Humanities desk
< February 11	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 13 >

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.

February 12

Fundamental attribution non-error

Let's say Senator Bob gives a plainly stupid policy speech and votes accordingly. Why would he do such a stupid thing? One immediate answer might be that Senator Bob is a stupid person. But there might be a different and less visible explanation, e.g. Bob is smart, but he is taking payoffs from the spray paint lobby so he acts in their interests, and gives the speech because he has to spin this otherwise inexplicable vote to the public. Saying "Bob is stupid" is then called a fundamental attribution error, since the true explanation is that Bob is corrupt rather than stupid.

In another situation though, Bob might give the stupid speech out of actual, unfeigned stupidity. So "Bob is stupid" is then a correct explanation rather than an error.

Is there a name for this type of explanation, i.e. where you explain the action in terms of the subject's personal attributes, and the explanation is actually true? Like "fundamental attribution explanation"? Ad hominem is not quite what I'm looking for. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English has a conveniently short term for straying from the right way (err), but not for staying on it unerringly. There is no usable antonym one can substitute for "error" to indicate the correct counterpart of an "XYZ error" (description error, framing error, lexicographic error, medical error, transcription error, ...). Although there are a few uses of the collocation "fundamental attribution theory", I think that the term "fundamental attribution" by itself will not be understood outside the context of attribution errors. A somewhat principled point is that it is impossible to be certain that an attribution of any human action to whatever cause or trait is correct. There are always several explanations that cannot be ruled out. "Stupidity" can refer to feeble-mindedness or lack of relevant knowledge, which are very different things. Apparent stupidity can be due to a temporary glitch like can happen to anyone, or to an incidental misunderstanding or misinterpretation resulting from some cognitive bias, but can also be a matter of "playing dumb" for tactical reasons. --Lambiam 09:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, "fundamental attribution theory" might work. I agree that stupidity is hard to pin down precisely, but that was just one example. Corruption is maybe easier: hypothetically Bob might have taken those payoffs because of coercion or other pressure (e.g. his family was threatened, he needed the money for cancer treatment, etc); but in reality, there were no such issues: he is simply a corrupt official (one of many, of course) who likes money and is indifferent to the public good. Also of course, as we know from math, something can be true without being provable. Heh. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were there ever any Canadian people in history executed for witchcraft?

2 people in articles that I find people might have believed them 2 be witches were Marie-Josephte Corriveau and http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/vuil_daniel_1E.html. But were those 2 people executed for witchcraft? 2001:569:5262:A00:F032:10BD:FBB3:CB00 (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication that anyone associated la Corriveau with witchcraft during her lifetime, and it is well documented that she was sentenced to death and executed for murdering her husband. I also see nothing suggesting an association of Daniel Vuil with witchcraft; his lucrative business in "spirits" regarded distilled alcoholic beverages and was the reason for his definitive sendoff. The last person known to have been executed as a witch in North America was Wilmot Redd from Massachussetts, who was hanged in 1692. Our list of people executed for witchcraft has no entries from North America other than one from Connecticut Colony and many from Massachusetts Bay Colony. --Lambiam 08:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although the last person in Canada to be arrested and charged with witchcraft was in 2018, two days before the legislation was repealed (it was an offence "to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration"). [1] Alansplodge (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll like to point out that there was no Canada before 1867. Corriveau and Vuil resided in New France. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the present Canada was formed in 1867, but one of the colonies that merged to form it was Canada — formed in 1841 by the merger of Upper Canada and Lower Canada). --184.144.97.125 (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Sorcery in New France from Canada's National History Society, Daniel Vuil was indeed accused of witchcraft, although selling alcohol to the locals and being a Protestant were probably contributing factors to his execution by firing squad in 1661. Alansplodge (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vuil was executed by musketshot in October 1661, the only person to die for the crime of sorcery in New France.

Fear and the Shaping of Early American Societies (p. 56), Lauric Henneton, ‎Louis Roper, 2016.

Alansplodge (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Vuil to the list of people executed for witchcraft. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to search for speech (moved from talk page)

I want to know how to write a speech — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:31FF:1C:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Find a good speech on YouTube and write it down. That will give you a framework for developing a good speech of your own. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that Benjamin Franklin, as an ambitious youth, practiced a curious exercise. He would read an essay by some good writer, taking notes on key points, and then try to write the same essay himself; not from memory, but by original writing in the same style. —Tamfang (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a good speech requires at least two things: (1) understanding your audience; (2) knowing what you want to achieve. It is the subject of the field of rhetoric, which has been studied since antiquity. There is nothing wrong with the advice to study and emulate good speeches; this will be even more effective if you analyze them to understand what makes them good. You will then see that they appeal both to fact-based reason and to human emotion, the latter if only to make the audience connect to the topic. If they couldn't care less, then a speech, however carefully researched and eloquently delivered, will be a waste of everyone's time. The sooner you establish the emotional engagement, the better. Another practical advice is to give a summary both before and after an important segment, as in the mantra First you tell 'em what you gonna tell 'em; then you tell 'em; then you tell 'em what you tole 'em. This also applies to the speech as a whole. There are also techniques to build up subspense, by presenting the material as being (initially) a mystery, whose explanation is yet to come. Whether that is possible depends on the specific topic. The text of Aristotle's Rhetoric can be found online at Wikisource. It can be read in its entirety in a couple of hours, but it may be better to spread the reading over a couple of days. --Lambiam 16:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Know your subject. You will be nervous, and the better you know your subject, the better you'll be able to cope with stress. Frankly, if you don't know the subject, you shouldn't be giving the speech.

Know your audience. If the audience knows the subject pretty well already, pitch the content at a higher or more controversial / humorous level (to avoid boredom). If they are not familiar with the subject, make it simple and straight-forward, or you will lose them.

Know how much time you have. Plan to speak for no more than 80% of the time, if you will be answering questions.

Memorize the first two or three sentences, no more. The beginning is where people tend to get flustered, so having the first part fully memorized can help launch into the remainder. After those opening sentences, follow a general outline.

If you are going to take questions afterwards, keep control! Don't let someone give a speech from the floor, rather than ask a question. Sometimes it is better to take 2-3 questions at one time, and then answer them as a group, rather than one-by-one.

Remember: you know your subject better than the audience, so don't worry about it! DOR (HK) (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Osgood said it can be useful to think of the audience as being nervous, and that your job as speaker is to put them at ease. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, look on YouTube for JFK's speech at Rice University, in which he talks about why we should go to the moon. It's a classic of how to make a speech. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idiomatic translation from German to English

Hi Folks!! Can somebody translate the following:

Um diese beiden Männer und deren Ehefrauen scharte sich im Laufe der Zeit eine Gruppe von politischen Anhängern verschiedenster Charaktere und von verschiedenem Herkommen. Sie waren sich in der aktiven Bekämpfung des Nationalsozialismus und im Eintreten für den Kommunismus einig (Hervorheb. v. Verf.). Bis zum Kriegsausbruch mit der Sowjetunion lag der Schwerpunkt ihrer Arbeit auf innenpolitischem Gebiet. Danach verlagerte er sich mehr auf das Gebiet des Landesverrats und der Spionage zugunsten der Sowjetunion. Anfang 1942 wurde die Schulze-Boysen-Gruppe endgültig in das weit verzweigte Netz des sowjetischen Nachrichtendienstes in West-Europa eingeschaltet. Der Wert der Nachrichten, die von der Gruppe Schulze-Boysen an den sowjetischen Nachrichtendienst weitergegeben wurden, kann nach allgemeinem Urteil nicht unter- schätzt werden. Alle Personen, die sich dienstlich mit diesem Material befassen mußten, geben übereinstimmend an, daß es sich um die gefährlichste Verratsorganisation handelte, die während des 2. Weltkrieges aufgedeckt wurde... In keinem... Fall steht jedoch mit Sicherheit fest, daß die Verurteilten lediglich wegen Hochverrats und Feindbegünstigung verurteilt worden sind. Die Gruppe Schulze-Boysen war in allererster Linie eine Spionageorganisation für die Sowjetunion. Seit dem Kriegsausbruch mit Rußland trat der innere Widerstand zugunsten der Spionagearbeit zurück, und es ist davon auszugehen, daß alle Mitglieder direkt oder indirekt zur Nachrichtenermittlung eingesetzt wurden

Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 16:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt:

In the course of time, a group of political supporters of diverse character and backgrounds formed around these two men and their wives. They were united in the active fight against National Socialism and in supporting communism (emphasis by the author). Until the war with the Soviet Union broke out, their work focussed on domestic politics. Afterwards it shifted more to the realm of treason and espionage for the benefit of the Soviet Union. At the beginning of 1942, the Schulze–Boysen group was definitively linked into the widely branched-out network of the Soviet intelligence service in Western Europe. The consensus is that the value of the information passed on by the Schulze-Boysen group to the Soviet intelligence service cannot be underestimated. All who have had to deal officially with this matter agree that it was the most dangerous treason organization uncovered during World War II... In no... way, however, is there certainty that the convicts were only convicted because of high treason and abetting the enemy. The Schulze-Boysen group was first and foremost a spy organization for the Soviet Union. Since the outbreak of war with Russia, the internal resistance receded in favour of espionage work, and it can therefore be assumed that all members were directly or indirectly employed in collecting intelligence.

--Lambiam 23:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if "unterschätzt"/"underestimated" is what the author really wanted to say - it can only mean that the value was zero...--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of color is platinum??

Platinum is supposed to be some kind of silver. However, the Platinum (color) article reveals that platinum is in fact a (very de-saturated) variant of orange. Can you disprove me?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At 1% saturation, the color overwhelmingly has a grey appearance. The metal is its own element. It's not really discussed in the Platinum article, but in the 1930s, platinum was promoted or publicized as a kind of super-gold (one step in preciousness beyond gold), but that hasn't entirely held up in the years since... AnonMoos (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gold was heavily restricted in many countries in the part of the 30s when platinum was more expensive. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the photograph of one litre of platinum in the article, the pure metal appears to have a very desaturated green hue. I can only guess that this reflects the colour of the ceiling. --Lambiam 23:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the color, not the element. Georgia guy (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum as in platinum blonde might just be because presumably more young women would try a silvery hair color if it was called platinum than if it was called silver, it sounds more chic and precious instead of reminding them of post-menopause and silverback gorillas. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely slightly increasing with wavelength in the 400-700nm reflectance spectrometry. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're not even wrong. Silver as a class of colors just means "metallic grey" and as the article grey notes, there are greys that have other colors in them; for example it gives a range of "warm greys" that have yellow in them and "cool greys" that have blues in them. As the hex value for the platinum indicates, the grey has more red and green in it than blue, which makes it a "warm grey". So it's a "warm silver". You imply that because it has a slight "orange" hue in it, that makes it not silver. You are incorrect. It's just a slightly orange (or "warm") silver. --Jayron 32 21:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, an area of constant RGB color on a computer screen can at best only vaguely convey an impression of a shiny metallic appearance... AnonMoos (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who bombed the Maxim Gorkiy?

According to our article TS Maxim Gorkiy "In November 1975 an attempt was made to sink the ship. While she was being repaired at San Juan, two bombs were installed on board under the waterline. These were detonated later during the same month as the ship was approaching New York. The damage did not sink the ship however, and she was subsequently repaired at the Bethlehem Steel Corporation in Hoboken, New Jersey, United States". Do we know who planted the bombs? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, conflicting accounts of multiple bombs:

December 1974: one thrown on board while docked at San Juan (two injured)
November 9, 1975: two time bombs outbound San Juan[2]

and

November 2, 1975: two bomb blast at anchor San Juan
November 28, 1975: one thrown on board (one injured)[3]

and

November 1, 1975: A bomb explosion in San Juan harbor
December 1974: crew members injured Kissinger

fiveby(zero) 12:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a letter to NYT, the authors of Outlaws of the Ocean claim November to December 1975: The Soviet-flag Caribbean liner Maxim Gorky is attacked twice, by a bomb and a limpet mine, at San Juan Harbor in Puerto Rico (right-wing anti-Castro extremists are believed to be responsible). fiveby(zero) 13:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ru:Maxim Gorkiy (турбоход)en uncited claims bombs were 1 hour before leaving port, bombs and grenades both 1 a.m., and all passengers remained on board. fiveby(zero) 15:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous BLP ground, but have a look at: From SAC, MM to Director FBI, 11/29/1976[4]. Found by the name, but probably a coincidence. Brigade 2506 veterans talking about bombing Russian ships in 1976. fiveby(zero) 16:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Granma, a declassified document from House Select Committee on Assassinations dated November 5, 1975, Cuban National Liberation Front member Secundino Carrera Sánchez has his group taking credit for the December 1974 grenade[5]. Can't find the document, ~~and nothing found for claims for the 1975 bombs~~. fiveby(zero) 22:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the November 1975 bombing, Primera Hora claims a FOIA document 105-22478 dated March 29, 1976 and declassified April 16, 1999 mentions a letter from Carrera.[6]. fiveby(zero) 22:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This question would have been a lot easier searching for Máximo Gorki "Frente de Liberacion Nacional Cubano" "maximo gorki" fiveby(zero) 23:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill:, the only semi-reliable statement is a generic "cuban exiles claimed" for the grenade attack, all the FLNC connections appear to get the date wrong (24th rather than 28th), and nothing for the November 1 bombs. I may have misread the Spanish in Primera Hora and can't find any of the FBI documents. fiveby(zero) 15:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby: Many thanks for your efforts. It rather looks like, whatever exactly happened, neither the Soviets nor the Americans wanted a big deal made of it. DuncanHill (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Damaged Soviet Ship Sails". UPI. November 2, 1975. two explosions while docked at 1 A.M. yesterday
Bamberger, Werner (November 9, 1975). "Soviet Liner, the Gorki, Goes Into Drydock Here". New York Times. p. 57.
Mizell, Louis R. (1998). Target U.S.A. p. 110. ...three days after Christmas, anti-Castro guerillas hurled a hand gernade onto the Maxim Gorki, which was berthed in San Juan. Two Soviet crew members were wounded, one seriously
Nelson, Anne (1986). Murder under two flags. p. 106. In December 1974, a grenade was rolled down the gangplank of the Soviet cruise ship Maxim Gorki, leaving a twenty-year-old Soviet seaman with a serious abdominal wound: an underground Cuban exile organization later took credit for the act.
"Shipping/Mails, Outgoing, Sailing Today". New York Times. October 28, 1975. MAXIM GORKI (Black Sea). San Juan Oct. 31 and St. Thomas, Nov. 1...
"Soviet Cruise Ship Target of Bombing". AP. December 30, 1974. pp. 1, 13. We take responsibility for the explosion on the Russian ship Maxim Gorki. There will be no peace in the world until Cuba is liberated from the communists, Roberto.