Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 September 27

= September 27 =

Lost license
Hello. This is not a request for legal advice, it's just something I've been curious about. When a doctor loses his or her license, how can s/he get it back? Does he need to go through med school again, or can he just reapply to the certification board or something? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * When you say "loses his or her license", I presume you're referring not just to cases of misplacing their physical license certificate, but to situations where the doctor's permission to practise has been removed due to professional misconduct or worse.  If the authorities took action to deprive the doctor of their license to practise, I can't see them giving it back again in a hurry, unless it was just some abstruse technical issue that had no bearing on their general professional standing.   --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Doctors can lose their licenses to varying extents, so to speak. For some serious infractions the revocation is irrevocable, but a license may also be suspended temporarily. Sometimes a license may be recovered just by paying a fine, performing community service, and appearing before a medical examining board. One may also recover a license by challenging the examining board in court. Generally speaking, it's much easier to get a new medical license than to be readmitted to the bar. L ANTZY T ALK 01:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume you're referring to some foreign place, since here in the United Kingdom, doctors don't have licen[c/s]es. They can however be struck off the Medical Register (though the article that links to doesn't have any information about the process, unfortunately). --ColinFine (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is some information on the process in the UK in the General Medical Council article. Warofdreams talk 08:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the link I inserted redirects to the article you cited, and I don't see anything in it about being struck off. --ColinFine (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would seem doctors in the UK now do require a licence (at least those on a specialist register, which I think covers every fully-qualified practicing doctor in the NHS), which they have to renew every 5 years. For practicing doctors this seems to mostly be a matter of keeping up with their CPD (continuing professional development) which means a few days a year in seminars and various rubber-chicken talks, and some reading and paperwork. So a doctor can lose their licence, and thus be effectively unable to practice unsupervised, if they don't keep up with that.  A Powerpoint presentation which covers the process is here.  In addition to suspensions from the GMR, that's also something you'd expect to happen if a doctor takes a lengthy time off (say to raise children) or works abroad. I've not found the procedure for reestablishing a licence (which will presumably entail satisfying the GMC that one is fit to practice).  To what extent this will entail a formerly independent doctor having to return to pupilage for a while I don't know. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The GMC's page on this is here. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My personal physician (general practitioner) in New England, who had a great rapport with his patients, made two serious errors and lost his license/got struck off the register twice. After he lost his right to practise the first time, and after he willingly and successfully completed some required rehabilitation and retraining programmes, the licensing board in my state eventually permitted him to resume under another physician's close supervision within an institution (rather than having a private practice of his own). However, he later reinserted a tube into a patient with fatal consequences, which lost him his license a second time. The board's chief administrator said the doctor wasn't repeating the same error; the only common thread was they both incidents showed a very serious lack of judgement. The doctor has been permitted to resume practice again, but under all kinds of restrictions and conditions. But I think it all depends on the nature of the offence, the state's laws, the authority's written regulations and its normal practices, as well as the character and personalities of the doctor, the investigators and the authority's members. Aiding an abortion was for many years in many places fully sufficient grounds to disqualify a doctor or nurse. In many places, aiding euthanasia or mercy killing still is. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes a musical performance great?
What makes a "great" musical performance "great", and not just merely "skillfully executed?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.80.119 (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a very good question. Ultimately, it's entirely subjective.  You might think a particular performance was one for the ages, while I might be quite unmoved.  However, if a group of listeners all agreed it was great, it would be interesting to ask them what exactly it was about it that made it great.  I suggest there would be a variety of answers.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   09:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It also depends on what type of performance it is. A rock musician, for instance, might be thought highly of for their interaction with the crowd whereas a classical performance would have very little, if any, of that.  Dismas |(talk) 09:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What about: Harmony, and Variety, and Contrasts, Light & Shade {In the Musical sense of these terms}. In Philosophy where subjectivity is viewed-on as undesirable, perhaps we should study Music more.   MacOfJesus (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Musical coordination, loud, strong vocals, charisma, on-stage banter, plus the unabashed balls-out sexual energy a group such as The Rolling Stones creates inside auditoriums when they perform live is what makes a performance great and which is why they have been frequently referred to as "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World". Aerosmith also put on fantastic live shows.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about this question earlier today. I used to think that with sufficiently sophisticated controls, a person could program a computer to make a truly great musical performance. After years of trying just that, I think "greatness" is extremely subtle and tricky to define. A programmer, or orchestra, may be able to pull it off, but I'm not at all convinced that greatness can be codified in words, at least at this point in time. It is something ineffable. Pfly (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh, I was thinking about this yesterday, after a conversation with a guitarist who is learning entirely by listening and copying. They told me that they didn't see the point in playing from written music because 'there's no creativity, you just play it exactly how it's written, like a machine'. Unlike, of course, playing back exactly what someone else plays! They didn't seem able to understand that playing exactly what was written, without interpretation, would give a poor performance and isn't what you're 'supposed' to do. No, not even in an exam. At that point, I struggled to explain exactly why machine-like reading of the music would be 'bad'. A good performer is expected to 'massage' the note-lengths and the tempo and the dynamics and even the pitch, where appropriate, to improve the overall effect, and that doesn't even touch on the many different timbres and effects a musician can achieve with their instrument: for example, a violinist has many bowing-effects available, some more subtle than others, that affect the 'feel' of a note or sequence of notes. That same violinist has types of vibrato to choose from, and can choose to play a single note in several different places on the fingerboard. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Rate of growth: population vs. investment
If a normal portfolio grows 7% each year (or maybe, 5%), and the population of a region grows at a rate of 1% year, does it mean that every family can be millionaire, provided they save some money and keep it invested? Quest09 (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, eventually everyone will be a millionaire as currency depreciates. Not all families share their wealth, and not all portfolios grow at even 5% per year, and some families grow at a very much faster rate, but yes, in many countries, many extended families are already millionaires collectively (including the value of property).  The problem is that the value of portfolios can go down as well as up (in fact they have done so in the last ten years), and by the time every family is a millionaire, the cost of living will probably have risen to the point where a million in any local currency is not really a large amount.  There are too many variables for answers to be precise.    D b f i r s   10:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) if you mean real growth (more than inflation) then "yes, it can grow forever, and everyone can be a millionaire". Especially if you live in 1999, or at least more than 2-3 years ago with this financial crisis.  If you don't mean +7% or +5% above inflation, if you only mean inflation, then the problem is by the time every family is a millionaire, it is not worth so much to be one.  It's like if in 1882, you asked, "Is it true that in 200 years, every family can have 100 dollars just by working hard for 1-2 days???"  Well, yes, but a hundred dollars is not what it was in 1882. 89.204.139.66 (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But real growth can happen, and has (and is) happening, indefinitely. People, especially westerners (but even people in general) are continuously having higher and higher Standards of living (Here's a U.S. specific reference ).  People, as a whole (though there are many, many, exceptions) live better lives than their parents, who live better lives than there grandparents (at least in terms of measurable things like life expectancy and purchasing power).  As more minerals are mined and new technology invented, there really is more wealth to go around.  Whether such growth is sustainable remains to be seen.  It has been suggested that U.S. children today may, for the first time, have a shorter average lifespan than their parents .  Malthus is famous for predicting that a growing population would soon outstrip our ability to produce food and, while such a scenario hasn't happened yet, there are people who continue to predict such a food shortage catastrophe. Buddy431 (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm asking a question about this below. 92.15.29.254 (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

is a zippo lighter supposed to turn on when you open it?
I just got a use zippo lighter and had it refilled. Is it supposed to turn on when you open it? (it makes a click). How do you use it? 89.204.153.235 (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends on the model of lighter that you have. The generic silver one does not turn on when you open it. --  k a i n a w &trade; 13:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in our article on it: Zippo (which unfortunately however does not seem to go into the many flashy ways of lighting a Zippo practiced by the the initiated, and the bored.;) Generally, you must turn the wheel to cause a spark to light the wick. Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is possible that the questioner is confused by a common "trick" of opening the lid while also spinning the little wheel at the same time in the hopes that someone will be impressed. -- k a i n a w &trade; 15:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fairly easy to learn how to light a zippo as you open it (the classic is to 'flick it forward' but you actually push the cover open then quickly pull your thumb back on the flint wheel). Check out youtube if you have a lot of dexterity for some cool ways of doing it like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkDdQmiNlrA&feature=related Spoonfulsofsheep (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ideology
What is that makes people think their ideas are the answer to existence's problems? Possibly this is a question for the science desk, for I am interested in the neurological reasons, as well as the sociological, cultural, and historical implications. It would almost seem that if everyone agreed on one course of action that it would all go smooth, but it seems too that one ideology's solved problems open another set of disadvantages, e.g. socialism or theocracy. Thanks Wikipedians! schyler (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I can tell you what the behavioral phenomena is known as: positive illusions. You can take this to be right as I am never wrong about these things;-) --Aspro (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please. It's not a phenomena; it's a phenomenon.
 * Write "This phenomenon is..." or "These phenomena are...". One is singular; the other is plural.

Michael Hardy (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Illusory superiority? --Mr.98 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The OP also seems to be asking where on the nature/nurture axis it comes. I think it is the result of a neurological weakness (like say, being very bad at maths) which in some circumstances be reinforced  by experience (say having overly uncritical parents who do not consider that anything little Johnny does can be wrong, so, if anything goes wrong it must be someone else's fault). Then a   Authoritarian attitude or personality appears to develop.
 * A psychologist called Professor Bob Altemeyer has carried out  some interest experiments on his students about the later personality trait. He explains this (in a very long winded fashion but well worth the effort) in his free download called The Authoritarians. Dominic Johnson maybe exploring the same thing in his new book, only I have not read it yet.  Overconfidence and War: The Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions. --Aspro (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is that it's a manifestation of territoriality. Most male animals compete to dominate a physical space; human males compete to dominate an intellectual space. Looie496 (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * One cannot live as a human without ideology. literally.  the thing that separates humans from animals is the ability to create abstract representations of the world and act on them, rather than acting directly on the world itself (we can have a abstract concepts such as 'knife' or 'fire', imbued with certain potential characteristics and abilities, and then create and perfect physical instances of those concepts in different conditions, as we need them).  The problem then becomes choosing between this abstract concept or that abstract concept that cover much of the same ground.  for example, should marriage be polygamous (which maximizes the reproductive force of highly successful males at the expense of diversity), monogamous (which maximizes child care and social stability), or polyandrous (which maximizes the reproductive force of successful females)?  There is no logical reason to choose between these three, and there is a decided friction where different where the ideas interact, and so the strategies are wrapped into ideological worldviews and enforced by the community to prevent conflicts.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * One can be existential and ideologically free, at least as you propose it. This conversation is an opinion question. It's only interesting because somebody decided to "collapse" it into whatever. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Existentialism (in all its forms) is a moral ideology. Existentialists spent a good deal of ink explaining to people how the should perceive the world, mostly through rejection of philosophies that create abstract value systems in preference to a 'natural' value system that arises out of immediate experience. No existentialist I know of advocates the abnegation of belief, merely the rejection of uninvestigated belief.


 * and yeah, it was a funky question to begin with. such is life.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think "confirmation bias" seems like a plausible explanation for (or at least a contributory reason) why people cling so hard to what they believe to be right. (That is: they favour what they already have learned or somehow "know" from before, because the not changing anything (their opinion or belief) feels strongly comforting and reassuring). This is what is reflected in the proverb: "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't." And "confirmation bias" will still (or even stronger) hold up as an explanation in cases where the above mentioned: "positive illusions" and: "illusory superiority" do not apply. --Seren-dipper (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Normal types of WHAT?
The article titled normal type is incomprehensible. I read the whole article. I'm guessing that it may be about types of people, but I can't tell from the article. I put a comment on this on the talk page in May and no one's answered! Can someone here shed some light? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is in the Sociology category, and seems to be about one kind of Personality type. It is poorly written.   Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It sure looks like gibberish, or even a hoax article, doesn't it? But a glance at the first sentence of Antipositivism will show you the realm we have descended into here. Looie496 (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd vote for deletion of the article as nonsense today, if it were posted to AfD. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish it was a copyvio or a hoax, but I fear someone actually created it in good faith, with the intention of improving Wikipedia's coverage of this subject area. Which depresses me.     Ka renjc 23:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Somebody might ask for help on the article at WikiProject Sociology. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The IP that created it (also see Normal types) looks up to Germany although their English seems fine. No indication they're a hoaxer. I suspect as someone hinted above it's the sort of thing which may make sense to someone familiar with the field, but otherwise sounds like gibberish. The same is probably true of a number of science and computer stuff articles of course except perhaps then one of us is more likely to be able to make sense of them. Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Normal type--an analytical construct; a heuristic, interrogative tool that is used to describe the formation of social groups." Classical and modern social theory (2000). Google Books excerpt: . Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a suggestion for a change of the article title at Talk:Normal type. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Global banding
Hi, I am from Germany and there is one phrase I do not understand. It would be very nice if you explained the meaning of "Please confirm your current global banding" to me. This is from an employment ad and I could not find out the meaning of global banding. Thanks --79.239.164.152 (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could it be a misspelling of Global branding?  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  18:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a native speaker of English and a professional editor, and I have no idea what "global banding" is supposed to mean. Marco polo (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * globalgradingsystem. I have a funny stroy to tell yuo abuot this but i'm tied up at the moment.--Aspro (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ...currently pecking at the keyboard with a pencil clenched in his teeth, hence the tpyos.--Wetman (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is fuller explanation. --Aspro (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, ah, yeah, that's much more understandable. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated. I'll read it through, hope that helps ;) If someone's able to explain it in one sentence that will help, too. --93.104.171.143 (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)