Humanities desk
< February 24	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 26 >

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 25

Psychology, unemployment and culture

A criticism I've seen of proposed post-capitalist economic systems such as The Venus Project is that humans have a psychological need to earn their living. However, I've also seen it suggested that this an artifact of the culture of capitalist economies, and might change if earning a living was no longer the norm. If this response were valid, I'd expect the harmful psychological, non-financial effects of being unemployed or not seeking work to vary among different economic and cultural contexts (e.g. to be smaller in areas where the employment rate is chronically lower). Have any studies tested this? Neon Merlin 01:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No studies. When I think about how someone would try to measure any "innate need to earn", distinguishable from an "innate need to do something of use for your group" the question quickly devolves into meaninglessness-- or at least unprovable political opinion. You are perhaps aware of the rising tide of disgust, distress, and concern throughout North America and Europe about an enervating "culture of entitlement" in which an increasing proportion of the population feels no need to work whatsoever? In that context, I think the concept of a "psychological need to work" one of the stupidest ideas i have heard in a long time-- but that is just my opinion. alteripse (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not up on that area of psychology, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be possible to do experimental studies of the effects on happiness/satisfaction of having a job. I would be amazed if no such studies had ever been done. The response above doesn't give the impression of being written on the basis of knowledge. Looie496 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To eliminate the possible effect on happiness of having or lacking money, the study would have to have one group of people who work for a living, and another who are paid the same, despite not working. Of course, this neglects all the costs associated with working, such as transportation, clothing, lunches out, etc.

Personally, I don't think it's working, per se, from which we derive satisfaction, but only certain types of jobs, where we feel we can accomplish something concrete. If you are employed to do something meaningless, then this might have a negative effect on self-esteem.

Conversely, as was alluded to above, we can derive satisfaction from unpaid work where we feel we accomplish something. StuRat (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louie, you might brush up your reading comprehension before snarking inaccurately. The question very specifically did not ask whether people with a job were happier than those without, but whether any studies supported a "need to earn a living" as opposed to having it given to you. And when you show us some facts that contradict what I wrote, you can then describe it as showing lack of "knowledge". alteripse (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to clarify first: I believe User:NeonMerlin originally asked: Have any studies tested whether "harmful psychological, non-financial effects of being unemployed or not seeking work" vary "among different economic and cultural contexts"? Such is what the "this" refers to in User's last question. User did not ask whether "any studies supported a "need to earn a living" as opposed to having it given to you" except perhaps indirectly by asking the first question given. There are such studies. See [1] for some examples. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like NeonMerlin to clarify the meaning of "psychological need to earn a living". It doesnt matter how many studies show that unemployed people are happier or unhappier than average if that isnt the question he asked. alteripse (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Atethnekos is right on the money with the interpretation of the question. The first bit is background; the actual question is in the last 2 sentences. I also don't see anything objectionable in Looie's post. I too would have thought such studies would exist (and Atethnekos has given some examples), and I would think they were relevant whatever the exact configuration of the question. The OP can judge the exact relevance, and clarify and refine if he so desires. IBE (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Looie, StuRat, Atethnekos, and IBE. And any response of the form "No studies" is ill-advised. Better would have been "I'm not aware of any studies". And the OP's question was I'd expect the harmful psychological, non-financial effects of being unemployed or not seeking work to vary among different economic and cultural contexts (e.g. to be smaller in areas where the employment rate is chronically lower). Have any studies tested this? Duoduoduo (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most postcapitalisms assume that most people will work, and many assume that people will earn salaries connected to the amount of labour done. What may be the case is that we all have a psychological need for a career as opposed to just a job, a need that current forms of capitalism find hard to fulfil. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find the "career" thing a bit unlikely, or at least needing evidence. Personally I never use the word - I regard it as a mispronunciation of "job" most of the time. What I feel we need is some other kind of outlet. For me that is reading, chess and Wikipedia. I also get a buzz out of my PhD at times, but not for career-related reasons - the career thing is a drag. Publish or perish, do this, do that, deal with muppets who pull your strings, and so on. Sorry if I'm derailing this into chat/ discussion, but if anyone knows references for or against Itsmejudith's suggestion, please contribute - I would be curious to know what there is regarding the type of work. I would expect that a feeling of "empowerment" is quite relevant, but we get it in different ways. IBE (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't disagree with you. We all need interests -self-actualisation in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. That can be gained in paid work or outside paid work. I would also relate it to our curiosity and need to learn. If an activity is too unfamiliar it is uninteresting or stressful; if it is too familiar, it is dull. So given that even in ideal societies food must be put on plates, the challenge for social organisation is how to share the tasks so that a maximum number of people are able to extend their skills and be productive at the same time. It doesn't mean career in the sense of greasy pole, more like career in the sense of the bricklayer who works on more and more complex and ornate pieces, then moves into training the next generation. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as references go, are you familiar with the works of Andre Gorz? His Critique of Economic Reason is an extended discussion of all this. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference - I've taken note. Sadly at the moment I'm too busy climbing the greasy pole ... IBE (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atheistic religions

It seems to me that neither polytheism nor monotheism nor atheism is a religion, but a particular religion may be polytheistic or monotheistic or atheistic. The only religion that I have heard called atheistic is Buddhism. Are there others? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Taoism has any God-like figures in its core belief system. --Jayron32 05:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shinto ? New Age ? StuRat (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism itself has some resemblance to religion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on how you choose to define the words, but we should be more regimented with our definitions. Religion is generally defined to be an organisation that has a belief in a supernatural deity, and someone who is part of that organisation or follows those beliefs is religious. Polytheism and monotheism are simply different type of religion - note the use of theism. Atheism (a-theism) on the other hand is the rejection of theism. To call atheism a religion is like calling sport a religion. Neither atheism nor sport are religions but they could sometimes be like a religion, i.e. when they are followed with a religious fervour. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Religion is generally defined to be an organisation that has a belief in a supernatural deity" by lazy people who don't study it, and that doesn't even fit your own explanation that polytheism is a type of religion. Michael is right, and yours and Bugs's comments are strange and unhelpful. If you are unaware of atheistic religions, then you could just not comment.

Michael, I don't know any atheistic religions other than those mentioned, but Unitarian Universalism can sometimes be an essentially agnostic religion if that helps. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religio is a Latin word that originally referred to proper conduct toward the divine ("gods"). See Religion in ancient Rome for the original matter to which the word referred. This entered the vernacular languages—hence English "religion"/"religiun"—with the same basic meaning. So, it should not be considered strange that the concept of religion is intertwined with the notion of deities. That does not mean that the word has not been applied to practices and groups that only otherwise bear similarities to Ancient Greco-Roman religion, including Christianity. Understanding family resemblance may be important here. Many practices and ideologies which are nontheistic and which are sometimes called "religions" in English were not called "religions" by those who founded and first developed them. For example, Taoism was not called a "religion" in Chinese, as "religion" was not a word in Chinese. I don't want to say anything more about Taoism, before I put my foot in my mouth. Whether a nontheistic practice or ideology may not be considered a religion on that basis alone is a question of word usage for English speakers. Some may maintain that religions deal with the divine. That's not lazy, that's just having a normal usage of a word that is nonetheless different from others'.

Nontheistic_religions gives examples from Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Jainism.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's distinguish between "atheistic" and "non-theistic". Non-theistic means characterized by the absence or rejection of theism or any belief in a personal god or gods. [bolding mine] From the same article, atheism is one subset of non-theism: Strong or positive atheism is the positive belief that a god does not exist. Someone who does not think about the existence of a deity may be termed a weak or negative atheist, or more specifically implicitly atheist. I think that when people use the word "atheistic" they usually mean the stronger version, explicitly believing that no gods exist. Buddhism certainly does not require a disbelief in any god, so it is better to call it non-theistic, not atheistic. On the other hand, many Buddhists do believe in gods, despite that not being a central feature of the religion as a whole. And Atethnekos is absolutely right in saying Some may maintain that religions deal with the divine. That's not lazy, that's just having a normal usage of a word that is nonetheless different from others'. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on your definition of 'religion', 'god', and 'include' things like humanism or Scientology could be considered religion without a god. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why I say that Atheism is like a religion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Some forms of atheism certainly resemble/are religions. Atheism in general, however, has no organization, so it fails on that point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See American Atheists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's described as a non-profit civil rights organisation, not any kind of religion. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most successful parent-offspring pair ever

I'd like to exclude rulers such as Phil and Al, as the child gets an unfair advantage right from the start. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "successful", and what is your yardstick to determine what is more or less successful? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary and Jesus have had a pretty good run so far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In golf, Old Tom Morris and Young Tom Morris. UK Football: maybe Tony Hateley and Mark Hateley, although Frank Lampard senior and Frank Lampard junior would count too. Harry Redknapp and Jamie Redknapp probably tops either, as Harry is a very successful manager. No doubt more will be added to this list. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're all getting in on the act before waiting for the OP to clarify his question: it would be hard to beat the Bach family for musical fecundity spanning a number of generations. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In race car driving, there is the Andretti family. In baseball, there are Ken Griffey Sr. and Jr. In acting there are numerous family 'dynasties' such as Martin Sheen and his sons Charlie and Emilio. The Redgraves (Michael Redgrave, Lynn Redgrave, Vanessa Redgrave, et al). The Fondas (Peter Fonda, Jane Fonda, et al). Dismas|^(talk) 11:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I try to forget them often, I guess I succeeded this time... The Bush family... George H. W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush. Both, so called, "leaders of the free world". Dismas|^(talk) 11:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graham and Damon Hill? In science, Nobel Prize winning father-and-sons can be found here, along with mother-and-daughter success in the form of Marie Curie and Irene Joliot-Curie (who was also the daughter of a successful father). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why restrict to a "pair"? A parent can have more than one notable child. In the Grace family, not only is it true that "Fourteen members of the family played first-class cricket, with brothers WG, EM and Fred Grace all going on to play Test cricket for England", but, in the first generation, the founder of the dynasty and all five of his sons at least played first-class cricket. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the youngest managed a department store - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again in cricket, probably the best in New Zealand was the Hadlee dynasty: Walter, Sir Richard and Dayle; also Lance and Chris Cairns. In England there was George Gunn and his son, also George. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Whereas there are 3 generations of a family who played for different countries: George and Ronald Headley played for the West Indies, while Dean played for England. Two generations played for different countries here: Kepler and Riki Wessels, although to date Wessels junior has never played international cricket. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In classical Music you have Johann Sebastian Bach and Johann Christian Bach. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's Johann Strauss I and Johann Strauss II, Also, of course, Leopold Mozart begot, trained, and touted around Europe Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Alansplodge (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger? --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In movie terms, maybe Sly Stallone and Jackie Stallone, or Kirk and Michael Douglas, or Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. Maybe even the Cusack family. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In land and water speed records, Malcolm Campbell and his son Donald Campbell, and they both raced in cars and boats called "Bluebird". Donald's daughter Gina Campbell held the women's world water speed record from 1984 to 1993 in "Bluebird II". Alansplodge (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Never knew there were so many Nobel connections. If I had to choose, I'd go with the Pitts. As for the Bushes, I did specify successful, right? George W.: yecch. Thanks all. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did specify successful, but my first response was to ask you what exactly you meant by that, and how you rank success. You seem to be equating "well-liked" with "successful". Is that your benchmark? Does getting to be President of the United States for 8 years, something that millions of people can only dream of, not count for anything in the success stakes? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubya was so "successful" his own party didn't want to be associated with him in the last round of elections. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Gurus of How-To", Alvin and Lawrence Ubell, as heard on the Leonard Lopate Show. Here is a link to an audio sample. Bus stop (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many people die per year in the World?

Is it possible to know?. Thank. Kotjap (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, but a good estimate can be obtained by multiplying World population by Mortality rate. Dbfirs 11:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Q: How many people die every year?
During 2008, an estimated 57 million people died.

--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and multiplying my links gives about 59 million for 2012. Dbfirs 08:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is honor important in your culture?

I'm Japanese and it seems to be all. It's one of the causes for the high rate of suicides too. One example, the father of Tsutomu Miyazaki couldn't pay for his defense and threw himself into a river. In WWII several military personnel also committed suicide. Why is honor so important? Kotjap (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honor used to be very important in western culture (see: Duel)... less so today. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about honor which provides some insight. "Why" questions are fiendishly hard to provide definitive references for, but if we're going to attempt to answer it, my best guess is that honor is closely tied to concepts of "integrity" and "trustworthiness" and "reputation". That is, people who have honor are generally regarded as being able to be relied on; someone without honor cannot necessarily be relied on. There are, of course, different cultural opinions as to which characteristics are considered "honorable" in a person, but I imagine that the definition is closely tied to reliability in context of that culture. For example, someone "honorable" in a military culture would be able to be trusted not to run in the face of battle and to face death without hesitation, while someone "honorable" in an academic setting would be expected to not cheat on tests and to cite their sources in research (as we find in various honor codes at universities). Chivalry was an honor code devised to keep the medieval European knight class from raping and pillaging everyone in sight. So, there are lots of concepts of honor, and lots of different manifestations of it, but they all seem generally tied to reputation and trustworthiness. People who have violated "honor" aren't considered trustworthy in the context of where they violated their honor, which can have a highly negative impact on their standing in their culture. --Jayron32 14:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And honor means something else in a criminal context, a willingness to avenge your compatriots. StuRat (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide in Japan provides you with more information about the epidemics in Japan. However, even if it's true that the rate in Japan is pretty high, I wouldn't say that a different honor concept is one of its causes. The causes of suicide are rooted in many factors including psychiatric disorders, drug misuse, psychological states, cultural, family and social situations, and genetics. For illustrating the importance of this last factor (genetics), observe that Japan and Korea, on the one hand, and Hungary and Finland, on the other, share both genes and a high suicide rate. An employment system that doesn't give a second chance (like the Japanese seems to be) could also contribute significantly to it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 19th century fiction, British Army officers who had been accused (and knew that they were guilty) of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman" would be allowed access to their revolver and be expected to "do the decent thing" (ie shoot themselves in the head). Whether this actually happened in real life, I don't know. The idea of a ship's captain "going down with his ship" is related. One big difference between Japan and the west is that suicide is forbidden for Christians, and in the UK, it was illegal to attempt suicide until the Suicide Act 1961. In earlier times, the legal concept of felo de se meant that those who killed themselves were regarded as common felons. In Japan however, there was the centuries-old tradition of sepukku which was seen as rather noble. Yukio Mishima famously staged his own exit in this way as recently as 1970. Alansplodge (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head I can think of one notable Austrian officer - Alfred Redl - who, having been uncovered as a traitor, asked to be left alone with his ~~pistol~~ revolver and took his own life. (This is kind of skipped over in the WP article, which refers only to suicide, but is stated explicitly in several of the linked sources). Valiantis (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, let's be clear that your genetic argument for similarities in suicide rates between Japan/Korea and Hungary/Finland is pure speculation, no research supports it (which I know of, in any event) and experts in the relevant fields would be prone to tear down that argument as unlikely (or at the very least unprovable) for any number of reasons. There is of course a nice body of work investigating a genetic link for propensity to commit suicide within a given family, but that's a far cry away. Snow (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough research supports a link between genetics and suicide. It doesn't matter if it's a family or a country. Obviously a country is less homogeneous than a family, but the link is still there in a country. Japan and Korea are certainly much more homogeneous genetically than the US, some traits will be there more accentuated. See [2], [3] or [4]. BTW, appealing to imaginary experts, who would supposedly tear down my argument is rather a non-argument. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that Hungary and Finland are not especially close genetically. [5] Also, the genetic diversity within a given population is almost always greater than the mean genetic difference from a neighboring population (for example, the Chinese and the Koreans), so it is difficult to justify an argument for a genetic basis for behavior linked to a given culture. Occam's razor strongly argues that a behavior linked to a given culture has cultural explanations. This is not to deny that the genetics of individuals and families in a given cultural context may predispose them more toward a given behavior than others who share that cultural context. Marco polo (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my note about suicide being culturally abhorrent in the west, the opposite was true of the closely related concept of self-sacrifice. Generations of British schoolchildren were brought up on the story of Antarctic explorer Captain Oates, who walked out of his tent in a blizzard to meet his certain death and thereby give his companions a chance of survival - he had frostbite and couldn't walk fast enough. Alansplodge (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, suicide used to be illegal, and, ironically, you would have the death penalty for it. The British idea of 'honour' is to face every challenge until you die, either by exhaustion, natural causes, or by being killed. Suicide is not a noble death for us. We consider it cowardly, unless it serves a purpose, as in Alan's story above. See the film 'Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence' for some more insight into the British idea of 'honour' compared to the Japanese point of view. 'Bridge Over the River Kwai' is another one. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide was illegal in England until 1961, but before then the penalty was imprisonment, not hanging. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't pay too much attention to The Bridge on the River Kwai - even Alec Guiness thought it was anti-British (it was based on a book written by a Frenchman). The real life British senior officer, Philip Toosey, was rather more honourable than his screen portrayal. Alansplodge (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judith, prison was the punishment only for attempted suicide. The punishment for successful suicide was far worse. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct in medieval terms, when a successful trip to the hereafter was a daily concern. Suicides were "punishable by forfeiture of property to the king and what was considered a shameful burial – typically with a stake through his heart and with a burial at a crossroad. Burials for felo de se typically took place at night, with no mourners or clergy present, and the location was often kept a secret by the authorities". Burial in unconsecrated ground was thought to be an impediment to ressurection on the Day of Judgement. Alansplodge (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi sleepwear ?

In movies where German soldiers were surprised in their sleep, they were generally wearing boxers and t-shirts (or maybe long underwear in cold weather). Is this actually what soldiers wore at night ? Specifically, I'm wondering if they were encouraged to sleep in their clothes, to reduce time to respond to an attack. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the Heer, but up to and including World War II, the British Army didn't issue anything as effete as pyjamas. Soldiers were expected to sleep in the coarse, collarless, button-up shirts[6] that they wore during the day, and nothing else according to my dad (Royal Engineers and REME 1939 to 1946). I suppose that you couldn't really show a lot of bare-arsed Germans in a family movie though. Apparently the RAF did wear pyjamas, a source of great amusement to the common soldiery. Whether the intent was to be ready-for-anything or just to save cash, I have no idea. More likely, it was a tradition going back to when every working man slept in his day shirt. Alansplodge (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RAF pyjamas had some operational utility, as described by a Bomber Command Lancaster rear gunner, required to spend many hours in an unheated aircraft at 30000 feet or so: Everybody had their own way of keeping warm. I wore everything that I could pile on, including a pair of pyjamas.←86.186.142.172 (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since their state of undress is used to convey the surprise, being bare-assed would be even more effective, although it might make the audience wonder "what exactly do those Nazi's do in their bunkers at night which requires them to remove their underpants ?". StuRat (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of a search, I found "Undershirt/pullover service/sleep shirt (gray or olive drab)" listed as part of the Modell 1936 German uniform.[7] We have an article; World War II German uniform, but it doesn't mention undershirts. I'd be surprised if they were wearing actual t-shirts though, as I believe these were an American innovation. Alansplodge (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would that vary from a T-shirt ? Long sleeves ? StuRat (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are photos of the German Army undergarment. It is considerably more concealing than its British counterpart. Marco polo (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, well done! I only managed to find an M39 Swedish shirt which is offered for sale to reenactors wishing to dress up as German soldiers. Alansplodge (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well done. They even had their names sewn in ?

I sure wouldn't button that top button if I was sleeping in it, or I'd feel constricted, like I had a tie on. StuRat (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why wheren't Ike & Louis St. Laurent friends ?

Hello Learned Ones ! I found (in Sleeping with the Enemy (The Simpsons)) that Ike & Canadian Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent were enemies . How can it be ? I thought they were both pro-NATO (or at least it is what we think here...) . Anyway, as it is Martin Prince who speaks, it must be true, musn't it ? ( BTW , though being ennemies, I don't think they ever slept together...Or did they ?...We lately learnt some queer things about one of USA's most famous president, so... Thanks beforehand for your answer Arapaima (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done quite a bit of searching and have not found any evidence of a bad relationship between Eisenhower and St. Laurent from any source other than the Simpsons. You can't consider a fictional cartoon a reliable source on this subject. There is no particular reason why they should have been "friends". St. Laurent was a sophisticated, bilingual, liberal Easterner trained as a lawyer; Eisenhower a conservative Midwesterner trained as a soldier. It would have been a bit surprising if they were personal friends. Both men were fairly diplomatic, so it is difficult to know how they really felt about each other, but the evidence suggests a polite and somewhat businesslike relationship. See this letter, for example. Marco polo (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You fight off just one attempted annexation and they never let you live it down. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks C.Fiend & Marco. Next time I hear in a cartoon that Castro & Nixon were friends at 1st sight starting in april 59, I won't beleieve it. T;y. Arapaima (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology - what really is going on when people say that they are "saved"?

Psychologically speaking, what really is going on when people, specifically certain Christians, who claim that they are "saved" in the most enthusiastic tone of voice? They may say, "Well, before I became a Christian, I did blah, blah, blah, and then I was saved!". It seems that they are describing themselves as their former selves and then some "miracle happen here" and then their new selves without really specifying on the actual seemingly miraculous event in their lives. Is it a psychological trance, emotional experience, having high levels of dopamine, the decision of the individual to make a life-changing moment and willingness to go about doing it, or something else? 140.254.121.34 (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I think it may be referring to what they read in the Book of Acts, which says something along the lines of "speaking in tongues" and somebody thought the disciples were drunk when they claimed that they were not drunk, and then masses of people converted according to that book. I guess the experience just means "getting yourself drunk or high"? 140.254.121.34 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. — Lomn 22:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The concept of salvation is covered by the Wikipedia article titled Salvation. From a Christian point of view, a person who is earnestly Christian believes that sin condemns them to hell, and that salvation comes in the form of being absolved from the consequences of their sin via God's grace. Different Christians will come to a different understanding of their own salvation, but their enthusiasm is likely due to their understanding of the seriousness of the salvation itself. From the psychological point of view, religious conversion itself comes to some people as a form of epiphany, though there is a wide variance of how people experience this. Some people may never have a moment of epiphany and may instead come to a gradual understanding of their salvation; for others it can be a singular event. --Jayron32 22:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Have you read our article on Salvation (Christianity)? That's the core concept being discussed. As a general observation, I find that the specific phrase usage also ties to the use of the phrase "born again". Our article notes that use of that phrase, at least within the US, is most closely tied to "Evangelical, black, and Latino Protestants", but note that "Evangelical" in that context is tricky to pin down. Our Evangelicalism article attempts to address this, and I personally feel pretty good saying that the usage above has ties to (but is by no means exclusive to) Pentecostalism. So, there are cultural markers here as to what's being indicated, but the exact experience is going to vary person to person. Why not ask the person in question when you hear them say that? I strongly suspect that public use of the phrase is also a strong cultural marker in favor of their willingness to talk your ear off on the subject. — Lomn 22:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different times to which you refer. Time 1 is the time when they were supposedly saved. Time 2 is the time when they are enthusiastically recounting Time 1. I think you mean to ask about Time 1.

There are number of ways one might describe the event at Time 1 psychologically. Any psychologist might describe it in terms of beliefs: For example, at the specious present of Time 1 they believe that now they follow God's guidance, when previously they did not. Or, at Time 1 they believe that now they are aware that God loves them, when previously they did not. The beliefs would be different for different people. Freudian psychologists might describe it in terms of expressions of the unconscious mind. There is a fairly recent book by Michael Argyle published by Routledge called Psychology and Religion: An Introduction. Chapter 4 in particular, "The extent and varieties of religious experience", may be of interest to you. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Your typical person who speaks this way believes that people who don't believe in Christianity are in trouble both now and in the afterlife (see Jayron's links) and that the way out is believing in Christianity. More specifically, such a person typically believes that Jesus was punished for everyone's sins except the sin of not believing in Christianity, but that this doesn't help you unless you believe in Christianity, in which case you'll not be punished because you "depended on Jesus' actions". For someone who believes this, "getting saved" is the moment when they choose to believe in Christianity and depend on Jesus' actions. You'll not often hear this phrase used by people in some parts of the evangelical movement, since their soteriology (their interpretation of the Bible's teachings about salvation) is different in ways that are probably too complicated to understand if you're not already familiar with Protestant Christianity. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than asking or saying what 'people like that' do, one could just ask one. The article epiphany mentioned above seems the only relevant answer, and one need not be Christian to have had one. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting response. I attended a Bible studies program at my school once a week. It was supposed to serve as a devotional exercise for all Christians. Before the session, the students usually held a prayer, requesting the Holy Spirit to guide them during the Bible Study. During this time, I just dozed a bit on the table. After each session, I gained some ethical wisdom, a suggestion of a certain lifestyle, or some different way of thinking about the world - something that deserves contemplation and reflection later, throughout the whole week. The moment I gained something new was the same moment I would say that I achieved "spiritual enlightenment". It's the "Aha! I get it!" feeling inside that makes me want to attend the Bible studies sessions every week to obtain the same sort of "spiritual enlightenment". I am not sure how one can conflate "I was saved!" to "Oh, I get it! Eureka!" because the former experience seems to imply a past event that one reminisces, and the latter experience seems to imply an ongoing series of events in the specious present. If one additionally believes in free will, then that one will probably say "I will be 'saved'!" as well as "I am being saved!". If one additionally does not believe in free will, then one will probably just say "I am being saved!" and then add "But I do not know when I will be saved again. That is out of my control." From my experience, epiphany just doesn't fit with what it is meant by the term "I was saved!". Sneazy (talk)

Yes, I didn't want to go into it at length, but epiphany in the intellectual sense seems to have a component of new conceptual comprehension, whereas I suspect the religious one may literally have the feeling of being saved, like seeing a boat coming to your rescue when you have bee lost at sea. I'd still want to question someone in depth and in person to glean what they mean. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. It's hard to say for sure. As Jayron has noted, the feeling of being saved is widely variable from person to person. Therefore, epiphany in the intellectual sense may also mean spiritual enlightenment or the possible feeling of being saved. Sneazy (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "being rescued at sea" is closer to elation (joy, but not due to learning). "Being saved" doesn't even necessarily involve that much emotion. Some people just do it out of tradition, or peer pressure. What's being referred to above really is an epiphany moment, where someone makes that change from intellectually understanding their faith to becoming emotionally affected by it. It's the difference between "oh, I understand that now" and "it suddenly all makes sense!" The latter would be an epiphany moment, because it's not just understanding, it's the combination of emotional reactions with the understanding that really makes an epiphany. That "Eureka!" moment isn't just understanding, it's the joy of understanding. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think another relevant article is Religious conversion. The sect I used to belong to used the word "converted" in preference to "saved". Also spiritual enlightenment. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It just means they are happier now than they were before. Same as watching a Pink Floyd concert, or watching Monty Python, or the usual Hollywood stuff. They now have other things to concentrate on, rather than the various things they believe they were saved from. Most people who join a religious sect or order or religion do so in order to gain a sense of interaction and safety with others, and not because of a belief in a God. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. This article and Wikipedia's Religion and happiness both seem to support the notion. Sneazy (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also temporal lobe epilepsy and the religious experience. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God helmet. Seems to work for some, not for others. 20.137.162.50 (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the time and place where I grew up (conservative Australia, 1950s and 60s) it was fairly common for hard core adherents to say "I have seen God" or "I have seen Jesus". I've never understood what they really meant (it certainly didn't make him visible to me), but I'm guessing it was something along the same lines as is being discussed here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]