Humanities desk
< October 6	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 8 >

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.

October 7

Paul Guilfoyle

Would anyone mind digging up a reference to verify Paul Guilfoyle's date of birth? I've tried, but I don't have any access to some of the sites that would provide me with that information. Kurtis (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Miami Herald says he was 63 this past April 28th, so it looks like he was born in 1949, not 1955 as a few places claim. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crap... I guess we need to narrow it down and figure out which sources have it right, don't we? Kurtis (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian thinks he was born in 1951, but since the writer also believes he is the son of Paul Guilfoyle (actor born in 1902), I think we can dismiss that idea. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your reasoning there. It's perfectly believable that a 49-year old man could father a son. Rojomoke (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that they're not related. Now the thing that makes me believe that 1949 is correct is that the article also says he enrolled at Lehigh University in 1968. That fits well with 1949, but if he were born in 1955, he'd have to have been around 13 years old. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Lehigh says his grad year was 1972. [1]--184.147.123.169 (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mental institutions

What steps/criteria must be met (in the United States) to have someone involuntarily committed to a mental institution? (Note: This is NOT a request for advice on any current legal case.) 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, in the US, being mentally unbalanced is not, in itself, sufficient reason for committal. They must also prove the person presents a danger to themself or others (and even those who are a danger to themself aren't always committed). It's going to vary by state, but here are some general steps:

1) You have to take them into custody. If they are posing an obvious threat to themself or others, say by brandishing a weapon and threatening to kill people, the police can do so immediately. If the danger is less obvious, a court hearing would be required where evidence of their behavior would be considered.

2) Once in temporary custody, psychiatrists would evaluate them and recommend to the court if they should be committed long-term, or released.

3) Another hearing is then held to rule on this evidence.

4) Once committed, periodic reviews are conducted to determine if they need to remain committed.

An alternative method is when somebody is found to have committed a crime, but to be insane (here the terminology differs, with some states calling this "innocent by reason of insanity" and others calling it "guilty, but insane"). In this case the sentencing phase covers the committal. StuRat (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is a ruling by a court of law always required or can a health authority order such incarceration? Roger (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the jurisdiction. See Involuntary commitment for some details. Marnanel (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that more or less covers it. Thanks! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'll mark this resolved. StuRat (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Also see getting Baker Act'd, or as it is also known Flori-DUH ;-). Marketdiamond (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Card Lottery

Hey, I signed up for the annual Green Card Lottery of the United States. My question is, if I win the lottery while I'm studying at university in another country, Can I finish my studies in that country or should I move to the U.S. immediately? Or I could finish school and then move? Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.244.213 (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at question #25 in the instructions PDF linked on this State Department page. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but can I go to the U.S. and get the green card, and then go back to my country until I graduated? Levanagr56 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's, for me, already a legal question. You'll have to ask a lawyer about the details. BTW, the chances of winning are not very high, so, probably you won't need to worry about it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the instructions. The instruction for DV-2014 says that if you enter the lottery now and win, the immigrant visa should be issued during the 2014 fiscal year, i.e. at some point between October 1, 2013, and September 30, 2014. I understand that immigrant visas are usually valid for 6 months, i.e. you'd have to enter the USA within 6 months since the visa is issued. Once you enter the country with the immigrant visa, you're a US permanent resident and are supposed to reside in the United States, and not stay abroad too much; otherwise, you may be deemed to have forfeited your permanent resident status. However, a permanent resident can apply for a re-entry permit, which (normally) would allow him to stay abroad for up to 2 years. (A re-entry permit cannot be extended, but one can come back to the US and apply for a new permit). That hopefully should be enough to finish one's education! -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hoover anecdote - urban legend?

An anecdote is cited in a newspaper article about Dale Carnegie's book How to win friends and influence people: (in Norwegian)

Rough translation:

The famous test pilot and show pilot Bob Hoover was once mid-air air between Los Angeles and San Diego, when both engines suddenly stopped. He managed to make an emergency landing. Both Hoover and his crew survived, but the aircraft was destroyed. The first thing he did after landing was to examine the fuel tank, and sure enough: his plane had been filled with the wrong fuel.

When Hoover returned to the airport, he promptly requested to speak to the mechanic who had had filled his tank. The young mechanic was filled with grief and anxiety over the blunder that had destroyed an aircraft and almost cost three people their lives. Tears were running down his face when Hoover approached him. Then Hoover held his big arm around the young mechanic's shoulder, and said: "To prove that I am absolutely confident that you have learned from this, I want you to prepare my F-51 plane for tomorrow."

The accident is mentioned here in the article, but it appears Hoover was seriously injured, and thus would not be in a position to speak to the technician, and also states that the discovery of the wrong fuel having been used was a result of an investigation, not of a casual inspection by Hoover. From the context of the article I linked to, the anecdote probably appears in the book. This smells of bogus/urban legend to me. Does anyone here have more information? --NorwegianBlue^talk 13:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I can't find any information on the incident from Snopes or The Straight Dope. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found the book (edit: Dale Carnegie's book) in full-text online. Lots of sites. Not sure about the copyright status and won't link directly, but googling "Bob Hoover, a famous test pilot and frequent per-former" [sic] will locate it. The anecdote is in the book, and claims that everyone aboard was unhurt in the crash, and that Hoover personally inspected the tank. It mentions a source for the accident (the magazine "Flight Operations"), none for what happened afterwards. The moral of the story, of course, is "never criticize anybody". The story struck me as too good to be true. Maybe Carnegie was practicing his own philosophy, "When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion...", and adapted the facts? --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Hoover's aircraft was refuelled with inappropriate fuel, how would he have made it to somewhere between LA and SD? A much more credible version of the accident is to be found at Bob Hoover#Hoover Nozzle and Hoover Ring where it explains that the aircraft crashed on take-off.Dolphin (t) 11:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it's true, how would Hoover have been able to tell (without using a lab) whether the "wrong" fuel was used? --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that improbable that they smell differently, and that Hoover would have been able to tell them apart. Our article cites his book "Forever flying" as source about the accident, so if anyone happens to have a copy: how badly was he hurt, and does he describe the talk with the mechanic? --NorwegianBlue^talk 19:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to page 276 of Forever Flying, the accident occurred shortly after take off from Brown Field in San Diego. The instrument panel of the Shrike Commander was torn out of its mounts and fell on Hoover's shins. Apparently, he was not injured as he was able to walk around the aircraft, open the drain valve, and identify the jet fuel by its smell. The two passengers were not hurt. Hoover's talk with the line boy who serviced the Shrike is described on page 277 and references a newspaper article that quoted him as saying: There isn't a man alive who hasn't made a mistake. But I'm positive you'll never make this mistake again. That's why I want to make sure that you're the only one to refuel my plane tomorrow. I won't let anyone else on the field touch it. Skeet Shooter (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million! --NorwegianBlue^talk 07:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Inhibitions and intelligence

Is there a correlation between the two? Ankh.Morpork 14:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so. Being inhibited implies that you have thought of the negative consequences that can result. Less intelligent species can't do this. Of course, they do have fears which are more instinctual, but I wouldn't call those "inhibitions". StuRat (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would go a long way towards explaining the people on the Jerry Springer Show! Roger (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, how do you quantify the properties of "intelligence" and "inhibition" such that one could draw a correlation. There are, of course, intelligence "tests" which purport to quantify it, but Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views shows how many of these such tests are generally met with some bit of skepticism. --Jayron32 19:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of simple ways to test for level of inhibition (other than asking people to self-report). For example, ask randomly selected students to report to a room, one at a time, at various times, for a (fake) test, and ask them not to bring anything with them other than a number 2 pencil (and their clothes, of course). Have the room be devoid of anything to do or read, except for a newspaper on the instructor's desk. Tell the student the copier is broken and there will be a 10 minute delay until the test is printed out. Then observe and record whether they grab the newspaper to read (and how long they wait) while they wait. Yes, some people enjoy reading a newspaper far more than others, but almost everyone would prefer a paper to doing nothing at all. StuRat (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'intelligence' is the problem here. Some people have a high degrees of social intelligence and academic intelligence who are very, very uninhibited (like film stars with degrees and things --Hedy Lamarr springs instantly to mind). No. there is no connection other than a poplar stereotype. Declaration of conflicting interests: I do not fall into either category so I feel well placed to comments without fear or favour.--Aspro (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that there is no connection requires as much evidence as claiming that there is a connection, and you haven't offered any evidence for either view. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, to support what 140.180 is saying; this may or may not be an answerable question, but either way Aspro's answer isn't it. Every meaningful categorization or explanation of human behavior is going to have a significant number of outliers, cherry picking those outliers does not amount to a refutation of the principle. I happen to have no faith that there has been an established connection, but not because of Hedy Lamarr. --Jayron32 04:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poplar stereotype: "Those trees all have ugly bark !". :-) StuRat (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Poplar stereotype: "East London is a dump!" Marnanel (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To make this question concrete, we could frame it as asking whether there is a correlation between IQ and the dimension of personality called introversion. The literature on that is pretty sparse, but as far as I can see there is no evidence for a strong relationship. There does however seem to be a relationship between introversion and persistence, which plays a role in academic success. In other words, introverted people may do better in academia, but because of their habits, not because they are more intelligent. Looie496 (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aesop had it right a very long time ago. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inhibition has several meanings. Are we talking

inhibition: the conscious or unconscious constraint or curtailment of a process or behaviour, especially of impulses or desires, .. enabling the delay of gratification from pleasurable activities.
Social inhibition: a conscious or subconscious constraint by a person of behaviour of a social nature. The constraint may be in relation to behavior, appearance, or a subject matter for discussion, besides other matters,
inhibition as a feeling that makes one self-conscious and unable to act in a relaxed and natural way.?
Cognitive inhibition, memory inhibition ...
latent inhibition

Searching for intelligence and inhibitions returns results like:

Working memory, inhibition, and fluid intelligence as predictors of performance on Tower of Hanoi and London tasks.
The Nature of Intelligence: Chapter 8. Inhibition and Intelligence (L.L. Thurstone): not exactly easy reading. Reminds me of Nick Bostrom (it would probably be inappropriate to tell you what I think of him).
Differential effects of cognitive inhibition and intelligence on creativity.
Low Latent Inhibition Plus High Intelligence Leads To High Creativity?
Prepulse inhibition of startle, intelligence and familial primary nocturnal enuresis.

Enough "research" it seems, but an answer... woops, I notice I'm in RD/Humanities, how did I get here? Ssscienccce (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to social inhibitions. Based on my experience during a lecture, I was curious if there was any relationship between the intelligence of a question and the likelihood of it being asked. I was wondering if the more competent members of the audience were affected by some form of Dunning–Kruger effect or perhaps, were more likely to be introverted and inhibited in their general social intercourse. Ankh.Morpork 23:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Merbecke memorial?

I have been trying to flesh-out our article John Merbecke, the English musician and religious reformer. His music almost universally accompanied the Anglican Communion Service around the world from the 1850s to the 1970s, and was used by many other denominations too. However, I can't find anywhere where there is any sort of monument or memorial to him; not so much as a plaque or stained glass window. The only commemoration of him seems to be the Merbecke Choir. Can anybody find anything? Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's depicted in a window in Washington National Cathedral: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hilton_photos/1220135413/ Marnanel (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also at Wistow and at Kilham. Marnanel (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, kind sir. Perhaps one day, someone will give him a window of his very own. Alansplodge (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Record number of dowagers in Europe

When was there a record number of royal dowagers in European history? Dowagers as in widows of Sovereign Princes or Crown Princes, Sovereign/Peerage Dukes, Kings, Emperors etc, so they could be mothers, stepmothers, aunts, cousin-in-laws of the then present title holder. How would each dowager be referred if let say there are three dowager queens from three childless kings are still living in court? I will mention the commonly known case of Mary of Teck and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, so someone doesn't bring it up. Don't mention of Asian polygamous monarchs like China, where the dead emperor can leave hundred or thousands of dowager consorts. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from 1485 to 1492 there were three living Queen Mothers in England

Cecily Nevil (1415 – 1495) - mother of Edward VI and Richard III, and Grandmother of Edward V
Elizabeth Woodville (1437 - 1492) - wife of Edward VI and mother of Edward V
Margaret Beaufort (c 1441 – 1509) - Mother of Henry VII

Not sure if Cecily Nevil was styled as "Queen" however. (our article on her hedges... saying that when Edward VI became King, she "became an effective Queen Mother"). Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cecily and Margaret weren't Queens though and each held a different title. They would be respectively, the Dowager Duchess of York, the Queen Dowager, and "My Lady the King's Mother" or just the Dowager Countess of Richmond. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean for a single European monarchy, or do you mean in total across all of Europe? Because the first question should be answerable, but the second may be quite difficult to calculate if it hasn't already been done. For example, from 1574 - 1587 France had 3 living dowagers: Mary, Queen of Scots, Catherine de' Medici and Elisabeth of Austria, likewise again for about 8 months in 1589, with Catherine de' Medici, Elisabeth of Austria, and Louise of Lorraine. What you'd need to do to compile a list for any country is to search through the "lists of consorts" articles, like List of French consorts. See Category:Lists of queens to get yourself started. --Jayron32 17:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar - I presume you mean Edward IV, not Edward VI. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in British peerage system, cousins-in-law, sisters-in-law, etc, are not styled as dowagers. A widow of a peer may be called dowager only if (a) her husband bore the title and (b) the current peer is a direct descendant of her deceased husband. Surtsicna (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]