Humanities desk
< September 10	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 12 >

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.

September 11

Mythological Inventors of Numbers

Can someone provide me with a list, or a reference to where there is a list, of inventors of numbers? To explain, in some older polytheistic religions, one particular god or goddess was considered to have been the inventor of numbers. In ancient Egypt, Egyptian numerals were said to have been invented by Thoth. Roman numerals were credited with having been invented by Minerva. Babylonian base-60 mathematics was credited with having been invented by Enki. Can someone provide me with names of other gods and goddesses in other mythologies who are said to have invented numbers? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, letters and numbers were often conflated as runes, used for writing, numbers and magic:

Cadmon "created" the Greek alphabt, what we think of as pure letters were used for reckoning. Likewise

Väinämöinen the Finnish smith/magician and

Odin the Norse sage were credited with creating the runes.

Likewise the Irish sage-god, Ogma; Marduk, the Babylonian creator and divisor of the calendar:

Thank you. I'll go with Ogma. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also Seshat, Saraswati, Tir, see List of knowledge deities for more. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

God Created the Integers according to Kronecker. Or alternatively JHWH Conway according to the book Surreal Numbers which is about surreal numbers. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the Greek letters which are used as numbers. The Hebrew ones are as well. 92.8.216.51 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Myers-Briggs question

Which of the Myers-Briggs types is the most likely to walk up to someone and start rambling about computers or math or Star Trek or Pokémon or astrophysics or whatever interest catches their fancy, without greeting someone or making small talk? Subliminable (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rude type? DOR (HK) (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They might be at a convention. In fact I can think of a number of situations where it could happen but I would in general classify someone as a bore if they only talk about what interests them without thinking about others. Don't know where that fis in some psychological classification. Dmcq (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rude" and "bore" are not Myers-Briggs types. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If someone did that in front of me, I would suspect Asperger (that is only based on my past interactions with Aspies, I don't have expertise), but I wouldn't think of a Myers-Briggs type.

But that raises an interesting separate question: do most Asperger patients end up in the same Myers-Briggs type? A google search on "Asperger Syndrome Myers-Briggs" returns several Asperger patient forums where people are saying they are INTP or INTJ. That is not a reference, but I thought it could be interesting. --Lgriot (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is "We cannot answer because we cannot administer the Myers-Briggs test". The test is a specific set of 93 questions which must be taken and assessed to assign a Myers-Briggs type. Since you did not give us the answers to those 93 questions, rather just a single example of a single interaction you had with one person, there is literally no way anyone can help answer your question. Some people may attempt to bullshit their way into an answer, but unless the results of the test are available, those answers should be ignored. --Jayron 32 14:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. This is something I've seen many people do over the course of my life, not an isolated encounter with one person. It's part of the nerd stereotype in the popular culture, as well. I want to know which of the 16 types most of these people fall into. Subliminable (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Then it is more than one person. Doesn't matter. Unless and until you give those people the Myers-Briggs self-assessment and then grade that assessment, you cannot assign them a Myers-Briggs type. --Jayron 32 14:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of Meyers Brigs is that you're supposed to be able to use it to predict how people will act in various situations.

Imagine if the question asker had asked an equivialant, but more common question "Which M-B type will perform best at a particular job?", and Jayron responded like this. It'd be a joke.

(You could argue that M-B is mostly nonsense, but 1) You haven't so argued. and 2) The question could still be approuched theoretically as though M-B worked as advertised.) ApLundell (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner didn't ask that question. If they had, they would get different answer. There's a big difference between guessing a person's MB type based on a single behavioral interaction and finding literature that assigns ideal jobs based on known MB types. One has known literature we can recommend for reading. The other is making wild-ass guesses based on nothing in particular. --Jayron 32 14:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner didn't ask for a person's MB type to be guessed. They asked for statistical information, not wild-ass guesses. It may well not exist, but there's no reason to chastise them for asking a different question than they did. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP was not that specific. But if you want to help instead of just criticizing, google "which myers-briggs personality types are rude" and see what you can find. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, because you said that, that means you have references to those statistics, and are refusing to share them with us because why? --Jayron 32 14:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, MBTI is a very dubious instrument, as explained at the web page. Many other personality tests exist; personally I think the traditional Yi Jing system has more potential for this kind of analysis of possibilities. That said, according to [1] it is a highly proprietary scheme, with numerous trademarks and other restrictions being used to regulate just when-and-how-and-so it is used, with large entrance fees for practitioners. But that link suggests that open source competing schemes like International Personality Item Pool ([2]) and Open Extended Jungian Type Scales ([3]) can be used. Certainly if I were to start making predictions employing some sort of divination I would prefer it unencumbered by those claiming ownership of ideas. Wnt (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to ignore all the disclaimers and caveats above, I'd say: fandom is mostly N, and the nerdy stereotype is NT; I can't get more specific than that. —Tamfang (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scots' attitudes towards independence across the sectarian divide

In the Scottish independence referendum, 2014, was there any notable difference in voting patterns based on religion? Were Anglicans or members of the Church of Scotland less inclined (on average, obviously) to vote for Scottish Independence than Catholic Scots were? Did any pollsters ask questions of the religion of those being polled on the question of Scottish independence, to see if there was any correlation? Eliyohub (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[4]. --Jayron 32 14:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picked from Jayron's link above, Tall Tales: Religion and Scottish Independence thinks not really: "...those modest differences we can find between Catholics and Church of Scotland identifiers in their attitudes towards independence are not due to Protestantism or Catholicism, nor to history, heritage, or religious politics. It springs largely from the simple fact that Presbyterians are, on average, older, and older people of all religious persuasions are more likely to be opposed to independence".

Anglicanism is not big in Scotland, Religion in Scotland gives the Scottish Episcopal Church a membership of 34,000 plus 67,000 who identified themselves as Church of England at the last census (added together less than 2% of the population). Alansplodge (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My church was rather strongly against it (despite having a younger-than-average demographic), if I understand rightly, but as they're miniscule, they definitely didn't have a significant impact. Oddly, previous generations in the church had been fiercely opposed to the opposite action as well. I don't know whether other conservative dissenting churches had positions on the 2014 question, although they weren't around when the "opposite action" happened. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical storms and hurricanes: codes and numbers

Please see this article (list): Tropical Storm Irma. What do all of those codes and numbers mean? For example, one storm on this list – Typhoon Irma (1985) – has a notation that reads "(T8506, 06W, Daling)". I have no idea what any of that means. Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Growth number corresponding to this first name is 11. Aside from that, Daling's just a name, not a code. No clue about the numbers. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought for "06W" was "West", i.e. it travelled 6 degrees east-west. Consider these four storms:

1985, 06W
1978, 19W
1981, 26W
1974, 34W

As you go down the list, each one had a net east-west difference that's greater than the one above it. That got shattered, however, with the 1971 storm, 37W, which started and ended near the Philippines. Their starting locations aren't correlated with the numbers either (e.g. 1971 and 1985 both started vaguely near Guam), so the numbers definitely don't mean "degrees west of the antimeridian". Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers line up quite well with their chronological order in the typhoon seasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first name is assigned by Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) in Hawaii. The second name was used when it was in "area of responsibility" of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration. Perhaps the number was assigned by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA)? Rmhermen (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ask User:HERB, who added them back in 2009, who made some edits the other day, and who is even named after such a storm. PointyOintment (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I posted on his Talk Page. And I asked him to offer some input in this discussion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the 6th tropical depression of 1985 in the Western Pacific (I don't know if subtropical depressions count). Atlantic storms are called L (01L, 02L and so on), Invests (potential tropical depressions) are called 90L, 91L through 99L then 90L, 91L and so on and other basins have other letters like E for East Pacific. The "L" is probably for AtLantic. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving this to the Science Help Desk. Here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]