Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 October 10

= October 10 =

Humor identification
Here are three events involving identification of humor. Is exposure to mass media news and entertainment conditioning various people (a) to perceive humor where none was intended, and (b) to perceive an attempt at humor where no humor was perceived? I would appreciate links to reliable sources discussing this two-part question. —Wavelength (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Recently, another editor expressed appreciation for an unprecedented expression of humor by me, when actually what I had stated was not intended as humor.
 * More recently, a public personage made a comment about a current issue, and a news commentator said, in effect, that it was a failed attempt at humor. To me, the comment by the public personage showed no humor and no attempt at humor.
 * More recently still, I made a comment to a group of acquaintances (with no attempt at humor), and one of them said to me that what I had just said was not funny.
 * The third one is probably too close to home, but could you link to or quote the first two? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The first event is recorded at Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 September 20. I was avoiding linking to it, because I wanted to avoid embarrassing the other editor.  I am hesitant to provide additional details about the second event.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. I think the problem was in bringing up Desi Arnaz in the first place. As for the second item, is that too close to home also, or are you just trying to spare a public figure? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer to avoid stating why I prefer to avoid providing additional details about the second event.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, how about explaining why you thought the linked term desi required an explanation that it did not refer to Desi Arnaz? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, someone reading the discussion could follow that link and see that it did not refer to Desi Arnaz. My point was that someone hearing the word spoken might confuse it with people having the name "Desi".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your point as you've explained it. At the time, to me, it wasn't necessarily funny, it just didn't make sense - like, what has Desi Arnaz got to do with India? Now it makes sense. It just seems like overkill. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * [I should have posted "hearing the word spoken or reading it in a different context".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)]


 * Maybe it's a cultural thing. Different cultures have very different ideas of what humour is. As an Australian I've learnt to think hard before writing something here that would go over a treat at an Aussie pub. I suspect a lot of Steady Eddy's humour would be regarded as offensive in other countries, but the put-downs are all at his own expense. And I'm not sure if a play called Wogs Out of Work would have universal acceptance. I've found when visiting America that if it's pissing down with rain and I say "Great day for the beach", a lot of people look at me rather strangely. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Things seem a bit funnier to some people if other people laugh. Try watching this laugh-free edit of The Big Bang Theory. There's another one on the same channel with "Indian-ish people", as luck would have it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd've sworn up and down the allusion to Lucille Ball's ex-husband was a joke. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too, but I don't think either of us is a typical American. HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sense of humor seems highly subjective, as is how people deal with others' sense of humor and its expression, or the lack of such. Perhaps a corollary could be something like this: Are people increasingly uncomfortable with serious issues (especially via mediums in which they usually seek entertainment/distraction)? Intriguing questions, and for some reason I thought of the odd behavior some cultures have with smiling through nervousness, saving face, and how a visitor can too easily misinterpret that sort of reaction... Anyway, i looked for some psychological discussions of the value of humor and thus came upon a wiki article, Theories of humor which briefly mentions 3 main theories (relief, superiority and incongruity) of interest, if not applicable to this discussion, along with one possibly more fitting to this topic: Misattribution Theory. El duderino (abides) 08:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a thought, some people might say "that's not funny" to convey the meaning "I disapprove of what you just said". I'm not accusing you of this but often people will try to play off racist/sexist and other offensive comments as a joke to avoid responsibility. I have no idea what you said, just thought it might be worth considering that the speaker knew what you said wasn't a joke, and wanted to express disapproval or disagreement. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I was sometimes on the outside of the cool crowd in grade school/middleschool/highschool and I remember once making a joke, and my peers just stared at me, but one said, "Well, it would have been funny if Denny had said it." The reaction to humor depends on the source. Identified source of humor: remark is a funny joke. Random person: remark is an insult or just something to cause a scoff or an eyeroll, a look of contempt or no response. Context is everything.  If someone goes to a comedy club and the person on stage insults the hearer's clothes/girlfriend/haircut/skincolor/accent, a guy might laugh to show he is a good sport, but if the speaker had said the same thing to him on the street, he would have punched the speaker. There is in humans a "theory of mind." We hear an utterance, and interpret in light of what we think the speaker's intention is. Is he a likeable person making a funny joke? Then we parse the utterance differently than if he is a bully putting us down, or a pariah acting in an embarrassing way. The identical utterance, from two different speakers, can result in a laugh and "Oh, you are so silly!" or a cold stare and "Were you addressing ME?" Edison (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is he a she? As dumbass Fry happily remarked after the Futurama crew traded bits and pieces, "Now, when I say stupid things, guys all laugh and buy me stuff." (Things are also funnier seen and heard than read.) InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A more reliable, gender-equal source. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Election of the Philippine Senate through Panachage
Isn't also the selection system of the Philippine Senate through panachage? There, voters select out of a list of candidates' names up to 12 candidates. Looking at the definition of the term, panachage is then also used for senatorial elections in the Philippines. --112.198.82.200 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

How/why/when did "European civilisation" become the global default?
When one thinks of major historical movements most seem to have been driven from/by Europe. For example, most of Africa and the "New World" was colonized by Europeans, not Chinese, though the Arabs got a few bits. There was a period of several centuries after the collapse of the Roman Empire when the Chinese could have rolled into Europe and colonized it much like the Europeans later did to the Americas and Africa, but they didn't. Middle Easterners tried but failed to colonize/dominate most of Europe. Descendants of the Inca or Maya never "discovered" Australia, Europeans did. In terms of other fields of endeavor such as sciences it's again Europeans (and the European diaspora) that dominates with concepts such as "Western medicine" being the "global default". Europeans adopted Arab mathematics and chemistry and used it sail around the world and blow away what little opposition they met. In politics it's Western style democracy that's held up as the "gold standard". Why is it that Europeans were routinely crossing oceans and conquering all and sundry when most Africans were barely into the iron age and the Far Eastern empires had lost the plot?

My gut tells me that there must have been a time when Europeans were no more likely to "Rule the World" than people from other regions/continents - but something happened that gave them a lead that they have maintained to this day. What was that "something happened"? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * it was the invention of the mechanical clock. Honest Asmrulz (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Or the sitting toilet? Gave them time to think deep thoughts (and listen to their mechanical clocks)? Contact Basemetal   here  20:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * See Guns, Germs, and Steel for one argument. In short (IIRC, though I may be getting confused with a few points from a couple of other authors), Europe has a large amount of waterways and mountains that create a balance between isolation to develop unique cultures and pathways to allow exchange, making it a matter of time before they shot off ( shot up? ) elsewhere.
 * Max Weber argued that the religions of each area had something to do with it. The Eastern religions have a more cyclical view of time, which makes innovation a bit pointless.  The protestant work ethic, in Weber's point of view, is responsible for Western civilization being so common.
 * Outside of that, Islam spread from Malaysia to Morocco and Kazakhstan to Madagascar, so it's possible to argue that Arabic culture is still just as much a global default (at least for the Old World). They were usually a couple of decades ahead of Europe in terms of science and other developments up until the printing press.  It was easier to do Latin letters than Arabic on a printing press, which gave Europe a boost.
 * Also, it wasn't so much that China fell behind as they managed to get into a more-or-less self-sustaining situation pretty quickly. The reason they didn't have the same sort of massive changes that were common to European history is that they didn't need them.
 * And, of course, there's also the argument that the West actually has it all wrong and assuming that the West is the global default is Eurocentric. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Great Divergence covers this subject and seems to be reasonably well sourced. A. Parrot (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was very worried about that article but it seems good now. The Pomeranz book of the same name is interesting but may be a bit too detailed unless you are used to reading economic history. Pomeranz' main argument is that Western Europe and the Yangtze Delta were the two "core regions" of 18th century Eurasia but England had an incentive to develop the steam engine to pump water out of coal mines, whereas in China the problem with mines was that they were too dry (hence the invention of various devices), and also long distant from the main industrial areas. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

12, September, 1683 μηδείς (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

US Presidents, having won only a minority of states
I'm not sure, but after a quick check I think that in the 1960 election, John F. Kennedy became the first American President to carry only a minority of states (22/23:26), save for the very different 1824 election. Is this correct? It seems that this aspect of US presidential elections is rather ignored... why? --KnightMove (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Who says it is? And who says it matters? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Who says it matters" is an odd complaint on a Reference Desk which answers mostly questions of little interest to the general public. If a question matters to the person posing it, then we can individually choose to find an answer to it or we can choose to move on to some other activity which interests us more. Edison (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Which of those two options are you engaged in right now? >:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe Baseball Bugs was not referring to the question itself ("Did JFK carry a minority of states?") but to the remark that this aspect of US presidential elections is ignored: "Who says it is?" i.e. "Is this aspect really ignored?" and "Who says it matters?" i.e. "Even if it is why does it matter given you're saying there are at most two such examples?" IMO the OP's question is a valid question and Baseball Bugs's reaction is also a valid reaction. Contact Basemetal   here  00:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Did Abraham Lincoln win a majority of states in his first election? μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, he did. The article on the 1860 election shows that Lincoln's three opponents combined won fewer states than Lincoln, something like 15 to Abe's 18. He of course won the electoral vote, which is what really matters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Who cares who did it second? Who climbed Mount Everest after Hillary and Norgay is a trivia question. John Quincey Adams was the MAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The only one since JFK was 1976, where Carter won in 24 states (including DC) and Ford in 27. Also, in 1960, JFK would have won two more states were it not for the rogues in a couple of deep-south states casting electoral votes for Byrd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's alright Bugs, the dead Chicagoans who took Illinois for JFK more than made up for the racist Democrat traitors. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That was a sign that the solid, segregationist south was starting to look unfavorably on the Democrats, but the Republicans weren't ready to fill that vacuum yet. Your mentioning of Chicago reminds me of this one which was circulating in the late fall of 1960: "Nixon, Kennedy and Daley are on a sinking boat, and there's only one life jacket. So they take a vote to see who gets it. Daley wins 7 to 2." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"Who says it matters?" - I don't think that you can draw a clear line between information that matters and useless knowledge. Is my question less interesting than the facts mentioned in the "electoral milestones", and if so, why? --KnightMove (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not; I'm adding it to that section.
 * One source on this question is this NARA page where the electoral votes by state are tabulated on a series of subpages (but not as many as one subpage per election), unfortunately with varying table formats over time, making it nontrivial to produce a single table by computer. Looking through the tables by eye, I confirm what has been said above; but I also note that there have been two elections, [|1848] and 1880, when each of the leading candidates won an equal number of states: thus neither a majority of states (as usually happens) nor a minority (as the question asked for).  That seems notable as well, and I'll add it to those articles. --174.88.135.88 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Winning a majority of states has nothing directly to do with winning the presidency. You should note that Grover Cleveland had more popular votes than Benjamin Harrison in their election, but Harrison won the electoral vote, which is the only thing that matters constitutionally. So it may be interesting trivia, but it doesn't really matter. And keep in mind that the smaller-populated states are over-represented in the electoral college anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If smaller-populated states are over-represented, it is still less likely to win an election with the minority only. :-)
 * It seems we agree about the interesting trivia. Thanks to the IP. --KnightMove (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Names of the Drekkanas, and/or other decans
I've been trying to find a list of names of the Drekkanas, the Indian version of the Decans. I've skimmed and searched the relevant sections of the Brihat Jataka and the Jaimini Sutras, done some Google searches, and even flipped through a couple of "how-to" books (ugh), and to date all I've found is the repeated assertion (never noting its ultimate source) that the 22nd drekkana is named Khara, and its lord is Karesh.

My main question here is about the Drekkanas, but I'm trying to assemble a list of the different names of the decans for a role-playing game I'm working on (and if I get particularly good sources, I'll probably improve some articles here as I've done before). If anyone knows of other lists of decans, I'd be interested in those as well. I'm aware of and have access to four Egyptian lists, those in the Testament of Solomon, the Liber Hermetis, stuff in Liber 777 for which I can't find an earlier sources, and some that Franz Bardon seemed to have made up. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Where in heaven is a drekkana list when you really need one? Can't choose my lucky number or next wife (lucky her!) without it, let alone predict the date of my death. Twenty commentaries on Brihat Jataka (yes, I read ch. 27) and no chart in Wikipedia? Unacceptable in this lifetime, however long.
 * Note, found nothing in JSTOR of immediate help, nor in search of several recent non-Western astronomy histories. Added better ref to (Egyptian)decans for your troubles. At a loss for wife. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * David Pingree's "The Indian Iconography of the Decans and Horas" (Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, vol 26, no. 3/4 (1963), pp. 223-254) demonstrates dependency of the Yavanajataka's depiction of the Drekkanas on the original Greek form of the Liber Hermetis, though lacking the names in the Liber Hermetis. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)