Humanities desk
< October 6	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 7

Were these photographers employed by the National Park Service?

I'm dealing with a batch upload of photos from the National Park Service and I need to determine if these photographers were employed by the National Park Service to evaluate if their images might be public domain. I've tracked down many myself, but I'm having trouble with a few and thought I'd see if any research wizards here could help. I don't have very firm dates for most of them, but the pictures involved are color photographs and look relatively modern.

Fred Mang Jr.
Wilber "Bud" E. Dutton
Richard Frear
Philip Vaughn
Cecil W. Stoughton (circa 1972)

– BMacZero (🗩) 03:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the NPS ? SinisterLefty (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not. That's a good idea I'll fall back on if I need to. Thanks! – BMacZero (🗩) 00:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are not photos from (as opposed to, say, used by, licenced to, etc.) the NPS automatically public domain? Gem fr (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States. Photos produced by employees or officers of the National Park Service (as an agency of the US federal government) as part of their official duties are in the public domain. "Photos from the NPS" is not meaningful in copyright terms. The fact that the NPS provided the photos doesn't mean they were produced by employees or officers of the federal government or are otherwise in the public domain. Nil Einne (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Mang Jr. was "employed out of the National Park Service Washington Office" - according to this. Mikenorton (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same source for Richard Frear. Mikenorton (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And for Cecil W. Stoughton. Mikenorton (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilber E. (Bud) Dutton is described as an NPS photographer here (page 4). Mikenorton (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil W. Stoughton was "chief still photographer for the National Park Service (1967-1973)". Alansplodge (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Central Landscape Report for Eisenhower National Historic Site (NHS) says: "In 1969, NPS photographer W. E. (Bud) Dutton took a set of slides of Farms #1, #2, and #3". (Oops, sorry! Already linked above).

Couldn't find anything for Philip Vaughn though. Alansplodge (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I drew a blank for him as well. Mikenorton (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great sources, everyone. Thanks for your help! – BMacZero (🗩) 00:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil W. Stoughton was John F. Kennedy's White House Photographer, and took many well-known photos of the Kennedys; most notably, he took the photograph of LBJ's swearing-in on Air Force One after Kennedy's assasination. (BTW, Wikipedia is a great starting point to look up unknown people.) Textorus (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mind set

What makes people think different, like there are clever people and others are dumb. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-Peazy (talk • contribs) 13:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dunning–Kruger effect may be what you look for. You must be careful, though: there are people who think they are dumb and others are smarter than them; for obvious reason, they will keep low profile and you will be unaware of them. Gem fr (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like, for example, those who suspect there really is such a thing as a Philosopher's Stone.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious Q, if we assume intelligent people to have an evolutionary advantage, is why isn't just about everyone intelligent ? Some thoughts:

1) More complex minds may be more prone to mental illness.

2) Being more intelligent isn't always helpful for survival. The Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot, for example, had all intellectuals killed (among others).

3) In a modern welfare state, intelligence is less important to survival. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to live on the dole and keep making babies. Ironically, the most miserable conditions, like war and famine, may favor the intelligent surviving more. Those who see war coming and evacuate, for example, will be more likely to survive. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4) People are attracted to others of the opposite sex that are ... attractive (not necessarily smart) -- and they make babies (after a candalight dinner and a show, etc.). 2606:A000:1126:28D:6D4D:9C0C:C553:970E (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would only matter if intelligent people are somehow less attractive. I suppose people engaged in intellectual pursuits might spend less time exercising, which could have this result. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One's physical attractiveness can be determined instantly; it takes awhile to determine "mental attractiveness" -- all those boring conversations and such ("just shut up and ... Let's Get It On"). 2606:A000:1126:28D:6D4D:9C0C:C553:970E (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"A Little Less Conversation, a little more action, please". SinisterLefty (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

But see Is Intelligence Hereditary? which says: "Genes make a substantial difference, but they are not the whole story. They account for about half of all differences in intelligence among people, so half is not caused by genetic differences". Alansplodge (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All in all heritability of IQ is somewhere 50% and >80% (that is, the IQ of parents/siblings is a pretty good predictor of the IQ of children). You must be creationist, literally, to think intelligence (or its lack) is NOT 100% genetics. If it were not, no evolution could explain us being more intelligent than Australopithecus. Does not mean geniuses/idiots only spawn geniuses/idiots: some random variation still apply, the thing depends on a number of unknown factor including recessive, etc. Does not mean other factor do not matter, either, but is more of a serial circuitry, not something that can be split like 50/50 or whatever; you will need good genetics, proper food (including in utero), not to much illness nor to much head trauma, a relevant education, etc. At each stage you may lose potential. A consequence of this is, the more the population has access to proper food, health care, and education, the more genetics matter Gem fr (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question was about clever people vs dumb people. Those words have many meanings. Right now I am sitting in front of a class of teenagers aged 15 and 16, in my capacity as a casual relief (substitute/supply) teacher. I am seeing some students getting on with their set work (significantly, a mathematical task on bivariate data/scatter plots/correlation) while others are chatting and otherwise wasting their time. I regard those doing their work as the clever ones. (Maybe not everyone would agree.) But those who I regard as clever may not be those who would score highest on an IQ test, IF they tried (another factor rarely discussed). I personally think it's dumb to waste your time while at high school. Is it? The differences between the dumb and clever ones that I am describing are caused by many things - sheer laziness, lack of meaningful goals, peer pressure, plus many more not related to IQ. There is also the fact this is Day 2 of a new term, and daylight saving began here just two days ago, it's only 10:00am, so many of these kids would have still been asleep at this time of day for the past two weeks. Does this make them dumb, or just cause them to behave in dumb ways? HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ye, well, the clever one are those who did the assigned work in 10 minutes of the assigned 30 minutes (then proceeded to chat, because you are so boring to them). And the dumb, those who just could not do it. (and, BTW, the whole high school is a waste of time, the whole of the knowledge in it is found a tenth as much reading) Gem fr (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those so-called clever ones know how to change the oil in their cars? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drive to oil change shop, hand them a $20, and thank God you don't have to be a grease monkey for a living ? SinisterLefty (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

I didn't say "know to get it done", I said "know how to do it." 20 bucks or more. And the people will come, for it's money they have, and a peaceful engine they lack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, it probably costs more to do it yourself. There's the retail cost of the oil, the oil pan, the creeper you will need to slide under the car, the cost of washing all your clothes, the oil disposal fee, etc. Just not a good way to try to save money. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But a good way to learn how to do something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could get an oil change for £20 here in the UK! I used to do it myself to save a lot more than $20 Dbfirs 19:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an ad from Sears for a $19.99 oil change, which they claim is $8 off their regular $29.99 price: [2]. I think I've figured out why Sears isn't doing so well. :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Also works if the assigned work is to change the oil in their carsGem fr (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment of the genetics of intelligence specifically or the evolutionary pressures to be more (or less) smart, but it's important to note that evolution doesn't result in a continual linear progress to an objectively "better" form. Rather, it selects in favour of what, on average, works best in a particular environment. Furthermore 1) "what works best" means "what is best for ensuring successfully propagating your genes" (i.e. having offspring that survive to have successful offspring themselves), not necessarily "what is good for you personally", and 2) the environment includes all the organisms in it (including other members of your species), and as they evolve, "what works best" can change. Its entirely possible that as one trait or strategy (e.g. intelligence) becomes more common, other traits become more useful (whether because trying to complete with the dominant trait becomes too difficult to be worth it, or because the presence of that trait creates new opportunities to work with or exploit it). Iapetus (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a final thought, we have an article called Fertility and intelligence which says: "There is evidence that, on a population level, intelligence is negatively correlated with fertility rate and positively correlated with survival rate of offspring. The combined net effect of these two conflicting forces on ultimate population intelligence is not well studied and is unclear". Alansplodge (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

r/K selection theory --Khajidha (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or the more modern Life history theory. --Khajidha (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]