Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 June 28

= June 28 =

Question about Supreme Court justices strategically retiring so as to influence who their successor will be
My understanding is that a justice will only retire when the "right" President is in office, so that that President will replace the retiring justice with one whose ideology supports that of the President (in other words, along party lines or conservative/liberal). So, is this basically an "unwritten rule"? Or just a "professional courtesy"? Or is the driving force that the departing justice wants to be replaced with someone that thinks (votes) like him? I'd like to think that Supreme Court justices focus more on the law than on politics. But, that is probably very naive. Does anyone know? Also, when was the last time (in modern days) that a justice departed when the appointing President was of the opposite party/ideology? I am referring to the Supreme Court of the USA. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I am also referring to a voluntary departure (i.e., retirement) as opposed to involuntary ones (e.g., death, disability, illness, impeachment, etc.). Although, for informational purposes, I'd like to know those from the latter category (i.e., involuntary departures) as well.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * David Souter was a Republican appointee (George H. W. Bush), who retired during a Democratic presidency (2009 Obama, who appointed Sonia Sotomayor to replace him), though historically Souter tended to vote with the "liberal" judges. John Paul Stevens was a Republican nominee also (Gerald Ford), who was replaced during 2010, so also an Obama appointee (Elena Kagan this time).  Stevens, though, despite being a Republican appointee, was also considered a "liberal" justice.  Likewise, Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee was replaced by Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer, though again, Blackmun is considered a liberal justice historically.  Looking back, the last "liberal" justice replaced by a "conservative" was when Thurgood Marshall (LBJ Appointee) was replaced by Clarence Thomas (GHW Bush nominee) in 1991.  The last "conservative" justice replaced by a "liberal" could possibly have been when Lewis F. Powell, Jr. was replaced by Anthony Kennedy in 1987, though both men were more "middle of the road" swing votes, with Powell leaning slightly more to the right, and Kennedy slightly more to the left.  -- Jayron 32 02:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that while retiring at such times may be a goal, there are practical matters that often interfere with that goal. One rarely knows years in advance when one will need to retire, and one also rarely knows years in advance who the future Presidents are likely to be.  Considering that one party can hold the presidency for a decade or more, like the FDR/Harry Truman period of 20 years, or the Reagan/George H W Bush period of 12 years, a Supreme Court Justice would have to know that in advance and be willing to retire far earlier than they would otherwise choose, to accomplish that goal. StuRat (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I'd take exception to that. One:  Supreme Court justices are not really like "normal people" with a "normal job" (for lack of better words).  I doubt they are "worried" about their financial futures.  For many of them, they can retire at any moment.  But, for various reasons, they seem to "hold on" as long as possible.  Two:  What I was referring to is a scenario when the justice knows that the current President's term will end, and might want to retire before the "next" President enters office, just to "be safe" and "guarantee" the ideology of the successor.  So, for example, we all know with certainty when Obama will leave office.  So, a justice might worry that the next president might be a Republican, so he will want to retire now, while a Democrat is still in office (i.e., before he leaves).  That sort of thing.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood me. When I said they will eventually need to retire I was referring to their health.  I wasn't talking about financial matters at all.  And as for retiring now, Republicans might just "run out the clock" by refusing to approve any replacement, in the hopes of getting a Republican President next.  With that in mind, not only would a Supreme need to retire during a particular President's term, but early in it.  I don't think Republicans could have blocked all nominees for 8 years without creating a public uproar.  StuRat (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * True. And even that assumes that there is no "ninth year" (the incoming President after eight years is also another Democrat, elected when the current Democrat leaves office).   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Can a Supreme Court justice recuse himself from a case for no reason?
I assume that when there is some conflict of interest (in a legal case), a Supreme Court justice recuses himself from that case, either because he must (i.e., it is required) or because he feels it is the "right"/ethical thing to do (even if not required). My question is: Can a Supreme Court justice recuse himself from a case just because he "feels like it" (with no particular reason)? I am thinking, for example, of such scenarios (if, hypothetically, I were on the Supreme Court). (A) I might be terribly conflicted about a case (say, abortion or death penalty) or "on the fence". And I'd just rather not commit to voting one way or another. (B) To play a "numbers game". I know that the other justices will vote 4-4 and I don't want to break the tie (or some such numbers games). Can they do this? I am referring to the Supreme Court of the USA. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fairly rare, but I haven't been able to find a reason why not. In practice, you may be assuming that justices are chosen simply for their legal minds, but the reality is that justices are chosen not just for their legal acumen (Cl*r**ce Th***s, for example), but also for their character. The job requires you not to sit on the fence: if you don't have the courage to judge, you shouldn't take the job. RomanSpa (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, but that goes to my Scenario "A", not to my Scenario "B".  And Scenario "B" is the one I would have assumed would more frequently arise.  Yes, justices are chosen for legal acumen and character, etc.  But certainly the number one factor is politics.  No?  Which is why my Scenario "B" discusses the justices engaging in "numbers games".  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In practice, the Justices are their own arbiters in whether they should recuse themselves or not, and they don't really have to publicly reveal the reason. However, I'm having difficulty in trying to figure out how those two scenarios that you mentioned would be generally beneficial. A Justice would normally have to recuse before oral arguments, and that runs the risk of either (A) a point raised during oral arguments that changes the minds of one or more of the Justices, thus swinging a presumed 4-4 tie to one way or the other. Or (B) minds are changed during internal deliberations. A perfect example is explained on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, where there were reports that Justice Roberts changed his opinion. Also note that in that case, the Justices became fragmented on many of the issues that were raised: Roberts was the only one who supported the opinion of the court in full. Everybody else either concurred in part and dissented in part (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan), or dissented in full (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito). I doubt a Justice would want to risk being silent on a case that ends up being more complex than it originally was presumed to be, or results in a majority opinion that he or she may not agree in full. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, you make some valid points. However, they are premised on your statement that "a Justice would normally have to recuse before oral arguments".  Says who?  You yourself just stated that they are their own arbiters (and, hence, can recuse whenever they feel appropriate).  For example, perhaps a conflict becomes known after oral arguments, not before.  (Who knows?)  So, I guess I could also imagine a recusal after oral argument.  No?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Do people change their minds?
I've just watched a debate on a Biblical (fairly general) topic between Bart D. Ehrman and Craig A. Evans. Such debates between competent scholars are great fun for people who just want to learn stuff, or like to watch pro wrestling. But my impression is that they are useless for actually changing people's minds. But is there any scientific data to support that impression (or the reverse)? Contact Basemetal   here  13:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It depends on what they are changing their minds about. Small issues are simply but questioning fundamental beliefs can cause so much cognitive dissonance that some individuals can't. Some times drugs like Ketamine, Psilocybin, LSD, etc., can help people accept come to terms with their own mortality when faced with terminal cancer etc.,  by dampening down the unpleasant feelings of  cognitive dissonance enough to shift their view point to one of accepting reality. That has been researched a little but is held back by the war on drugs legalization. --Aspro (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the resistance to facing one's mortality an instance of cognitive dissonance? I don't think so. Except in the suicidal, every thought one holds is at odds with conceptualizing one's death. Cognitive dissonance involves different mindsets within those thoughts that are generally life affirming. Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I question whether reliance on illegal drugs is a valid way to impose "changing one's mind". But it's true that personal traumas, "seeing the light", can radically change one's perspective. Jim Brady would be a good example. Lee Atwater would be another. I can also think of various public figures who were lifelong smokers and took to the airwaves to rail against smoking, including William Tallman, Yul Brynner, and Morton Downey Jr. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * How does the current legality of a drug effect it its medial efficaciousness? Remember, these drugs are still legal in many countries. Also, they don't impose a change of mind. Rather they free the person from the pain of cognitive dissonance so they can reconsider and make up they own mind based on the realty confronting them. The alternative is denial and the emotional pain that follows from that.--Aspro (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a brainwashing technique. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Seeing the light" is not the same as changing one's mind based on being exposed to new arguments or new data. If that's the only way human beings can change their minds then it's pretty sad (but it might be true). Of course the question of changing one's mind is connected to the question of how one forms an opinion in the first place. That also seems to be a less than rational process. I'm interested in scientific data regarding both those questions if they do exist. Contact Basemetal   here  19:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Aspro's comments which imply a link between brain chemistry and the capacity of changing one's mind make me think of a related question: if modifying the chemistry of the brain through drugs can make people more open to changing their minds, is there the possibility that even without the use of drugs some people are innately more or less capable of either overcoming or simply not experiencing cognitive dissonance or not experiencing cognitive dissonance to the same extent? If humans have the capacity of overcoming cognitive dissonance or not experiencing it in varying measures (by that I mean to an extent that varies among individuals, again: without any use of drugs), would such a psychological trait be favored or disfavored by evolution? Any data or theory on that? Contact Basemetal   here  21:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I used to think that people could change their minds, now I'm sure that they can't. DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it rare for someone to have a sudden change of opinion based on one single televised debate (a single debate tends to simply reinforce opinions already held). On-going debate and discussion, on the other hand, might well end up with people slowly changing their minds.  I think the societal change of opinion (at least in the US) on the issue of Gay Marriage is a good example of this... ten years ago, the majority of Americans were against it (even Obama)... today, American society seems to have changed it's minds and the majority supports it.  That was not the result of one debate, but of multiple debates and discussions held over many many years.  One debate might help someone to didn't have a firm opinion to form one, but it is unlikely to cause sudden shifts of opinion... that takes much longer. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "marginal change of mind" while not very noticeable on a daily basis can, in the long run, when it always happens in the same direction, result in big societal changes. When change is so slow one must also consider demographic change, in other words that it's not so much individuals that changed their minds but that the proportions of people holding one opinion or another changed as a result of demographic change. That is of course connected to the question how one forms an opinion, why newer generations form opinions that are different from the previous ones. Big questions, hunh? That's why I was merely asking for scientific studies of these questions. I was of course not expecting that they would be settled here at the RD. Contact Basemetal   here  19:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting post. I had always wondered if there was a "name" for this.  I just never bothered to post my question.  Is there some name (in science, psychology, sociology, whatever) for the notion that when we hear an argument/debate, we only draw from it the points that confirm our original belief, and we really don't "hear" or "listen to" the points that go against our original belief?  In other words, we (humans, in general) usually listen to the argument/debate with a closed mind, not an open mind.  And we usually are trying to gather more "ammunition" to bolster what we already believe, as opposed to being open to listening to the other side and perhaps changing our minds about the issue at hand.   I found a good article about this.  I will see if I can find the link.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The good article that I recently read was about how people feel about the death penalty. I believe it came out about the time that the Boston Bomber trial reignited debate about the death penalty.  The article basically said that we believe what we want to believe, and basically no one can change our mind, no matter what arguments/evidence they put forth.  On such important matters as the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, etc.  I did a Google search to see if I could find that article again.  But using all the relevant search words (like "death penalty", etc.) came up with an enormous amount of "hits".  So, I cannot weed through them all to try to find that article.  Does anyone know the article I am referring to?   Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias208.87.234.202 (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that confirmation bias does have limits. For example, if a Holocaust denier was given a tour of a death camp while the bodies were fresh, he might have been convinced, but less so when just looking at pictures, where he could argue they were all faked. StuRat (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There's also cherry picking (fallacy), when only using those facts which support your view in an argument with others. Of course, if trying to win a debate, that's exactly what you want to do.  Not so when trying to determine the facts of a case.  (Unfortunately, court cases really should try to determine the facts of the case, but the adversarial process ensures that each side cherry picks their own facts.)  StuRat (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, people often change their minds.
 * .... Wait, I've had a rethink. No, they don't change their minds.
 * .... Wait ....   --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

To me it seems that in both formal and informal learning people are changing their minds all the time. They may keep some fixed points, but within those there is a lot that can change. After reading just one book people say things like "that's put a new perspective on it for me", or "I see it in a different light now", "I've got a more nuanced view", "I hadn't realised", "I've learnt a lot", "it's clarified a lot of things for me", etc. See Amazon book reviews for these phrases and many more. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" John Maynard Keynes.  Widneymanor (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Is Ed Leslie a person? Because the seven hundredth of his thousand gimmicks (give or take) was simply a guy with black and white facepaint who said "Yes! No! Yes! No!" That was the entire deal. Called "The Zodiac", for reasons that probably only made sense for fifteen minutes. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a really interesting debate. Is there a reliably sourced list of clerics of various faiths who changed faith (or dropped faith altogether), absent of persecution? --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I recall something Garrison Keillor once said (very likely quoting someone else), that men are well-known for making a bad decision and then "sticking with it." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I see you are looking for science refs. Here's some: This book looks really good for a recent overview. This one is specifically about media influence. This one takes a more cognitive science perspective. Some relevant WP articles: persuasion, attitude change, elaboration likelihood. Finally, specific to debate - here's one on various features of rhetoric and effects on persuasion, here's one on message order that also pertains to debate. Here's a specific one analyzing impact of the Bush-Gore debates Plenty of further fodder on google scholar. My understanding is that often viewing a debate will serve to just reinforce one's prior attitude. However, real attitude change is possible. Beyond that I recommend reading the literature for more nuanced findings and discussion. Search various combinations of /persuasion attitude change debate message effect/. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thanks. I can see you Googled "persuasion change mind". You used Google better than me. I had Googled "changing people's minds" which unfortunately returned a lot of stuff about how to change people's minds. Googling "changing one's mind" returned at the top stuff about changing your own brain. However I got this. It's more opinion than scientific data but the paper does quote some statistics. Thanks again. Contact Basemetal   here  16:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad those help. I've found it's useful to think of google and it's related services as a highly literate idiot - use key terms, ideally the ones used by science, but don't ever conjugate or decline words unless that's specifically what you're looking for :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to toss in a mention of Intelligence Squared, a debate program I've recently heard a few times on an American public radio station (and which I understand originated in the UK), which is based on changing people's minds over the course of a single debate. An audience poll is conducted on the day's topic prior to the debate, then another poll is conducted after, with the team who has gained the most percentage points for their side of the argument being declared "the winner".  -- LarryMac  | Talk  18:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Joimpy
Does the hamlet of Joimpy in Saint-Léger-des-Aubées still exist?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A hamlet named Goimpy exists. I don't know if it's the same place. Nanonic (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * [ec] I'm fairly sure it is, Saint-Léger-des-Aubées is the nearest place that has an article on :fr. Tevildo (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course the presence of a place on Google Maps or any other map is not actual proof that it exists. Maps may contain errors, even deliberate errors on occasion.  But if you check Google's Street View imagery at the edge of the place, you will see a sign reading "GOIMPY (Cne de St LÉGER des AUBÉES)", and I call that pretty definitive. --70.49.171.136 (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)