Humanities desk
< August 2	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 4 >

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.

August 3

The eradication of memories of the Great War

At the head of Rudyard Kipling's 1930 poem "Memories" is the quotation "the eradication of memories of the Great War", attributed to a "Socialist government organ". Can anyone identify the original source please? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wymspen (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)I found this in a search - which seems to attribute it to the Daily Herald - but I don't want to subscribe to the website.[reply]

Edmonton Journal from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada on ... www.newspapers.com › newspage Has the time arrived for the eradication of memories of the great war J" To use the words of the Daily Herald. This argument, fraught with poignancy for millions ...

Many thanks @Wymspen:, I was able to find the article in the Daily Herald - Friday 24 October 1930 "Striking Cenotaph Decision - 'Forget War' Appeal - No Wreaths from Foreign Visitors". DuncanHill (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone ever found a way to solve his own Dunning–Kruger effect?

If someone knows nothing about subject X, but think he knows alot about subject X, he wont research about it to be able to learn about X.

There is also when there is a subject Y that would be important if this guy knew about it, but he doenst know that its important that he learn about it and so never try to learn about it.

And then there is the time when there is a subject/hobby Z that the guy would really love to learn about if he knew that this subject/hobby Z existed, but he doenst know it exist and he can't try to find more info about it.

Does anyone ever found a way to solve those kind of problems?2804:7F2:688:3746:A864:E46A:3B31:AC74 (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For whom is it a problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone at this universe (unless someone found a way to solve this problem).2804:7F2:688:3746:A864:E46A:3B31:AC74 (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who, besides you, says it's a problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, who seriously says ignorance is a good thing? I don't mean "ignorance is bliss" (which is a dismissal of happy fools and not a goal), I mean who outside of the White House and its supporters advocates ignorance over knowledge? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to encourage curiosity. But we can't force someone to be curious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A classic Baseball Bugsesque straw man. Why not let those who are curious be curious? This refdesk is for people who are curious about stuff. The job of respondents is to assist in alleviating their curiosity where they're able to. It's not to put up roadblocks, or to make OPs justify their questions to your personal satisfaction before you will deign to descend from on high to feed them some crumbs from your exalted table. If you can't actually help, please maintain the silence for which you are extremely unrenowned. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is arguing for forcing the uncurious to become curious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Damn mandatory schooling. How dare they have made me waste my youth reading when I could've been hunting squirrels? 199.66.69.67 (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very perverse reading, Baseball Bugs. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much everyone who has done serious learning about a topic has confronted their own DK effect. Someone who thinks they know about X is probably going to be interested in the topic and more comfortable reading about it. This should lead them toward doing more research. The real problem with X is when someone really isn't interested in the topic but interested in being seen as having an opinion (because too many confuse the right to free speech with an obligation to having an opinion) and so decides that memorizing thought-terminating clichés is good enough. Some educational institutions try to handle Y by requiring cross-disciplinary education (which is why I had to take astronomy and HTML to get a degree in English literature and composition). Otherwise, it's the same problem as Z, the deeper you get into a topic, the harder it is to not touch upon other topics that a novice wouldn't assume are related. You like dinosaurs? Obviously can't get near that without learning biology or geology, and the second you ask yourself "why were dinosaurs only discovered in the past few centuries?" you're going to end up in the history of science (which is going to require learning some theology). The asteroid is going to require some physics and astrophysics. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube's recommendations algorithm has done a pretty good job of solving this. Especially the Z question. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Eh... They keep recommending I watch channels providing far-right commentary on pop culture, even though my viewing consists (in no particular order) mostly of cooking shows, synthwave, pre-Y2K tech, summaries of current Star Wars comics, African and/or medieval history, PBS science programs, and openly leftist propaganda. Now, I could begin to imagine that the last few (in order of least to most likely) are why they've decided I might care why some neo-Nazi dickhead prefers The Star Wars Holiday Special over The Last Jedi, out of some insane effort to provide political balance while catering to my interests. (Also, I have a tendency toward scientifically factual content, and the far-right loves to throw a "my facts don't care about your feelings" tantrum when you present them with scientific evidence contrary to their worldview -- clearly the same thing, right?). That said, I really have trouble believing that someone looking for videos defending J.K. Rowling's views on transgender people is going to get recommendations for ContraPoints or Philosophy Tube. I wonder why... Ian.thomson (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it works way, way better if you're deep into crafting, memes, and certain video game ephemera. It also seems to work well if you're interested in historical documentaries and content produced by "science communicators". Of course, there's a lot of dreck in all five of those groups, but in my experience once you start marking recommended videos as "Not interested" or "Don't recommend this channel" the quality of recommendations in particular categories goes up a lot. Anyway, my point is that the recommendations algorithm seems to have pretty well resolved OP's "Z question" (there is a topic or hobby Z that our subject would enjoy if he knew about it, but because he doesn't he has little hope of searching it out on his own). Last week I had no idea I'd be into auto body panel fabrication, for example. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A key point mentioned in the D–K article is that "poor performers do not learn from feedback suggesting a need to improve". The inability to learn from feedback may actually be the cause of the incompetence (rather than incompetence making some people unable to learn from feedback). As long as this inability persists, it is unlikely anyone will be able to overcome the recognition of their own incompetence. Perhaps the root cause in severe cases is not simply a cognitive bias but a delusion that is very hard to break through. --Lambiam 11:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]