Humanities desk
< May 3	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 4

Empress of Japan

Why was a great interregnum between 1337 and 1607 where there were no Empress of Japan (kogo or chugu)? The title only seem to return when Tokugawa Ieyasu’s granddaughter was married into the imperial family. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's just because no one ever bothered to add them to the list on that page. If you check the articles for all the emperors, they mention their wives' names. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No that wasn’t the case. Because for example Emperor Go-Yōzei his wife held the title of Nyōgo which translated to just as consort. The list on the Japanese wiki ja:日本の皇后一覧 also contains the 300 year period where there was no empresses. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

US budget sequestration

United States budget sequestration in 2013 seems outdated--is sequestration still in force and have there been any significant changes in the past few years? Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The answer appears to be yes. To both. It's still in force but there have been significant changes since the caps were increased (okay to be fair they always have). This lasts until 2019. A new bill will need to be passed to increase the caps again. Most likely this will be for another 2 years meaning this will likely be the end of the issue. Budget Control Act of 2011 expires in 2022. See Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 [1] [2] [3]. Nil Einne (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whops um guess I shouldn't have trusted Vox as an RS. Just noticed from our article that Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 actually extended sequestration to 2023. Also Budget sequestration has the caps for each year. Nil Einne (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nil! I hadn't seen those additional articles. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advancement of human knowledge

If people thibk they know how things work, are they less inclined to accept alternative explanations proposed by others? If so, what causes this closed mind phenomenon? 86.8.201.210 (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You got any specific examples in mind? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is essentially asking why people are the way they are, rather than some better ideal that we'd like them to be. I doubt that this is really answerable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.132 (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite quotes, from Will Cuppy, in the 1940s: "The Dark Ages were called the Dark Ages because people then weren't very bright. They've been getting brighter and brighter ever since, until they're like they are now." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the OP is asking why people don't accept what he or she says. Instead, they have their own crazy opinions, such as the world being round or vaccines helping fight infections or maybe terrorists are just assholes and not part of some deep government conspiracy. Ignoring fringe ideas is normal, not closed-minded. A normal person requires extreme proof before he or she will accept an extreme opinion. 12.207.168.3 (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Dunning-Krueger effect. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I used to be smart, until I learned how stupid I am". 2606:A000:1126:28D:F466:E1BE:BFA8:B73 (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a teenager, my father was the stupidest man on earth. By the time I reached my early twenties, it was amazing how much the old man had learned in just a few years. Akld guy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have a list of cognitive biases which you may want to check. I recently read that "prejudiced" people (when compared to a parallel "objective" sample group) consistently ignore data which conflict with their preexisting belief system. More interestingy, MRI (?) cerebral scans indicated that different neural clusters in the brain were involved when comparing the cognitive processes of biased vs objective samples. The article also stressed that no difference in intelligence was observable. Unfortunately, I forgot to bookmark the article. Maybe Google Scholar (or a resident neuroscientist) has a useful reference to this experiment. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]