Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 February 22

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.

February 22

How good are we to spot intentions of others?

Is there any reasonable study about that? Across evolution it was certainly a huge advantage to be more precise, so you wouldn't end up killing friends or letting enemies come to close to you. XPPaul (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a very vague question. How would you measure it? Really, you need to compare against someone else, but you seem to be asking about the human race as a whole. There have been all sorts of studies into how well people can spot a lie (usually comparing different groups of people, eg. law enforcement versus the general public). I expect you could find them with a quick Google search. --Tango (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I was exactly thinking in a similar study to your suggestion, but comparing honest smiles to fake smiles. Apparently people in the autism spectrum disorder are not able to discern very well between the two types. Anyway, I don't know exactly how would I measure it, but some sort of multimedia followed by questions could be an option. Stranger studies have been performed in the field of psychology. XPPaul (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please define spot. Refer to Epistemology for more details. 202.177.218.59 (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a study which showed teens were particularly bad at reading emotions of others. They would be showed various faces, and would tend to see "scared" as "angry", etc., basically misinterpreting emotions as being more negative and more directed at them than they really are. Teens came across as paranoid. StuRat (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Best Native American Tribe to Live in

I am no expert on Native Americans (in North America) but if you were to pick one Native American tribe to live in before the European colonization (1500s-1600s) of North America which tribe would you want to have lived in and why? i.e. which tribe had the highest quality of life for all members, was the most peaceful etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foljiny (talk • contribs) 05:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You'd want all the neighboring tribes to be peaceful, too, or perhaps the tribe could just be isolated by geography, such as on an island. Yes, invasions are still possible by sea, but "good fences make good neighbors" and islands have well-established borders, eliminating many border disputes. A technologically advanced tribe that could presumably repel any attacks would also not be targeted.StuRat (talk)

Being isolated on an island basically means that your technological level is fixed and can lead to resource issues. Personally I don't think isolation is really the way towards happy living. I'd be more worried about famine and malnutrition than violence from neighbors. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about total isolation, they could still trade with neighbors. Something like a Caribbean island. StuRat (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the Carib people who gave their name to both the words "Caribbean" and "Cannibal". Friendly neighbors. ;) There's question as to they were really cannibals, but like their closest neighbors, the Mesoamerican civilizations, warfare was a neverending way of life - for religion, acquiring resources, and acquiring slaves and wives.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

How about those living in The Bahamas ? That looked to be a good life, at least until the Spanish showed up. StuRat (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah. The Taíno people are part of what early European colonists have collectively called the Arawak peoples, an invented appellation (later coopted for ethnolinguistics) which they did not really use for themselves, at least not until the Spanish taught them to refer to themselves as such. Same as "Carib" (which ironically is possibly derived from a word in Arawakan), and their application depended mostly on whether they were friendly or hostile to Europeans. They raided each other regularly nonetheless. A Taíno could be a "Carib" or an "Arawak" depending on how they behaved and regardless of which language family they speak. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I read in our article, History of the Bahamas, The Bahamas (especially in the north) hadn't yet reached full population, as human habitation was only a few hundred years old, when the Spanish arrived. Thus, they would have had less of a reason to fight over resources than those in an area with major population pressures. StuRat (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In South America, the Inca Empire was a pretty nice place to be by some metrics: lots of food (the potato meant that your average Inca was much better fed than your average European or Asian at the time), lots of security (once you were a member), nothing to onerous from a religious point of view (compared to Aztec). In North America, we don't know quite enough about the Mound builders, but the fact that they had resources and security means they must have figured out something right (see also Mississippian culture; intensive maize is not as good as the potato, but I'll take it). This reflects my own biases, but I'm a fan of civilization and safety in numbers more than I am tiny groups wondering how many kids will starve in the next bad winter. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The Inca Empire was based off of domination of other tribes. It was a pretty sweet deal if you happened to be an Inca (a small minority), but if you were an average resident of the empire, your entire existence was to serve the Inca (who had somewhat of a God status). Don't like that? Fine, they'll take your entire local community, split them up, and send them to other parts of the Empire to integrate with those who are more loyal. That's one of the more pleasant things that I remember from my studies. I would certainly not want to have lived in the Inca Empire. Falconus^{p t c} 15:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, if you've got the option to choose, choose the guys who are in charge. Again, they ate better and had better security than probably anybody else around there. I know we're always supposed to pick the societies that correspond with some kind of peaceful, individual existence, but I'll take civilization over the state of nature any day. Anyway I've spent a long time living off the benefits of being in a conquering empire so I can hardly start throwing stones there. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's really difficult to answer this question because we lack much conclusive evidence for most of these societies before contact with Europeans. At the time of contact, I would think that the highest median standard of living may have existed in the most egalitarian societies, which often were not agricultural, such as the Inuit or some of the indigenous peoples of California. The state societies for which we have much evidence, in the Andean region and in Mesoamerica, were rather violent and hierarchical. Marco polo (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Inuit life seems pretty hard to me. A bit cold up there. Hanging out in California isn't so bad, though. Hierarchy doesn't bug me so much. The question about violence is who suffers from it. Again, I'm not trying to hold too different a standard than the one most of us on this here website currently work by and profit under. I'm not much of a hunter-gatherer, personally. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Being Haida seems ok...except for the people who always got attacked by them. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps best to be part of a comparatively later people. According to one author (whose book I have at my house), archaeological excavations of burial sites of the Glacial Kame Culture reveal that almost everyone died in their 30s or 40s, and I dimly remember reading that the lives of many other Archaic peoples (and probably the same is true of the yet earlier Paleo-Indian period) were similarly poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Nyttend (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Haida? Historically, no thanks: "The Haida were known for their seamanship, their martial inclination and their practice of slavery. Canadian Museum of Civilization anthropologist Diamond Jenness has compared the tribe to Vikings. " Perhaps the Iroquois? They too were warlike, an held slaves, but had a good position for women. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

official language(s) BiH

I'll ask this here rather than at the language desk because it's a matter of law rather than linguistics.

What is/are the official language(s) of Bosnia and Herzegovina? (At the federal level, not for the FBiH or RS.) The BiH constitution does not specify an official language. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistcs (2006) cites a language law of 1993 which says there is one, which goes by three names; the CIA factbook says there are two, Croatian and Bosnian, which can't possibly be correct; a couple sources say three (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian), but go into so little detail that they could simply be parroting someone else or repeating the three names in the language law without determining whether they are official as separate languages or as the same language.

This is a matter of what we enter in the 'official language' cell of the country info box. We've been having an argument on the talk page, but no-one has really compelling evidence. — kwami (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of looking at the website for their embassy to the US, as these websites generally have information like that, and it does not list 'official' languages, as such, just 'languages', which are Bosnian, Croation, and Serbian, possibly because the constitution does not specify an official language, as you say. Remember, Serbo-Croatian was originally considered one language, until the wars in the former Yugoslavia. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The right thing to do is to make sure that the info box shows "Languages" and not "Official languages", then list Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian in alphabetical order. (Even though the differences among these three "languages" as spoken by natives of any given place in that country are smaller than the differences among the versions of English spoken by natives of any big city in the United States or UK.) Marco polo (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The country info box is specifically set up for official languages; in cases where there is not (at at USA) we say 'none'. Problem is, I don't know if that's the case for BiH either. — kwami (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You want to be looking post-Dayton. I wouldn't think pre-Dayton laws passed in Sarajevo would have standing for the whole state unless confirmed after Dayton.--Cam (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

How does the Hong Kong government deal with asylum seekers such like Falun Gong practitioners and and others?

--Inspector (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC) !

Check Falun Gong in Hong Kong, (it rhymes!)and there are further links in the article. XPPaul (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Employer sponsored health care and age

If an employer in the US pays for the health care of all of his employees, and intends to do so for all new employees, does he has to pay more for older employees? Or is there any sort of deal for companies, where they get all covered for a fixed amount? The first case could lead to discrimination against older employees, the second could be a disadvantage for insurance companies when a company has many old employees. XPPaul (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

US employers that offer insurance have group insurance plans, so premiums do not vary based on an employee's age or other characteristics. Insurers have structured these plans to more or less guarantee them a profit. What I don't know is whether insurers require companies to submit demographic information about their employees that would be a basis for charging different premiums to companies based on their demographic profiles. Marco polo (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

How would the company get these demographic profiles?99.245.35.136 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't know whether this is done, but considering the scale of bureaucracy involved in US healthcare, I wouldn't be surprised if it were. The insurer could conceivably require a company applying for a group insurance policy to provide information on the ages, genders, rates of absenteeism, and perhaps other variables of its staff. The insurer might also offer different base premiums for companies in different sectors, based on occupational safety by sector or actuarial calculations about correlations between things like median level of education in a given sector and rates of cardiovascular disease, and so on. Marco polo (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw a video once about the history of Atari in which one of the head guys said they got ridiculously low health insurance rates because their staff was so young. The insurer paid for its judgement when many of the employees got braces! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I never knew how to end an e-mail conversation.

If I don't send a final "thanks" or something, I feel rude. But if I do, I feel annoying. I never know if people expect a final letter to me, and if they get hurt/sad if I don't respond to their last message. But if it goes on forever, it never stops... obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 16:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If they ask for information, you should answer something, if they offered you something, a short thank you should be enough. XPPaul (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'thanks' isn't so much of a sign of appreciation than it is just an indication of the end of the message. It's meaningless. I use 'thanks' as a closer, and I'm pretty sure all my correspondents recognize it as such. Mingmingla (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I almost always send a quiet thanks as a closer if it's a formal thing, and I'm pretty sure they note it and delete quickly. On rare occasions you get a "good luck with your etc." as a closer, but if they feel compelled to do that, it's definitely not asking for "thanks for your good luck wishes," it's a real closer. Between friends, you figure it out, but conversational exchanges, rather than requests, end in the middle of nowhere when someone gets bored. There's no rudeness there, just like it can't really be rude not to rsvp to an invitation you didn't want that is just cc'd to a million people. I still usually rsvp, but I don't expect others to. IBE (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I close my emails with "Thanks," followed by my name, only if there is something (however trivial) about which I can express thanks. If someone sends an email asking "Have you completed Task A?", I respond to the question but don't feel compelled to end my response with "Thanks" since the other person has not done anything requiring thanks. In those cases, I just close the email by typing my name. Marco polo (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can always think of it as thanking them for taking the time to read your email, if nothing else. StuRat (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Date of this 17th century map of Siam?

Shortcuts created in the Chao Phraya

Background: Ko Kret is an island on the Chao Phraya River in Thailand. According to most sources, it was created when a shortcut canal was dug to bypass a meander in the river in 1721–1722 (the topmost loop in the image to the right). A quick search for English-language sources reveals this page at ayutthaya-history.com which gives the year as 1722 and cites Van Beeck, Steve (1995). The Chao Phya, River in Transition. Oxford University Press. pp. 40–41. I don't have access to the book, but most online mentions in Thai give 2264 in the Buddhist Era which is 1721 CE; close enough for me.

The problem: This map from the English edition of Simon de la Loubère's Du Royaume de Siam, published as A new historical relation of the kingdom of Siam, shows Ko Kret with its bypass canal. It is the loop by the settlements labelled Ban tret noi and Ban pac tret noi. (Tret is an older term for kret, which means bypass canal.) The English edition of the book was published in London in 1693, which predates the aforementioned date of the canal's excavation. I couldn't find the map from the original French edition (which was published in 1691); none of the versions I found in Google Books had the page scanned properly.

Question: This means that either the widely-circulated historical fact regarding the date of the canal's construction is incorrect, or that the map in question is actually from a later date than the book. Would anyone like to investigate, or suggest how to approach this? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The older map is clearly not very accurately drawn, and I don't think that you can be sure that the artificial island you see on the map is in fact Ko Kret. There appear to be many canals and distributaries of the Chao Phraya in this region, and I think that the waterways around the island on the old map could be any of several of those. Incidentally, I don't find "Ban tret noi" or "Ban pac tret noi" on modern maps of the area, so it isn't clear where those locations really stood. I don't think that this map counts as conclusive evidence contrary to the other documentary evidence. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Screen 18/615 is the original map in "Du royaume de Siam", Tom. 1, 1691, before page 4. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Er, what's the other river on the map? It quite clearly shows two rivers (or at least that's what it looks like it shows), but there's only one on the SVG. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 23:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Pp.paul.4. So it appears the English reproduction was accurate. As for Marco polo's concerns, I think Ban pac tret noi is very likely what is now Pak Kret, which is right next to Ko Kret. The Royal Institute Dictionary gives tret (เตร็ด) as an alternative of kret (เกร็ด), which means river bypass. The location on the map doesn't perfectly correspond to the current city, but is close. Actually, I was able to trace all the bends in the river to that in Google Maps. I made this map to mark some of the locations in the old map on Google—some names are recognisable.

As for the other river, that is the Tha Chin River, which is off the map's edge. Speaking of which, the canal that links the two was also supposed to be built in 1705, according to the above-linked page. Googled mentions of the canal say that a natural canal existed prior to the 1705 project though, so this is somewhat explainable. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me cite here a couple of lines from the above mentioned book (Steve Van Beek: The Chao Phya, River in Transition. Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur 1995, ISBN 967-65-3069-7, page 39):

"As international trade increased, Ayutthayan monarchs recognized the need to shorten transport distances between the capital and the sea. Although they were unable to dredge the bar to admit deeper draught ships, they realized they could speed the journey north by digging khlong lat in the winding portions of the lower river. Between 1538 and 1722, they dug six short khlong lat that lopped 62.3 kilometres from the length of the Chao Phya between Ayutthaya and the Gulf of Thailand (Map 7). The first khlong lat, dug in 1538, was a 3-kilometre shunt called Khlong Lat Bang Khrua that connected Wat Chalom (on what would henceforth be called Maenam Om) with Wat Khee Lek (on what would become Khlong Bangkok Yai) on the northern edge of present-day Bangkok. It shortened the journey from 9 to 6 kilometres but straightened the channel for easier passage. After 1636, it would be superseded by Khlong Lat Muang Nonthaburi.

"The second canal would have a profound effect on the course of Thai history. There is disagreement about the exact date of its construction, with Gerini stating it was dug in 1538 and Nid Hinshiranan, a modern city planner, contending that it was dug in 1542. Its importance, however, is undisputed because it was responsible for the creation of Bangkok and Thonburi. The 2-kilometre-long Khlong Lat Bangkok was dug from the site of the present-day Bangkok Noi Railway Station to a point just south of Wat Arun. River action widened it to become the main channel of the river, transforming the former loop into four canals—Bangkok Noi, Bang Ramat, Taling Chan, and Bangkok Yai—and reducing a journey of 14 kilometres to 2.

"The third, Khlong Lat Kret Yai, was dug above Pathumthani in 1608 to shrink 18 kilometres to 7. In 1636, a dozen kilometres downriver, Khlong Lat Muang Nonthaburi was cut across the neck of Maenam Om by King Prasat Thong. It pared 17 kilometres from the 22-kilometre journey. Khlong Lat Kret Noi at the town of Pak Kret was dug in 1722, reducing the journey from 6 kilometres to 2.

"The sixth khlong lat was below Bangkok at Ratburana, just south of Khlong Toey. A 600-metre-long canal called Khlong Pak Lat was cut across a narrow neck, effectively cutting 19 kilometres from the journey. Unfortunately, because the Chao Phya is tide-affected, the canal introduced saline water into the upper river, damaging marine and river-bank life. A dam would be built across its mouth in 1784 to halt salt water intrusion. Today, of the six khlong lat, only this one has failed to become the main channel of the river."

Another one of my books (Derick Garnier: Ayutthaya – Venice of the East. River Books, Bangkok 2004, ISBN 974-8225-60-7) also gives 1721 as date for the Ko Kret canal (page 34). --hdamm (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

what's up with the highs in 'queen of the night' aria?

they're way outside the range being sung, no? Is it like falsetto, or what? Do any male roles (baritone, tenor, bass, whatever) have a similar aria sung way outside of the actual range of the part? What is this strange thing. 188.6.76.0 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The aria in question is Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen. Some sopranos have a very high range! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is amazing to me when a really good soprano just seems to casually toss it off. By the way, that link redirects to This One.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed Tammy's link.

It's high, but not so high that it's impossible. It goes up to top F, but only momentarily. Most sopranos see it as a challenge to be overcome, although relatively few can do it superbly well. Massenet's Esclarmonde has the highest note in standard opera - top G, and sticks around those stratospheric heights for long, taxing stretches, which really is beyond most sopranos, except for the likes of Joan Sutherland and a few others, which goes a long way to explaining why it's rarely performed.

Now, if you want to hear really high notes done jaw-droppingly brilliantly, listen to Mado Robin or Yma Sumac. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link. I had problems with it after the cat decided he liked the aria... --TammyMoet (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)