Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 February 5

= February 5 =

Personal qualities admired in others by criminals etc?
I've realised recently that I was brought up to admire the Seven virtues in others and try to embody them myself. But what do people admire who eschew the Seven (or eight) Virtues, such as repeat criminals? 78.146.193.0 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

it probablly depends on the individual people have different vitures some people consider doing the greatest good for the greatest number to be a viture like jon steward mill others like ann rand consider shellfish to be a viture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr hursday (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest Machiavellianism. - Fullobeans (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd go with shellfish being a virtue. Perhaps John Stuart Mill and Ayn Rand would agree. Bielle (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think Dr. Zoidberg would more likely call Shellfishness a virtue. -- Jayron  32  06:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing a userbox; "This user considers shellfish to be a viture" FiggyBee (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to add to that line of discussion, but I decided to clam up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a paper looking at Prison Culture in Israel, especially among Russian inmates. I haven't read the paper, but it appears quite interesting.  From the abstract alone, I can quote the qualities of "machismo, domination, defiance, rebellion, and open antagonism against the establishment and its representatives". Buddy431 (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The paper is subscription only, there is not even an abstract. Correction: it does have a brief abstract if you click on the link to the right. "This subculture is characterized by a hierarchical class structure and manifestations of machismo, domination, defiance, rebellion, and open antagonism against the Establishment and its representatives." Cost $25 to read it. 78.144.242.151 (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * People admire whatever traits that cause the dominant individual to be dominant. Some people also admire skill. I'm a big fan of anyone who can yo-yo, though I'm not yet a criminal, so I guess that doesn't count. Vimescarrot (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see what kind of relation you are trying to establish. Just because one is a 'repeat criminal' doesn't mean he don't admire the Seven virtues or anything else. Must also remember you that criminals are hypocrites, not for being criminals, but humans.
 * Even if you get a relation or a consense that would mean so much as a election poll.200.144.37.3 (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can somebody clarify the distinction between a "repeat criminal" and a one-time criminal, as concerns the question posed? Bus stop (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The universal stimulant among those out of touch with dependable values is money. Case in point (if you are familiar with one of his several TV shows) -- Kevin O'Leary. He's always going on about how important money is to him -- probably because he doesn't quite believe it himself. Vranak (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on careful watching of all episodes of The Sopranos and the Godfather movies, a course in criminal psychology, and reading countless detective novels: Courage, strength, and skillwould be admired. Many would admire loyalty. Many would admire ruthlessness. Some would admire cleverness, but that is likely less universal. Compare to the enumerated Seven virtues, "Loyalty"(toward the mob or accomplices) might correspond to "love." Excess "Greed" would not be admired, if one criminal tries to seize more than his share of the loot, but I doubt they would advocate its claimed opposite of "Charity," at least toward victims. Many crooks wrap themselves in religion or patriotism, virtues not in the listed seven. Edison (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they don't admire anyone. Admiring others requires a certain degree of altruism, altruism is connected with concientiousness, and concientiousness is incompatible with criminality. In more than one criminal memoir that I've read (Howard Marks is a name that has floated up from the subconcious) it is remarked how the hardcore criminal types are very sensitive to any slight suggestion or nuance of personal superiority shown by others, and react aggressively to its source. Perhaps they dont admire people, but some people they dislike less and are less jealous of than others. Then there are people with coercive power over them who they either fear or "respect" as its said. 78.146.215.222 (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the modern history of many countries, political prisoners have had a special status within the prison communities. In general political prisoners were better educated and came from a social background atypical of the general prison inmate. There are several examples were political prisoners set up informal schools for other prisoners within In particular, political prisoners often possesed legal knowledge (or formal education in Law) and could speak on half the other prisoners towards prison administrations. --Soman (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Toughness, according to "Reading People's Faces" in Reason. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasnt especially interested in prisoners, its just that criminals were an example of people who do not aspire to being nice. It seems to me that professionalism culture, or the ethical, are in a silent war with the machismo/toughs culture. The machismo/toughs culture is just as internally consistent and passed on from generation to generation as professionalim/ethical culture is. One is like a sinister mirror-image of the other. Machismo/tough culture lurks in the shadows where professionalim/ethical culture is not looking. When professional/ethical culture sleeps or is complacent, then machismo/tough culture spreads out from the darkness and insidiuosly strengthens. 92.29.142.75 (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

equity yheories
What role does Equity theory play in the new system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanibhatti (talk • contribs) 12:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It probably has something to do with people getting a fair reward for doing their own homework. We have an article on Equity theory if it's of any use. FiggyBee (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Book recommendations for Spanish learner
I can read Spanish decently, but I'm not super amazing. Right now I'm reading Crepusculo, the Spanish version of Twilight, and it seems like a good reading level. Does anyone have ideas of books in Spanish (not translated to Spanish) at a similar reading level that would be good for me? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Though not a book, perhaps reading Mafalda in Spanish might be very useful and very good practice. Steewi (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the Spanish Wikipedia. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

does steve job wear the same thing to work as his public appearances?
does steve jobs wear the same thing to work every day as in his public appearances, ie turtleneck tucked into jeans with sneakers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.191.112 (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The only images I could find of Jobs in anything other than turleneck and jeans either showed him in a dinner jacket (complete with red bowtie and matching cummerbund) or in a suit from about 25 years ago. However as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", I went to the WP's own "highly placed source" close to  The Man. (Warning:  OR coming) With her persmission, I quote:
 * Any time I've seen Steve here, he's been in the usual sweater-and-jeans mode, . . . Last time was when I beat him out to the coffee machine in the cafeteria - he let me go ahead, too, but I was in a complete panic that time :) In short; almost always casual here at Infinite Loop :) (Italics and link coding mine.)
 * Bielle (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To be able to get in Whitehouse or government office
Do I ahve to be an ambassador, senator, prime minister to get in Whitehouse? Could I bwe an random stranger to walk in to see Obama or John Kufuor or Hu Jintao. My sister thinks I would be shot if I try to see John Kufuor before I even get in Golden Palace--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even an ambassador, senator or PM would need an appointment to meet with the POTUS. A random person would almost certainly be stopped (though probably not shot, unless brandishing a weapon or similar) before one could reach the oval office.  Being very unfamiliar with the Secret Service equivalent in Ghana, I could not venture any guess on your second part of the question.  Googlemeister (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So I can see them if I meet with POTUS. What's being stop mean?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for being unclear. POTUS stands for "President of the United States".  To meet the US president in the White House, you would need an appointment.  If you try to walk into his office without an appointment, people will block your path and move you to another place so you can not see him.  Googlemeister (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * John Kufuor is no longer present of Ghana, so he no longer occupies the Golden Jubilee House. Kufuor apparently now has some kind of position with the African Union, though he probably has a private residence in Accra.  I don't know whether he has a doorman or security guard at his private residence who would try to stop you if you tried to see him without an appointment.  As for Hu Jintao, as he is the president of China, you would certainly be prevented from seeing him without an appointment.  Marco polo (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Technically, anybody can get into the White House by taking a tour. I've been there.  See the White House article.  But to see the President, no, as Googlemeister wrote, you'd be stopped if you tried jogging over to the Oval Office, where the President spends a lot of his time.  You might get lucky, though; here is a CNN story about a couple of tourists who were just on the tour and got invited to an event and met the President.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Random strangers have recently walked into the White House for a State Dinner and gotten to shake hands with the President and other high government officials. Other random persons on a tour were recently seated at a breakfast they had no invitation to and met the President. Someone I know quite well was on a White House tour and managed to pet a Presidential cat who was being carried past by some functionary whose job title probably did not say "cat wrangler." In the days of Abraham Lincoln, many random people walked into the White House and spoke to the President. By the time of Theodore Roosevelt, there were guards to keep the public out unless the were Important, knew Someone Important, or had an appointment. Those who were persistent or argumentative were hauled away and questioned by Secret Service or police, at the very least. There is one POTUS and many millions of people who would like to take up a few minutes of his time. Work out the math: there are but 2,103,840 minutes in a President's term of office, and he needs some time to sleep, sign bills, do politics, read bedtime stories to his children and cut brush/play basketball. Edison (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Abraham Lincoln lived in the days of federal patronage jobs (as opposed to a civil service), and so an endless flood of job-seekers seeking to be appointed as Postmaster of Podunk, or whatever... AnonMoos (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember reading that Albert Abraham Michelson (then an ordinary person) was given a position by the President after accompanying him on his daily walk. Hut 8.5 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be much easier than getting to see the Queen. 78.146.215.222 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to see high-up people, remember that they are jealously guarded at the obvious places people will try and get a photo-op or a handshake, such as when they are speaking in public. Get a part-time job as someone's assistant (MP, CEO, etc.), and then just walk in with your boss when he's meeting the big names. User:Krator (t c) 00:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you try the Michael Fagan technique (I expect security is a bit tighter now) Alansplodge (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To just get into the Whitehouse, take the public tour. To meet with the president, you would need to make an appointment and probably have a damn good reason for taking up the time of a very busy guy.  To meet with other dignataries, you would need to speak with their "people".  Don't expect anything other than the tour to be easy.  Astronaut (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Isnt a public tour of the Whitehouse a h*ll of a security risk, even if you do not see the president? I can think of at least three ways someone could cause mayhem. 78.146.215.222 (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, it was a long time ago that I went on the whitehouse public tour. I don't know if the tours are still operating, especially in the current security climate.  Astronaut (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could ask David Shankbone for hints; he's at least gotten to meet with the Israeli president for remarkably average reasons. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Given her present recumbent state and strict values of morality Mary Whitehouse R.I.P. would be posthumously offended by the OP's intrusive interest, though visits to the Black Man in the White (space) House and the other people could conceivably be arranged by apointment only. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)