Humanities desk
< August 3	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 5 >

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.

August 4

Existentialist ideas in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Are following quotes allusions to any classical existential philosophical work? Can someone cite the work where I could find the original idea?

•"Benjamin Button: Some people, were born to sit by a river. Some get struck by lightning. Some have an ear for music. Some are artists. Some swim. Some know buttons. Some know Shakespeare. Some are mothers. And some people, dance. "

•"Benjamin Button: You never know what's coming for you. "

•"Benjamin Button: You can be as mad as a mad dog at the way things went. You could swear, curse the fates, but when it comes to the end, you have to let go. "

•"Benjamin Button: [Voice over; letter to his daughter] For what it's worth: it's never too late or, in my case, too early to be whoever you want to be. There's no time limit, stop whenever you want. You can change or stay the same, there are no rules to this thing. We can make the best or the worst of it. I hope you make the best of it. And I hope you see things that startle you. I hope you feel things you never felt before. I hope you meet people with a different point of view. I hope you live a life you're proud of. If you find that you're not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again. "

•"Benjamin Button: Our lives are defined by opportunities; even the ones we miss. "

•"Benjamin Button: It's a funny thing about comin' home. Looks the same, smells the same, feels the same. You'll realize what's changed is you."

•"Mrs. Maple: Benjamin, we're meant to lose the people we love. How else would we know how important they are to us? " --Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When is your homework due in by? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks no homework. Why would it be?--Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Sartre, what ties the existentialists together is that existence precedes essence. This is represented in some of your quotes above. Llamabr (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blazon for the University of London#Coat of arms ?

Please help me find a source for blazoning text for the shield of the University of London#Coat of arms.

This is written in the en.wp article without a source:

Argent, the Cross of St George, thereon the Union Rose irradiated and ensigned with the Imperial Crown proper, a Chief Azure, thereon an open Book also proper, Clasps gold

There is a fuzzy, unreadable photo of the 1838 grant of arms at http://www.london.ac.uk/history.html This reference to a 1953 Campbell and Evans Book of Flags may also help research my question: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-lond.html#uni

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I can source blazon to the same book (Harte [1]) as the grant of arms . I'll add it to the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Median wealth of single African-American women

In 2010, the median wealth of African-American single women was five dollars.[2] White households had 13 times the median wealth of black households in 2013, compared with eight times in 2010.[3] So, how much was the 2013 median wealth of African-American single women? Here is the corresponding raw data. EllenCT (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The study of Mariko Chang does not refer to African-American women in particular, but to women of color (including Hispanic). And although I believe in the disparity between men-women, single-married, white-non-white, I don't believe Chang's data to be accurate. --Yppieyei (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The headline refers to black women. Do you think they misrepresented the Fed SCF data or that the data is flawed? EllenCT (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! At http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin36/hsda?harcscfcomb+scfcomb

("Analysis" / "Comparison of means") 
Dependent: NETWORTH, NFIN, VEHIC
Row: RACE
Selection Filter(s): married(2), hhsex(2); year (2004) through (2013) separately
TABLE OPTIONS: Additional statistics in each cell: Median

Year	White NETWORTH	Black NETWORTH	Hispanic NETWORTH	White NFIN	Black NFIN	Hispanic NFIN	White VEHIC	Black VEHIC	Hispanic VEHIC
2004	67650.17	13539.90	3329.48	97418.22	13564.56	5179.20	6412.34	2959.54	3576.11
2007	102208.08	6557.13	3705.23	112279.56	10778.84	5950.82	6624.40	4154.34	3031.55
2010	65051.93	8037.72	5572.82	102882.79	11788.65	9645.26	6644.51	4179.61	4822.63
2013	63300.00	7500.00	5310.00	83800.00	12000.00	6900.00	6500.00	4400.00	4200.00

NETWORTH: Total net worth of household, 2013 dollars

NFIN: Total value of nonfinancial assets held by household, 2013 dollars

VEHIC: Total value of all vehicles held by household, 2013 dollars

Filter MARRIED(2): Marital status of head of household(=neither married nor living with partner)

Filter HHSEX(2): Gender of household head(=female)

EllenCT (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to anti-Semites, how does the Jewish conspiracy to control everything actually work?

When an anti-Semite says the Jews control the banking system or the media or the entertainment industry, etc., how does the conspiracy actually work, according to them? Does it have a headquarters? Is every Jew involved to some degree, or only the elite Jews? How does one gain admission to the Jewish groups that control stuff? Where do they take their orders from? Are there secret clubs and handshakes that meet underneath the synagogues?

I am looking for nuts and bolts description of how the conspiracy works; I am not interested in supposed *evidence* that the Jews do control stuff (such as a list of powerful people who happen to be Jewish); I want to know *how* they think Jews control stuff.

I am aware of The Protocols of Elders of Zion and, while I am aware that some people still believe that document is real, it is very old. I am wondering if there are any newer descriptions/depictions of the Jews' nefarious dealings.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you also are aware that a very large percentage of your edits are places at the RefDesk ... so I shall treat this as a serious question as much as possible.

No one has a magical mechanism for Jews to collaborate in controlling the banking system, etc. It is true, moreover, that many years ago, money-dealing was one of the few occupations available for those who were banned from land-ownership, etc. The infamous "Protocols" is rightly derided at this point in time as being basically and nicely absurd.

No secret cabals of which I am aware, or which anyone has shown, and asking such a question shows a naivety which is quite rare. Indeed there is an oft-quoted saying that if there are two Jews, they will have three political parties <g>. Collect (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it naive to ask for details on stupid things that stupid people believe? I'm not asking for anyone to demonstrate that the stupid beliefs are true; I just want to know what they are. Reading comprehension: it's underrated.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section about it at List of conspiracy theories#Antisemitic conspiracy theories with references that I guess could have the answers. There's also The Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory and Jew Watch at whose website you can find many articles about Jewish infiltration and organization. I refuse to read all that dreck to try to form an opinion about how they think the conspiracy work. My guess would be that there are different and contradictory opinions, even within the same organization, about how Jews conspire to control the world. But you're welcome to study it! Sjö (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the ZOG stuff is pretty interesting.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will be useful to read about Confirmation bias. Dolphin (t) 14:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like hate-speech, with which they sometimes (and in this case do) overlap, conspiracy theories don't need to actually have substantive foundations. They just need to rile ignorant people. NB watch out for hate sites that have lists of powerful Jews, mostly stuffed with the names of people who aren't actually Jewish. --Dweller (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conspiracy. Very few people think a top-down system such as you describe actually exists or is necessary for the system to sustain itself. Not every Jew is involved (I aren't.) Asmrulz (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of wilful misunderstanding, I would suggest that the conspiracy theory works like this: firstly, a Jewish person joins a company or other organisation and works diligently in it, eventually rising to a position where he is able to recruit and/ or promote other workers. At that point, more Jews are recuited/ promoted, in a form of entryism, until they are in a position to determine the direction of the company or organisation. I just pause at this point, to make the observation that a friend of mine, who worked at a well-known insurance broker, used to claim that exactly this sort of 'giving each other a leg-up' occurred in that company. Anyway, once the nefarious Jews have control of the organisation, they are able to influence its direction. I suppose examples of this would include the Hollywood studios' opposition to Nazi-ism in the late 1930s and this chap's campaigning and influence on behalf of the state of Israel.

|::Again, in an attempt to give a comprehensive answer but at the risk of turning myself into an Aunt Sally, I would make two other observations; firstly, that Jewish people are perceived as clannish, which probably feeds into a conspiracy 'justification'; and, secondly, that American support for the state of Israel is widely viewed in Europe as being influenced by a 'Jewish lobby'. 79.185.3.229 (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those not part of the British conspiracy to run the English language, Aunt Sally is indeed a thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

That's what "they" call Rene Goulet. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Who I might add legitimately did run the World Wrestling Federation behind the scenes, under fellow Frenchman Pat Patterson. It wasn't the world, but it was "what the world is watching" for a while. Also the first man to beat the worldiest world champion in world history. Conclusive proof that the Jews don't run the world, because the French used to. He's not just a straw man, it's an ignoratio elenchi. A double negative is a positive, therefore a double logical fallacy is a perfectly reasonable argument (on the Internet, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

This is just anecdotal but I have found Jews to be people who are curious about various subjects and openminded about those subjects, so that when one of those subjects pique their interest, they delve into it afresh, with minimal preconceptions and without a vested interest in preexisting received wisdom pertaining to that subject. These are of course cultural qualities in distinction from religious qualities. But of course religion itself is cultural regardless of the religion under consideration. As to the mechanism by which Jews may come to "control" any area of activity, there simply is no such thing. There are Jews excelling in realms of activity—whether it be business or academia or any other area in which Jews are found to have a foothold. But this is not by design and the "mechanism" is nonexistent aside from the aforementioned innate curiosity about intrinsically interesting subjects and the fresh approach that Jews bring to reevaluating received wisdom. In other words the open-mindedness of Jews is misperceived by antisemites as a willful design to "control" something. Bus stop (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard a story about Jeremiah turning the Stone of Jacob into the Stone of Scone. Whether by magic or just superstition, that thing certainly has made men (and women) very powerful. I'm not aboard this particular crazy train, but if I were, I'd definitely try to convince gullible people that's the general foundation of the imaginary condition. Stones make excellent symbols for truth, and some even keep tigers away. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of stones, there's also a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This is one of the most interesting volumes we have read in many a day and we confess that the arguments produced by Mr. Allen seem to be unanswerable." InedibleHulk (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Parenthood funding

I was just reading this article about a possible government shutdown over funding of Planned Parenthood, in the amount of half a billion dollars yearly. But the most important distinctions are not clear here.

The funding to Planned Parenthood is under Title X, and our article briefly mentions "grants and contracts". Are these competitive? If someone outlawed the funding to Planned Parenthood, are there other organizations bidding that can take the money and fulfill the same tasks?

Are the proposed funding changes solely to ban Planned Parenthood from receiving funds, or do they nix any federal funding for whatever they were doing, no matter who does it?

Are there critiques or defenses of the funding that go through the things funded item by item, looking at each on its merits, rather than saying that all funds promote an organization that does abortions or an organization that helps women? Wnt (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any evidence that Republicans favor any kind of public health support for women, I'd like to see it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might be prone to share your bias, but right now it seems more useful to understand the system that is in place better. Let's try not to get sidetracked on the more obvious politics. Wnt (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do rapists consume more porn than non-rapists?

Do rapists consume more porn than non-rapists?--Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to answer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "hat" here (marking the question as unanswerable) because there are clearly many studies that try to address such questions one way or another. We can certainly answer it to a Humanities standard of evidence! See [4] [5] which address the issue peripherally (after all, if rapists did not view porn, then porn viewing could not reduce the rate of rape!) We have an article Effects of pornography in the same vein. I just did a little web searching .. please leave this up for someone who knows a little social science to get a chance. Wnt (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add: The question whether porn encourages or inhibits rape and sexual violence has been well-studied but there are no simple agreed-upon answers. At a societal level, the two have moved in the opposite direction recently (but remember the dictum about correlation and causation). On an individual level, you can find studies making either case, eg see this review. For a detailed argument of porn's negative effects, see Dangerous Relationships: Pornography, Misogyny and Rape; for the opposite argument, see Porno? Chic!: How Pornography Changed the World and Made it a Better Place. Abecedare (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On an individual level, you can find studies making either case. That's exactly what I meant with my first response. I assessed the question as seeking a single answer that fits all cases, and of course there is no such answer. If the questioner wanted a more nuanced answer, perhaps next time he/she can pose a less simplisticly-worded question, setting out in slightly more detail what they would like to know. Otherwise, such questions are frequently indistinguishable from trolling. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe those contradictory studies employ the old axiom that "any data which does not support the hypothesis must be disregarded." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, did you consider that the questioner didn't know that the question was not black and white? Children often ask where people go when they die. Just because we don't have a solid answer does not make it a bad question. After all, they know that when mommy/daddy leave the house, they go to work. Or that when grandma/grandpa leave, they go back to their own homes. Etc. From a child's perspective, it's easy to think that people "go" somewhere and the answer should be rather clear. So, why not give the questioner a little more leeway? Dismas|^(talk) 03:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP is a child, then I'm a little worried about the things they're showing interest in, on the internet, presumably without the knowledge and permission of their parents. I would MUCH rather assume such questions are from adults, and treat them accordingly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It always strikes me as odd to hear people talk about "consumption" of porn. When you consume something, you use it all up: after consumption, it's not available to use again. You consume food and drink, you consume resources, a fire consumes homes, and afterwards, the food, the drink, the resources, and the homes are gone and cannot be used again. If you're consuming porn, you're using it wrong. - Nunh-huh 03:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lehrer said, "I would devour where others merely nibbled."[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the thing I was looking for but didn't find in a quick search was data as to whether rapists are intrinsically more sex-crazed than other people. There's this whole idea of "psychogenic" rape versus "sociogenic", I think it is, and whether rape is a sex crime or a crime of violence, and I have the sense the latter has had the upper hand. But things like [7] don't tell me if rapists studied report viewing porn more than others, or better still, whether surveillance of rapists and other criminals in a prison setting with available porn revealed more interest in it, more wankage etc. Wnt (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a prison setting, there are usually no available female sex partners, so comparison of behaviour during incarceration to the non-imprisoned would be rather pointless. Wanking to porn may well be a prisoner's only sexual outlet, given their situation. There might be a point in comparing those imprisoned for sex offences to those imprisoned for non-sex offences, however. I would be looking for the type of pornography viewed as much as the quantity. But this would rely on freely allowing the prisoners access to any sort of porn they choose, even the violent sort, and letting them make their own choice as to which they choose. I strongly suspect any attempt at such an experiment would receive a firm veto.

On a possibly related note, child molesting pedophiles are known to occasionally keep large records of images of children, both pornographic (sometimes horrifically so) and non-pornographic (i.e. otherwise innocent images). Even in that situation, the link between viewing child pornography and "contact" offending against children remains very unclear, from the studies I've seen. Remember, correlation does not equal causation. But that involves a rather different dynamic, so I'm not sure it's of any relevance to the OP. 110.149.165.69 (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the OP merely asked about the correlation, and getting into causation therefore is something of a sidetrack; it was just the low-hanging fruit. It would be unfortunate indeed if it is viewed as unacceptable to give prisoners who will perhaps soon be released the rights they would effectively have after release, even for purposes of experiment. To wander onward, the first strawman that it would be socially useful to disprove would be Dylann Roof's notion of "testosterone" crazed blacks raping white women (which was based on irresponsible speculation in print [8] that was not confirmed [9]). But more generally, in a society where treatments for "low T" seem to be very common, it would be useful to know whether rapists have an overall higher sex drive than non-rapists, without even getting into the precise picture they like best. Wnt (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly find your view to be odd. Prisoners, by virtue of their status, are routinely deprived of "rights" that free citizens take for granted. Prisons are by nature governed by strict rules (though exactly how strict may vary). A prisoner does not lose their human rights by going to prison. They do, however, lose their freedom, and that may well include the freedom to view porn. For example, racist material is generally protected by the first amendment, but I'd be surprised if a single U.S. jurisdiction would knowingly allow it in their prison system. And the courts have generally upheld such restrictions. If the prison governor were to take the view that porn, or particular kinds of porn, are not conducive to the good order of the prison, or the rehabilitation of the prisoners, they will likely ban it.

Ted Bundy famously spoke of violent pornography as somehow connected to his crimes, but this is only anecdotal. Also, high testosterone levels are common in elite athletes, particularly those in competitive or combat sports, but I don't know of rape being any more common amongst this group. Mike Tyson being an obvious exception. Personally, I seriously doubt high testosterone alone turns men into rapists. Androgen-suppression regimes in treating sex offenders are considered a very blunt tool, which don't really address the source of the problem. 110.149.165.69 (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but people will complain if I get into an off-topic political debate. Perhaps my "unfortunate" already strayed into that, but partly I meant that in the sense that it is unfortunate we don't have that data on hand to answer this question. Wnt (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]