Humanities desk
< October 12	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 14 >

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 13

The Geography of Thought

Richard Nisbett's book argues that cognition isn't the same everywhere. What does he mean by this? That there are brainial differences between East and West or that this is because of cultural differences? — Melab±1 ☎ 04:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing inherent in the Chinese language or Chinese (or Eastern) genetics that makes their culture different from the West. What might differ would be the fact that concepts have to be discovered, which is a long, slow, difficult historical process. Aristotle discovered logic. Spinoza (and others) discovered objectivity. Francis Bacon codified the scientific method. If the East lacked such thinkers it would lack such concepts, and remain on the pseudoscientific method of astrology and alchemy. Which it did. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have made up for lost time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course--that's the nice thing about being rational social and speaking animals. You can learn from and trade with others. The disjunct knowledge in Chaldean astrology and Arabic alchemy was huge--just not rationally explained or ordered until Newton and Lavoisier and the concepts they formulated.

The West learned great largely practical things from India and China. The East gets our science, business models, and sometimes even Spinoza's notions on political freedom. Remember the Goddess of Liberty in Tiananmen Square--a copy of a French gift to a daughter of Britain as the incarnate protectress of mankind. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember of the book (I sold my copy a few years ago) this subject is discussed at some length, and I suggest you re-read it. I think what he was saying is that the cultural differences have become hard-wired into the brain in some way, and yes he does provide some evidence for this. But it's in there somewhere. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Computers are hard-wired - hard-wired to be flexible. People aren't hard-wired, are even more flexible. We could text Nisbett's proposition. Take a random sample of academic journal papers on physics, anonymise them so readers can't tell the ethnic origin of the authors. Physicists classify the papers according to the types of argumentation used. Can they they guess whether the authors are from Europe, North America, eastern Asia etc.? My money is on not. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't texting a proposition what usually gets politicians into trouble ? :-) StuRat (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

LOL. We could test it then text it. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that different gene pools might have different ways of thinking. For example, if independent thinkers were regularly killed off in a given society, I'd expect those genes to not be passed down, and for independent thinkers to become more rare in later generations. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genes code for proteins, not ideas. There's no evidence for oriental culture being hardwired into brains by genes, and no conceivable mechanism. There was a study that said people who grow up using Chinese characters rather than alphabets process things different visually. But that's nurture, not nature. The notion that the Eastern is exotic and needs to be explained is also a form of self-blindness, like a person insisting it is not he who has an accent, but people from all other dialects who do. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying genetics has no effect on the development of the brain ? Nonsense, it's a major factor, along with "nurture". StuRat (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh. Genetics is why humans think differently from rats. At least, most of us do. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. For a specific example of a gene which effects how humans think, there's the FOXP2 gene, which, in humans, controls the ability to use language properly. StuRat (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really the right way to put it? I mean, DNA codes for eyeballs and sensory neurons. — Melab±1 ☎ 22:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genes only code for RNA, which either translates to protein or regulates other genes which produce proteins. Cells differentiate into different types according to the proteins they produce and how the proteins and protein-produced products of other cells affect them. (HUmans have something like 200+ cell types) There are no genes for eyeballs. Just genes for proteins used in eyeballs, genes that produce stimuli that induce cells to become eyeball-protein producing cells, and genes that regulate these genes, in complex hierarchies. Brains are produced this way, and they are complex enough networks that they can learn. At no point is there a gene for irony or philately. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this discussion of genetics is a red herring ? I don't think that Nisbett is arguing that there is any fundamental genetic difference between "Western" brains and "Asian" brains. On the contrary, he is saying that cultural differences (i.e. "nurture") lead to fundamentally different ways of thinking and conceptualising in Western and Eastern societies. You may or may not agree with this, but in either case it is clearly nothing to do with genetics. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis may be relevant here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 16:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also world view and cultural relativism. ZMBrak (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "rats think differently from us due to genetics" argument is silly. They have lesser capacities than us. They don't "think differently". Humans may differ in hormone levels for trust or aggression, and some may be slower or faster in picking things up. But there is no genetic difference accounting for concepts. Triangle, mortgage and water all mean the same thing regardless of genetics, and there is no genetic difference that causes healthy people to disagree on the product of 4 X 4. Healthy human brains have the same capacities, and there is no evidence that a genetic difference in brains amounts to a difference in human culture, nor a mechanism by which such could be the case. Its like noting the difference between humans walking and snakes crawling is genetic, and then suggesting riding on Segways rather than doing hopscotch is also genetic. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds more plausible than physical relativism produced by genetics or cognitive relativism produced by language. He probably meant in the way that two different religions have different cosmologies, which isn't a wonky topic to begin with. — Melab±1 ☎ 22:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New towns in the United Kingdom, Scotland specifically

Alright, so places like Glenrothes and Cumbernauld are considered new towns.

Why are places like Westhill, Aberdeenshire and Portlethen not considered the same then?

--Whatdeanerwastalkingabout (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term is used to refer specifically to those towns that were planned and designated under the New Towns Act 1946 and its successors. There's more information and history at New towns movement, which lists the five Scottish new towns created via this route. The two things that mark them out from other new communities, planned or otherwise, are (1) their creation was mandated by the government using its new statutory powers (here's Cumbernauld's published designation in the Edinburgh Gazette), and (2) each was developed under the control of a specialised development corporation, rather than the relevant local authority. - Karenjc (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you. It seems that if you compare the population of say Glenrothes with say Westhill in Aberdeenshire, there is a big difference in that the latter is a lot smaller, but both are "new towns" in the sense that they were constructed basically from scratch in the mid to late 20th century and did not really exist except maybe as tiny villages before that.--Whatdeanerwastalkingabout (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Karenjc said - in the UK the term "new town" usually refers specifically to those towns created through that specific Government legislation, the New Towns Act. New or expanded villages created through local authority or private initiatives, under existing town planning legislation, are - to avoid confusion - not generally referred to as "new towns", but rather as "new villages", "expanded settlements", etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Westhill, Aberdeenshire refers to Westhill as a "new satellite town", similar to Glenrothes for example which is referred to as a "one of Scotland's first post-second world war new towns" in its article. I do understand the difference now, but it's not made very clear.--Whatdeanerwastalkingabout (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article needs a lot of work - I've just reverted a piece of vandalism there dating from early 2009! I've changed a couple of words there, to clarify it. This is a much better source about Westhill. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Against "nationalism"?

The organization UNITED for Intercultural Action claims to be against nationalism, amongst other things.

Would the organization therefore be opposed to the Scottish National Party?--Whatdeanerwastalkingabout (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. SNP isn't really nationalist-chauvinistic, so it would fall off the radar of a group like UNITED. There is no commentary about SNP on their website (in total there are 51 hits for 'Scotland'). That said, many people in the organization might be highly critical of the nationalist discourse of SNP, but it's hardly their main target. --Soman (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the article that the OP cites, I get the impression that what they are against is, for lack of a better term coming to mind, what I'll call "aggressive nationalism" -- things like discriminating against non-members of the nation. It doesn't sound like they are opposed to a group wanting self-determination. But if, say, the SNP tried to keep out immigrants or tried to deny certain privileges to people in Scotland based on the absence of ancestors who lived in Scotland, then the organization would probably disapprove. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any answer would be speculative, unless they have a explicit policy towards those supposedly discriminated nation trying to get free, which some claim is the case of the Scottish. But being antinationalist, doesn't mean being against nationalism, but being against chauvinism, jingoism and militarism. 22:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Scotland Secession Question

If Scotland hypothetically left the United Kingdom next year (or whenever a referendum on Scottish independence passes and is implemented), will Queen Elizabeth II regain the monarch/head of state of Scotland after it becomes independent? Futurist110 (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be up to the independent state of Scotland to decide who their head of state is, but the current SNP government has stated that they would retain the Queen as head of state "on a similar basis to her role in Australia and Canada" (source: http://www.snp.org/referendum/faqs/q). It's fair to say that opinion among independence campaigners in Scotland is not united around this proposal. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup for this info. Futurist110 (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I guess she would be Elizabeth I of Scotland. RNealK (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RNealK, I think your guess would be wrong. She is Elizabeth II in every Commonwealth realm, despite being only the first Elizabeth in all but one of them. The days when the same person was, e.g. Charles I of Navarre and Charles II of Naples and Charles III of France and Charles IV of Sicily (a made up example), are long gone. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another question, would the UK want that its monarch continues as head of state for Scotland if the Scots go ahead with independence? --Soman (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The UK would have no say in the matter. After all, her role as the Head of State of the various (16 I believe) sovereign states she reigns over are all independent of each other. The UK has no say over what Australia, Canada, Jamaica, or really any of the other nations do or don't do in that regard. Her role as the Queen of Canada is not subservient to her role as the Queen of the UK, and likewise should Scotland secede, and retain her as Queen, her role as Queen of Scotland would not in any way be subservient to her role as Queen of the UK. --Jayron32 02:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good point. But the Queen herself could potentially decline to remain queen of Scotland if they go for independence? --Soman (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As elsewhere, she would be guided by what her government(s) say on the matter - she would not act independently. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It's extremely unlikely that she would decline. She has a holiday cottage in Scotland. Dbfirs 07:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would it take to install her as head of state in the US and restore some order to the financial affairs of those former colonies? Edison (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A revolution. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not. Foreign investors, such as Britain, are buying us, piece by piece. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to be head of state of a country by buying the country or any part thereof. Hypothetically, (almost) the entirety of the USA could be bought by foreign investors, but this would have no ramifications for the U.S. Constitution. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you buy a country, you buy its politicians too. That opens the door to amendments which could change things dramatically. Not all at once, of course. Step by step. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a crazy diversion and I'm tempted to hat it. Even if the USA became a Commonwealth realm with the Queen (or her successor) as head of state, that would mean a wholesale dismantling and redesign of the structures of governance, a massive project that would take at least decades to implement. The Queen would still be exercising no more personal influence in the direct governance of the USA than she does in her existing realms - and that is virtually none. The US President has FAR more power than the Commonwealth Monarch ever has. Were the current ludicrous financial situation to arise under a Queen of the United States, she would be even less successful than Obama has been in resolving it. But then, she wouldn't even be trying to resolve it, because it's not her place to be getting involved in such matters (although I'm sure informal discussions would be held behind closed doors with people in high places). Mind you, in any rational system other than the one the USA has at present, such a ludicrous circumstance as a shutdown of the entire government would never have happened to begin with, but that's another story. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the entire [federal] government" isn't shutdown, in fact not even a majority of the federal government is shut down. All Constitutionally obligated duties of the federal government continue to operate & near full staffing. Besides that when you speak of the U.S. there are really 50 (or 53/4) "governments" that are pretty independent, so independent that the Feds & them regularly sue each other.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was some talk on the radio about this a week or so ago; one of the weaknesses of the U.S. system is that, by being locked into scheduled elections, there is no mechanism for a "hung government" or a Motion of no confidence. In parliamentary systems, when the Government fails to pass legislation of consequence, or becomes deadlocked and cannot operate, they typically dissolve the government and hold elections right away to establish a new government. There is no mechanism for this in the U.S. --Jayron32 19:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No real objection to hatting. The question just came from frustration with a Congress which is down to about 5% approval and a government which appears incapable of managing its nation's financial affairs, and wondering about another approach to governance. Edison (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was only half-serious (which, for me, is very serious indeed :)). A weakness of the Commonwealth system, at least insofar as it applies in the United Kingdom, is that there is no separation of Church and State. But what they lack there, they make up for by having separation of State and Government. The Queen is the Head of State, but the Prime Minister is the Head of Government, and if anyone is to be cast in the role of the "Ruler of the Country", the PM fits far better than the Queen. In the USA the Head of State, although not formally a part of the Congress, is heavily involved in governing. Another huge difference is the Speaker of the lower house. The US Speaker is a major player in any political goings on, such as at present; but in the Westminster system, a person who is charged with making the lower house run smoothly must act impartially at all times and must never engage in public debate on political issues (even though they are party politicians back in their electorates); for a Westminster Speaker to be engaging in the sort of rhetoric we've seen from Boehner lately (and his predecessors in earlier times) would see him/her quickly replaced, because that would be seen as a massive conflict of interests. Not so in the USA. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a nitpick - the Speakers of the UK House of Commons are not "party politicians back in their electorates" - once elected Speaker they stand for re-election as "Speaker" rather than a representative of the party they came from, and by convention the other major parties do not put up rival candidates in the Speaker's constituency, though fringe parties and independents do stand: see Buckingham (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s for the line-up in the current speaker's constituency at the last general election. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. But that tradition hasn't always translated elsewhere. In Australia, presiding officers have to defend their seats at every election just like any other members, and a handful have been defeated while they were in office. Speaker Sir Billy Snedden tried to change our system to emulate the UK system, but it went nowhere. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the Speaker is the one that 'speaks'(rhetoricalizes?) on all spending bills in the U.S. system, it would be similar to somehow preempting Obama's ability to call a military strike despite him originating all 'defense' matters. From what I am aware of for the British system, David Cameron is basically the equivalent of our Speaker of the House where the Monarch is the branch of government represented by our President, the particulars are somewhat different with the U.S. "executive" also being "Commander in Chief" but the simplest comparison is monarch=president, speaker=prime minister.

It was also stated above that the U.S. doesn't have no-confidence votes, and yet the Speaker being the equivalent to Prime Minister is subject to no-confidence votes at any time & for any reason whenever the house chooses to vote him/her out, see Newt Gingrich having his party maintain the majority in the general elections yet losing his Speaker post within the House in 1999, similar to Margaret Thatcher's 1990 debacle where the Party kept control but got rid of its leader. ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]