, how did they catch up? 188.156.114.13 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not binary states, nor are they mutually exclusive. Most heterosexual people exhibit some degree of homosexuality. Our article on Kinsey scale covers this.

Sexual orientation is determined by both genetic factors and environmental factors. From our article on Biology and sexual orientation: "Overall, the environment shared by twins (including familial and societal attitudes) explained 0–17% of the choice of sexual partner, genetic factors 18–39% and the unique environment 61–66%."99.245.35.136 (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the second question? 188.156.114.13 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm really not geared towards talking about politics. Just thinking about some of the bigotry people commits towards minorities makes my blood boil. The other editors can better help you with your second question. I'm more than happy to help you with the scientific facts. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You probably ought to read our articles on LGBT History. However, in short:

(a) No-one knows for sure. People don't consciously choose their sexual orientation, but we've not been able to figure out any provable external or genetic cause either.

(b) 'Inferior' is a complex idea. Same-sex sexual behaviour used to be much more widely prohibited than it is now (in the Western world). Those who practised it were stigmatised as 'deviant' and so on; some were imprisoned or even executed. But the idea of specific more-or-less fixed sexual orientation is a mid-19th-century invention. Before that, there was no clear concept of 'gay people'. It would be fair to say that many in the early to mid 20th century regarded gay people as inferior or defective; such views were certainly not limited to (e.g.) Nazis.

(c) Gay rights have come forward by leaps and bounds in recent years. This has been prompted by somewhat greater acceptance, and has in turn prompted further acceptance. The specific idea that anyone is inferior is out of favour at present anyway. So even those who are firmly opposed to same-sex sexual activity may couch their views in different terminology. That's not to say that such views are unknown nowadays; I've had direct experience of them. But they're rarer, to be sure.

(d) I'd say that it isn't gay people who've somehow 'caught up'. Rather, society has removed the false comparison they might have been expected to catch up to. By treating people as intrinsically of equal moral dignity (regardless of their obviously different, diverse and arguably unequal characteristics), we remove the concept of 'inferiority' in the sense that it has been applied to marginalised groups. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The assumption is arguably wrong, as is the question. Homosexuality was shunned in some societies (but in no means by all - see e.g. Sacred Band of Thebes). Homosexuals had no catching up to do - social perception had to catch up to reality. And, to a reasonable degree, it did, at least in modern democracies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the major reasons that American society as a whole (I can't speak to others) has become progressively more positive towards gay rights is the fact that, after it was decriminalized, de-psychiatricized, and to a greater degree de-stigmatized, people began to realize that there were a lot of homosexuals in the world, and that they probably knew a number of homosexuals. The key thing here is that the number of homosexuals is probably fairly constant, but the number of homosexuals who are known to non-homosexuals to be homosexual has increased dramatically in the last 30 years. It's easy to hate a group people you don't know (or don't know you know); it's harder when they turn out to be your friends, coworkers, roommates, children, even parents. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, a study has found a partial link between male homosexuality and genetics. They found that a mutation in a certain gene present in both males and females are responsible for sexual attraction towards males. It is responsible for a fraction, but not all male homosexuality. In females, it is exhibited as hypersexuality towards males. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in a citation as well. The only "gay gene" covered in WP is the Xq28, which is situated exclusively in the X chromosome. If the gay bomb have the side effect of causing hypersexuality towards males for females, then it will have a dramatic impact on the future of warfare.99.245.35.136 (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the fundamental factors is pheromone signalling. See [1]. Anecdotally, I'm quite convinced that this is not merely a consequence, but the immediate cause of sexual orientation. Wnt (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, I've found taking much notice of anecdotes unhelpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's just that I remember being heterosexual from age 3 to 5, at which point on two or three occasions I was exposed to the most wonderful smell in the world, which was produced by an older boy who had just started shaving, after he ran around for a few minutes. A scent that completely overwhelming the combined stench of Aqua Velva and Old Spice, to be clear, which abruptly made his touch feel arousing, though I had a poor understanding of arousal at the time. (This was ordinary kids playing, nothing untoward) And much later, during adulthood, I found that working around a breeding colony of mice caused a great intensification of desire only for women. (Women themselves are not so potent as a mouse colony, even when ovulating; and unlike the male one the mouse or female pheromone isn't perceived as a scent, and even the scent of men didn't seem quite as strong later on in life as it was the first time...) There's just no doubt in my mind of a central role for the sense of smell here. Wnt (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(2008) How bisexuality is passed on in the genes. New Scientist. 2670 p. 7. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question could just as easily be, "What makes someone straight? Or somewhere in between?" Because each individual has their own story. A large percentage of us, presumably, have "always known" we were straight. A significant percentage of gays have "always known" that they were gay. But there are other places on the sliding scale, including those who "discovered" they were gay after living (or trying to live) a straight lifestyle. And there are also those who are capable of swinging either way, and make a conscious lifestyle choice based on any number of factors. I'm sure there's a genetic factor, but I doubt very much that that's all there is too it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2

I actually find the initial question, to quote the OP "What makes someone gay?", to be wrought with problems even before a single answer is given. If you accept that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality, then you don't ask the question in the first place, anymore than you would ask "What would make someone eat pepperoni on their pizza" or "What would make someone wear a shortsleeve shirt with a necktie." Either of the two possible answers would lead one to a disturbing conclusion about homosexuality. If one's fundemental answer is "people choose to be gay" then the response is that they can be punished/coerced out of that choice. If the fundemental answer is some form of "They are born gay" it makes it on par with a disease or disorder, as though a person who is gay should be pittied or cured. Neither response is justified or correct. Instead, the only appopriate answer is "it doesn't matter why someone is gay, they should be treated with respect and dignity regardless." Any other answer only feeds the hurtful notion that homosexuality is somehow deviant or wrong or a disorder, which it isn't. --Jayron32 04:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment, but not the conclusion. "What makes someone gay" (or, more precisely, "Which variables affect sexual preference?") is as legitimate a question as "What makes someone red-haired?" or "What makes someone smart?". Either can be abused (substitute "blond and blue-eyed", and that becomes obvious), but it is still a scientifically relevant question, no matter what the social implications are or aren't. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your second formulation is answerable, not the first. The question "What makes someone gay?" is a loaded question which carries way too much subtext to allow for a neutral, useful answer. The question "What factors affect sexual preference" is answerable, and so would be "What cultural factors exist which cause a person to be treated poorly because of their sexual behavior", which is another more neutral way to understand "make gay". But as it is written, it implies that "gayness" is somehow a singularly distinct state of being which is somehow outside of the normal range, and so needs special consideration. It isn't, and it doesn't. --Jayron32 16:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the question is that loaded today. It's colloquial, of course, but its not beyond reason. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron: are you saying that a person with a disability should be pittied? Having a mental disability, I resent being pittied for it, I just want people to understand me - be empathetic not, sympathetic. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]