Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 January 29

= January 29 =

Victoria and Albert- a serious question
Is it true that whilst Victoria and Albert deeply loved each other, they were also heavily into fisting and anal sex? This is actually a serious question as Ive heard that she was extremely 'adventurous' sexually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.251.94 (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only that, the kinky Queen Vicki often had Prince Albert in the can. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of them are dead. Who else would have known? Its very unlikely given Victorian prudery and that a law against sodomy was I think introduced during Victorias reign. Also very unlikely they would want to be perverts. 89.242.37.55 (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So who was going to prosecute her?--79.76.251.94 (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * British monarchs are expected to obey the law. If they violate the law, there is a constitutional crisis. As with Edward and Wallis. He married a divorcee, so he had to abdicate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Slight correction - he wanted to marry a divorcee, so he had to abdicate. He abdicated before he got married. --Tango (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. As I recall, the issue resurfaced to some extent in Prince Charles' situation with Camilla. Which raises the question, what if Edward had refused to step down? I doubt they would have taken him to the Tower of London and lopped off his head like they did with another Charles a few centuries ago. (Nowadays they let the tabloids metaphorically do that kind of work.) But would his heirs (if any) have legally been considered unqualified to succeed him? Although the article Edward VIII abdication crisis reads between the lines that the legal/constitutional issue was perhaps an "excuse". I gather that where Camilla is concerned, the powers that be didn't consider her to be anywhere near the scandal that Wallis Simpson was, or at least Camilla was no more of a scandal than Prince Charles himself was. Off the track. So sorry, old chap. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, they made him wait until Camilla was past menopause, so I assume it was a live problem to them until then. 86.180.52.43 (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But would his heirs (if any) have legally been considered unqualified to succeed him? Yes. Section 1.2 of His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 so provides: "His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty's abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne, and section one of the Act of Settlement shall be construed accordingly. " Marnanel (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw, but that was part of the abdication agreement. What I meant was, supposing he had refused to abdicate. I'm guessing they might have just isolated him and waited for him to die (which would have taken awhile). But I wonder, if they had had children, would the children have been regarded as unqualified for the throne, and then Elizabeth would have become Queen anyway, albeit not until after Edward had died. Just speculation, obviously. I just wonder what would have happened. Would they have somehow physically forced him to abdicate? What were their options? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was absolutely nothing illegal about him marrying a divorcee. It was just considered culturally unacceptable for a king to do that in those days.  Had he married Mrs Simpson while king, and had they had children, and had he not ever abdicated, those children and their progeny would have supplanted the claims of the children of his brother, who would not have become George VI, and his daughter would not have become Elizabeth II. In fact, when Elizabeth was born, the idea that she would ever have become queen would scarcely have crossed anyone's mind. It was widely assumed that the Prince of Wales (as Edward VIII then was) would marry and have children, either before or after he became king.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   06:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And having a stable full of children is no indicator that they were "adventurous". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely a fist-full, or hand-full of children, no? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have never heard that before and if it were true I doubt history would have recorded it, since they would have kept quiet about it. --Tango (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is the Prince Albert piercing, which was named after rumors of what some young and ultra-trendy military officers in the Victorian period supposedly did in order to wear tight trousers without showing a bulge; however any factual historical connection with Prince Albert himself is almost certainly quite remote at best... P.S. you are a troll. AnonMoos (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You heard wrong. Next? --Dweller (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The question probably comes from a troll, but it does have a serious answer: No, Victoria and Albert did not engage in these practices.  As shown here and in other sources, Victoria was told in 1857 that she should have no more children, and she plaintively asked her doctor, "Can I have no more fun in bed?"  So she was not even aware of basic ways to have sex without progeny, much less these more exotic practices.  I suppose it's theoretically possible that she could have learned between 1857 and Albert's death in 1861, but that seems highly unlikely, especially since the only one who could have taught her would have been Albert, and if he had had an interest in exotic sex it presumably would have manifested itself before they had nine children.  John M Baker (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's probably from the same sort of sources as "Catherine the Great died by being crushed by a stallion while in flagrante delicto". The general belief is that such rumours are circulated by political opponents to cast aspersions on people's memories. -- 174.21.224.109 (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you happen to hear this rumour from someone who was trying to convince you to try the same thing? Perhaps this explains your fancination with your anus... Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply because a question may be considered serious, that does not indicate that it bares investigating. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster 1931
Why is the Statute of Westminster 1931 called the "Statute of Westminster?" Couldn't that name apply to any law passed by the British Parliament? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's called that because it says it's called that. Article 12 says: "This Act may be cited as the Statute of Westminster, 1931".  Why it says that rather than anything else, I don't know. Marnanel (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The name references the earlier Statutes of Westminster. Perhaps the intention was to signify that this was on the same order of constitutional significance in terms of re-organising the empire as the earlier statutes were in establishing the legal/legislative system of England?
 * At the time of the earlier statutes, law were often called "the Statute of XXX" according to the place of enactment (which was not always at Westminster). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Gestalt Laws of perception.
Q:What are the Gestalt laws of perception?Tj-sayed (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you read the article on Gestalt psychology? Or the section on Gestalt theory in the Visual perception article? -- &oelig; &trade; 05:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

\::They left behind some neat pictures, but I'm not sure we recognize any "laws" from that school of psychology. Edison (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

list of things that are real and notreal at the same time
For some writing I'm doing, I need a nice list per the above - so far I've got 'the number 5' and 'the idea of truth' - would love some examples that aren't too jokey or religious.

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Why is the number 5 both real and not real? Would the same apply to other numbers as well? --Richardrj talkemail 11:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah - sorry, must have come across as bizarre - just a way of saying that mathematics is at once an invention and a discovery - at once part of the phenomenal universe and something we project onto it - makes more sense in the story... Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What is reality? Well-depicted fictional characters live in my mind. As do elements of my fears and dreams, fantasies and worries. That they only have a semblance of reality to me, is irrelevant - the structure of the atom may be real, but it's less real to most people than Harry Potter is. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See Reality and other subsections of that article. WP:WHAAOE --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Leibniz described the imaginary numbers as "almost amphibian objects between Being and Non-being". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Lovely! Thanks 194.171.56.13 - I love Liebniz. Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "I love Liebniz" - what a great name for a light-hearted TV programme, with a dash of philosophy. --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "The best of all possible TV programmes!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Reality" is anything that can be observed and/or whose results can be observed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Our Reality article does not quite agree. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "The state of things as they actually exist" is a perfect definition. But knowing what that state of things is, is our reality. Here's an example: Is backwards time travel possible? Is it part of reality, or potentially so? Maybe it's possible. Maybe it's even part of reality. But we don't know unless we can observe it or observe its effects. It's reasonable to assume that we only know part of the "overall" or "true" reality. One purpose of science, then, is to discover more of that true reality. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So, getting back to the original question, it still depends on what "real" means. You can imagine humans traveling backwards in travel, or form a concept of what you think it would involve. So the idea is real. But there is no evidence that it's actually possible for humans to travel back in time, except in their memories. So if thoughts are "real", then those are real things. But whether actual backwards time travel is part of reality, is yet to be determined. Logic tells you it's not possible. But that doesn't mean someone won't come up with a solution to the problem tomorrow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In this case I'm using 'real' to mean 'that which exists whether or not humans are there to observe it'. Adambrowne666 (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest Hobbes as an example, and I am being perfectly serious. -- LarryMac  | Talk  19:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Tea and No tea? Mitch Ames (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ryan White Care Act voters
According to the article, "The act passed in the United States House of Representatives by a vote for 402 to 4." Who were the 4 that voted against it?--Rockfang (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=2&vote=00097 The 'nays' were...Humphrey (R-NH), Helms (R-NC), Roth (R-DE), Wallop (R-WY) and there was a not-voting Heinz (R-PA). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC)According to what I'm seeing, the article may be incorrect. There is a link in the article - "Pub.L. 101-381" - that leads to the Library of Congress THOMAS summary page for the bill, and from there the "All Information" link shows the Senate and House votes -
 * 5/16/1990 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 95-4. Record Vote No: 97.
 * 6/13/1990 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by voice vote.
 * Following the Record Vote no: 97 link will show the yea and nays.
 * The reference for the the 2009 extension/reathorization indicates that a roll-call vote was taken in the House, with 408 ayes, 9 nays, 15 present/not voting. (I don't know why one source lists affirmative votes as "yea" and the other as "aye".) -- LarryMac  | Talk  12:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the edit which added the line about the "House vote". The article referenced for that addition does have an not quite clear mention of a 402 to 4 vote, but it's not clear exactly what vote that was or when it took place.  Since the THOMAS link does lead to information about the 1990 vote, I am going to be bold and strike the line in question.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  12:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

UK Companies
What are the implications of a company turning itself from a public limited company to a private limited company? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know it is the ability to offer shares to the general public which a private limited company cant do. BigDunc  13:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So why would it go the other way? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Numerous reasons, financial information must be made available for everyone, competitors and customers included, which could lead to a takeover with a competitor buying a large number of shares. BigDunc  13:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong here, but I believe that Manchester United F.C. switched from being a plc to a private company when the Glazers bought the club. Once you reach a threshold number of shares in one person's hands, they are obliged to buy all the other shares too, and the shareholders can't resist the move. I don't know what this process is called, but no doubt we have an article about it. In the case of MUFC, it has meant a debt-free club becoming overnight saddled with almighty debts. --Dweller (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds a bad idea then for the plc shareholders to agree to it. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  14:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that they are offered a large amount of money for their shares of the company. That's the point - if you think you are being offered better than a fair price for your shares, you sell. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Similarly, in the US, the public Chrysler Corporation became Chrysler LLC, a private company. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you've managed to get over 50% of the outstanding shares through the markets, then I'm pretty sure the shareholders can always reject a takeover bid. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Human motivation through stigma
Hi, I was looking to hopefully find a quote or something that generally says -

humans and institutions are motivated primarily by stigma, and will take the shortest route to avoid it.

Does anyone know of someone who has written something like this please?

Many thanks Last Polar Bear (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Haven't heard that before, and before putting too much stock in it, check the article on Hierarchy of Needs. What you're describing is not basic, it's about halfway up the pyramid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And for what it's worth, I googled [motivated primarily by stigma] and found plenty of references with those individual words, but ["motivated primarily by stigma"] as a string was not found. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you're really looking for quotes about 'shame' as a motivation (stigmas are merely social mechanisms for inducing shame). most psychological theories view shame as a pathological form of motivation, while most sociological theories avoid anything as affective as shame.  I'm not aware that anyone has ever suggested that shame is the primary, healthy source of human motivation.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That quote doesn't even make any sense. Perhaps it was 'they will take the longest route to avoid it.' How can you take a shorter route than you were already planning, when something undesirable gets in the way? Vranak (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's trying to say they will take the most efficient action they can, to avoid it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. Let's be clear though. Vranak (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The sociologist Erving Goffman wrote a book titled Stigma, as well as his better known The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life so perhaps its in there. 89.241.39.207 (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Great Awakening sermon/essay
I'm looking for a sermon/essay from the first or second great awakening, written by a prominent figure from one of those times. In it, the preacher talks about how people are having fits and seizures and speculates as to why this is. Unable to find a concrete reason, he concludes that, overall, despite the seizures, the awakening of men's souls is a good thing. Wrad (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I expect several writers and speakers of the period addressed this but Jonathan Edwards' Some thoughts concerning the present revival in New England is a prominent work which makes mention of the ecstasies.  meltBanana  23:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's probably the one I had in mind. Wrad (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Employment prospect for Bachelor of Arts in History
I'm at brink of entering university and doing "Bachelor of Arts in History" at Murdoch University, Western Australia. History of all kinds has always been passion on mine and this is really what I want to do. But what worries me is how useful this degree is in real life? I know this course is open ended, with writing units and units that teach research and critical thinking skills applicable in wide range of areas, but I'm not convinced. Give me some practical examples of jobs people with this educations do (exclude actual historians since demand there is so low, and exclude any kind of teaching, that's not my thing). I've done my research, but didn't find much. I've also been thinking about double majors, perhaps with "Journalism" or "Security, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism". Any suggestions on second major in related areas to expand employment prospects are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.81.141 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In the United States, people with degrees in history often go on to law school. I don't know whether that is a possibility in Australia.  Another career path that people with history degrees sometimes follow is to go into city and regional planning, which often requires some knowledge of history. If that kind of career interested you, you might want to focus on the history of the city or region where you'd like to work.  However, my best advice to you would be to contact the department of history at Murdoch University and ask them for examples of careers their graduates have pursued. They could also tell you whether a degree in history would qualify you for law school in Australia, if that interests you. By the way, I'm not sure journalism would be the best course of study if you are concerned about employment, since employment for journalists has been declining steadily, at least in developed countries, for several years now, with no sign of a change in trend.  You would have to compete for work with experienced journalists who have been laid off.  Marco polo (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have data for Australia, but the data for the US is likely rank-correlated with what you'll experience in Australia. See this for mid-career median salaries by undergraduate major. Also, see this for self-reported job satisfaction by undergraduate major. Wikiant (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure how that helps the questioner. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am assuming that when the OP asks, "how useful is this in real life?" he means "how useful is this in real life to me?" How much happiness and income people with the degree obtain is probably a reasonable answer. Wikiant (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All that tells you is compared to what other people have said about other fields of study. It doesn't actually tell you anything about what you do with a History degree. And it doesn't take into account the self-selecting aspect of it. I am positive that studying astronomy or economics would not have made me happier. If I were the kind of person who was attracted to astronomy or economics, then maybe they would have done it for me, but these kinds of reported statistics are not prescriptive. They do not tell you that someone runs a "higher chance of being happy" by studying something else. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the statistics are not meant to be prescriptive, but descriptive. I suppose the issue boils down to the question: "Given selection bias and causality issues, would you rather be aware of what these stats reveal or not?" In other words, if 80% of people report that they like Guinness, it doesn't mean that I will like Guinness, but it may mean that it is worth my while to try it. Wikiant (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In things where the cost is low, that would make sense (if you don't like Guinness, you are only out a couple of dollars), but for things like career choices, or what you major in college, I'm not sure the statistics are as useful, unless you're someone who, for example, is only focused on "what career will pay me the most right out of college," in which case they can be useful (though sometimes misleading). The problem with the college major is that you basically only get one (or two), and the investment is quite high, so there is little possibility of "sampling" and finding out that indeed, 80% of the world prefers things you do not. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than law school and doing more history, history as a field does not necessarily prepare you for any particular career track. In this capacity it is worth just looking at the kinds of jobs people get who come out of the Humanities/Social Sciences in general. In this sense it is not very different than being an English major, or an Anthropology major. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a large number of jobs that just require you to have a degree, it doesn't matter what the degree is in. You could get any of those jobs. --Tango (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Pretty much everyone I know who got a BA in history (in Canada and the US) went to teacher's college, law school, or graduate school (also in history of some sort). Grad school is probably the least useful of these, but very useful for avoiding the real world for at least another six years...or forever, if you count getting a job in academia to be avoiding the real world. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Government positions often find history graduates to be useful. For ministerial advisory positions, professional researchers, library staff, etc., it can be very useful. These are the people who assist in providing reports to politicians, inquiries, etc. on demand when a background report, context, etc. is needed. Documentarists, interviewers and the like often employ researchers to prepare for the shows. When you're watching TV, on any non-fiction show, you'll probably find there are a few people listed in the credits as researchers. Perhaps investigate what the ABC, SBS, etc. might have for that. Otherwise, as Tango says, there are a lot of jobs for which your degree will be sufficient, as long as you passed it well. These often include Australian Public Service graduate positions, overseas English teaching positions, some industry management positions, etc. Steewi (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt you are qualified to be a "researcher" on a non-fiction show with just a B.A. in history. There are plenty of people with Ph.D.s and M.A.s in history who can probably fit the bill (since the number of academic positions in much, much smaller than the number of degree holders graduating each year), and in any case, my understanding (small that it is) is that such positions are often filled by interns who have connections (or something along those lines). I certainly wouldn't base my career choices on such an option—there are just very few such positions out there, for all of the thousands of people who come out of undergrad with History B.A.s. Government work is an option, though there is probably less of that than you think, unless you have a law or policy degree. A B.A. in history, by itself, does not make one a historian by any definition. It can be prep for a career in that direction, but in almost every case, more education will be required. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As Tango suggested above, the achievement of passing a degree in any subject will develop and demonstrate important skills and capabilities, and greatly increase your potential value to diverse employers, many with no apparent direct connection to that subject. If (like many others at your age) you do not already have a specific career in mind, you are much more likely to complete a degree successfully if it's in a subject that interests you.
 * Furthermore, your experiences at university over the next few years are very likely to reveal to you new areas of interest, and opportunity, of which you were not previously aware. It's even possible that new fields not now in existence may have developed by the time you graduate. Neither you nor we can easily anticipate such contingencies.
 * To give an example somewhat relevant to you, a friend of mine at university (in Scotland) got a degree in Mediaeval History: within a few years she was in charge of the computer systems in an office within the Ministry of Defense (in London), because despite her academic speciality she was still the most capable person they had to do that job. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was graduated with a BA in history (in the USA) last May, and I'm in the process of getting into a Master of Library Science or Master of Library and Information Science program (depending on where I end up going), if that interests you at all. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good for you, well done. But you may be interested to know that a study in Britain unexpectedly showed that librarians had the greatest amount of stress of all the many jobs surveyed. My guess is, due to boredom. From what I've seen, they are either taking books in or out at the desk, or putting them back on the shelves. (Hmmmn, now I think of it - no disrespect - rather like working at a supermarket). I would urge anyone to get as much education as possible, of any kind. But you could buy a yacht and sail around the world. 89.241.39.207 (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anybody can do that part (I used to! I thought it was fun though). The librarian does that as well, but there is a lot more to the librarian's job than shelving books. It's like if there was one person in charge of the Reference Desks, and they were expected to give accurate, factual answers to everything, and get paid for it (we all wouldn't last a day, basically). And they have to figure out how to organize all the various kinds of information the library possesses, and acquire new books, and get rid of old ones, and deal with people who think certain books should be banned, and other crazy people. It's stressful but certainly not because of boredom. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I should say, if I sound negative, that I have a B.A. in History myself (a few years back, now), and I was very happy with it, but it doesn't really prepare you for any particular career path. For anything that really needs more than a generic humanities degree, you will need more education. If you're aiming for a career that doesn't really require a specialized degree, then History is a great choice (and teaches a great skill-set, along with a lot of interesting subject matter), and if you are interested in going into certain fields of secondary education (e.g. Law), it can be a good fit as well. But it is not going to get you a great job right out of undergrad, and it is not universally applicable. It is certainly not the most practical of degrees, but I'm as strong a believer as any that "practicality" is not the only motivation in life. Everyone I know who got a B.A. in History or English or Philosophy or Anthropology or whatever either went into a career track where the specific degree they got was irrelevant (that they had a degree was important, but the subject matter could have been switched to any of those other fields), or they went on to law school, graduate school, etc., and used those to jump into more specific careers.
 * What you get out of a History degree—because you aren't getting a job!—is good research skills, good reading and synthesis skills, good reasoning skills, and, hopefully, some polished non-creative writing skills. You also happen to accumulate some interesting information about how the world was in the past, depending on what you specialize in, though that is more useful in making sense of the newspaper than it is in future career options. The truth is, it doesn't really matter whether you major in English, Philosophy, History, Anthropology, or the like. You will get fairly similar skills with each, gain some specific knowledge with each, and be in pretty much the same position at the end with each. That can be good or bad, depending on what you are trying to get out of your education. You should not be under the delusion though that there will be dozens of jobs waiting for you at the end of such a road, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Creationism and the Flat Fish Eyes
How do creationists (don't know right term) explain the location of the Flat Fish eyes? --Reticuli88 (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems more that they question Darwinism on the basis that it wasn't a survival selective trait. I'm sure someone will be along to explain exactly why the creationists are wrong (invariably they are!). There is a link but the one I found is wikipedia blacklisted (first link on this google search http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=creationism+flat+fish+eyes&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=) ny156uk (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely they would explain by saying God created the creature that way. Am I missing something?  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Flatfish eyes have never been a problem for Creationists. It has however been a problem for Evolutionists, in that no intermediate stages were found between fish with eyes on opposite sides of the head and fish with eyes on the same side of their head. Until recently Evolutionists have had to say "I don't know". Now they believe they have found some intermediate fossils. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Does Creationism adhere to the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old? If so, then there's no time for evolution. The real fundamental issue is about the age of the earth. Regarding intermediate stages, it's important to keep in mind that fossils are only "snapshots" in time. It's entirely possible that some species never happened to get fossilized or that we haven't found them yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For (some?) young-earth creationists, it's somehow fine for all the present diversity of animal species to have developed from a small number of "kinds" on Noah's ark in 6000 years, but impossible for Darwinian evolution to have happened in 4 billion... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's where God's guidance or "intelligent design" comes in. However, presumably the flood wouldn't have bothered the fish any. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I can better understand, what was the creationist reason for God's reason to create the location of flat fish eyes so imperfect? --Reticuli88 (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They wouldn't pretend to know why God did every little thing He did. They might well say that all this variety was just because God likes variety. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Imperfect ? POV! :-) Maybe to provoke discussion. Or God just has a real wicked sense of humour! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am speaking out of complete ignorance of the subject, but how do we know that intermediary creatures did not behaviorally spend part of their time upright and part of their time laterally oriented? And wouldn't it be possible that evolutionary pressures favored the lateral orientation, which in turn favored the eye orientation we see in present day flatfish? What I'm saying is that I don't really understand why the existence of flatfish is at all a challenge to theories of evolution. I think behavior traits are also biologically determined to some extent. With both behavior and such features as eye orientation modifying over the same periods of time, it is not so hard to imaging the present form of fish to have evolved from a fish that swam upright with eyes in the more common placement. Bus stop (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not difficult to reason out non-essential evolutionary change, except to those who begin with a particular premise. What they fail to understand is localization. The evolution of languages is a reasonable parallel to biological evolution. There's no apparent "need" for "ego" in Latin to have evolved into "yo" in Spanish, but it did anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do we have 5 fingers instead of 6? Why are some people blonde and some black-haired?  I don't think there is a reason for every single aspect of anatomy.  In fact, there isn't a reason for anything.  Evolution is random.  There is no purpose.  It just seems like it because the most appropriate mutations are the ones that are reinforced. Aaronite (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Evolution is not random. Variation is random (more or less). But evolution is definitely guided by the constraints of the environment (evolution is not the same thing as mutation—evolution is the selective process, mutation is the basic background variation to be selected from). That is the entire point of natural selection. Whether everything has an evolutionary "point" or not is debated (see, e.g. spandrel)—some think that you can come up with good evolutionary reasons for just about everything, while some thing that there are some things that fall outside of the work of the pressures. But it is not random. It is not teleological—moving to some specific end—but it is not just happenstance. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's possible that this may have strayed from the original question. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The question was how do creationists explain exotic creatures? The flip side of that is, how do evolutionists explain exotic creatures? To the creationist, it's easy: God liked the idea of a fish with both eyes on one side, so He created one. (God is assumed to have limitless powers of imagination.) To the evolutionist, it's almost as easy: fish with some genetic tendency toward that capability headed toward a specific localization of this trait (not consciously, of course) and over a long stretch of time this particular species was isolated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A flatfish skull changes as one eye migrates to join the other as fish go from fry to adult. A close look at fossils suggests evolution of this trait took many thousands to millions of years. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The sticking point is that creationists insist the earth is 6,000 years old. That's a basic axiom. So everything else in their so-called theory has to accommodate that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not all creationists believe in a young Earth. BTW, "evolutionist" is a somewhat offensive term used by creationists to imply evolutionary  biology is a form of secular religion and therefore on the same level as creationism.  You will rarely find this term used in scientific literature.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't worry much about labels. I consider myself an evolutionist, although more broadly I like to think of myself as a scientist, or at least as believing in science - not as a religion, but as a methodology. Creationists that I've run into believe in a young earth, because to believe otherwise is to regard Genesis as an allegory or a metaphor, and that opens a can of worms. I also know Christians who are not creationists, i.e. they are just fine with the old earth and with evolutionary theory and with Genesis being allegorical. One told me that evolution "is how God works". Sounds good to me. Especially if, when you say "God", you mean "Nature". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all Christians are 'creationist' in the sense of believing that God created the universe. A belief in anything resembling the Christian God pretty much requires it. Most are also entirely happy with the idea that Genesis is an allegory - it's a belief that's been around for literally thousands of years, and there are probably more Christians who hold to it than believe Genesis is literal. Many also believe that evolution is a mechanism used by God in creating the Earth as it is now. (Incidentally if you go to a random Christian and ask "are you a creationist?" they will porbably say "no" because they assume you are asking if they believe in a Young Earth.) DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

generation values
i'm still confuse when first, 1.5 and second generation. I'm I'm born oversea and came to USA < age of 6 would I be 1.5. For people who is forign raise or US born does this mean one paent is US Raise while anohter is oversea raise. Since my math teacher at high school came to USA at age 14 would she be first generation?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See the Immigrant generations article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting reference books or other available material for ""Impact of Culture in negotiations"
Hello Sir/ Madam, Am doin my MBA and I need your valuable assistance in finding reference books for my project topic being "Impact of Culture in negotiations" which comes under my subject "Organizational Skills and Negotiations".Would appreciate your prompt assistance with this.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karmacravitz (talk • contribs) 23:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I usually recommend looking over Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands, which is an etiquette book for business people who travel internationally; the book also makes claims about different cultures' decision making process: whether direct evidence is more important to them than the pronouncements of an authority, or having a group consensus; or the other way around. It is not scholarly and systematic but will have useful data points.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the impact of different national cultures, then I recommend the work of Geert Hofstede, who has spent many years researching this. You might be talking about the impact of the culture of the organisation on negotiations, however, in which case someone else will be along shortly to help with this. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)