Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 April 8

= April 8 =

British Civil Service
Is the British civil service an example of a fully devolved organisation where cabinet office heads up the organisation but devolves day to day running of each department to the board of that department? Also if comparing to a private company, are elected ministers, appointed to government departments, like the board of a company, representing its shareholders with the civil service heads of the departments (permanent secretary, director generals etc) being the executive director team (so in a private company CEO, COO etc? 2A02:C7D:B982:AB00:74C1:85B3:141B:11F9 (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In your first question, what do you mean by "fully" devolved? Obviously the cabinet office is meant to fulfill some function separate to the other ministries, otherwise it would not have been created. On your second question, the more usual analogy is that members of parliament are like the directors elected by shareholders. Ministers are answerable to parliament on behalf of their departments. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Do the children of medical doctors have better healthcare than those of non-physicians?
A child of a medical doctor can just say he's sick, and the parent will just examine the child to confirm or reject that claim. No need to go to the doctor, when there is a doctor in the house. But does this mean that the children of medical doctors have better healthcare than those of non-physicians? Will having two parents as medical doctors be better than one? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * They don't always take their medical equipment home with them, and examination by the parents, after a certain age, would be embarrassing. Also, the doctor may specialize in a field that has nothing to do with pediatrics.  Of course, in the US, they probably have decent health insurance, unlike many others in the US. StuRat (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In a different area, children of ministers or clergymen often have a reputation of being somewhat cynical about religion (we have an article on Preacher's kid, and there was a Simpsons episode on the subject). AnonMoos (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Over the years I have known a few doctors. Most have been reluctant to diagnose or treat their own family members (doubting their ability to make an unbiased and emotion free decision), and have preferred to get someone else to do it. Wymspen (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There is an old proverb to the effect that "the cobbler's children are always barefoot," which refers to a tendency for some practitioners of a craft to concentrate on paying customers (whose fees contribute to their family's general welfare) while neglecting their family's specific needs. Anecdotally, some doctors – accustomed to the hypochondria of many patients and the ability of the body to recover from minor ailments independently of supposed medical cures – are said to be sometimes over-dismissive of family members' initial complaints of illness: yes, I know the foregoing could be littered with citations needed. I'd be surprised if some sort of scientific survey had not been done somewhere examining the health of doctors' relatives, but I lack the expertise to find one (or try and fail usefully) myself. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * My mother was a doctor's daughter.  My father also studied medicine.   My little sister said "I've got a pain in my chest."   My father said "You may have angina pectoris.   My mother said "Goodbye!" 86.147.208.18 (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Some references, which show there are a number of different dimensions which might make a difference.


 * This article surveyed 353 physicians and found 38% give their children routine health exams, 45% per cent treated their own children for fever, and 65% prescribe medications for their children.
 * This article analyzed NHS data for children of health-care professionals in the UK and found that children of doctors and pharmacists were significantly less likely to receive unnecesssary antibiotic prescriptions.
 * This article compared emergency department visits of 273 children and found that children with physician parents were more likely to be treated by senior physicians, as opposed to trainees.
 * To find more such references, try the search string "children of physicians" in Google scholar. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, even if the doctor doesn't treat their children themselves, they may better recognize which symptoms require medical attention (from others). StuRat (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Social norm, leg crossing
Is it ever socially acceptable for a man to cross legs? For example, if there's a practical reason for that, like working on a laptop on your lap? I mean both the ankle over leg and the leg over leg. Is that something that a real man would do? --Dikipewia (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems completely unexceptional behaviour to me. If you feel otherwise, I'd say this is a sign that this is highly dependent on local culture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The notion of "real man" calls for further explanation. To what does this phrase refer? Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This guy! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose Effeminacy is the right article for it. There's no mention of leg-crossing in it though. Hofhof (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If Nicola Sturgeon can do it anyone can do it. 86.147.208.18 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * See Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 April 26. (A section heading should not end in a question mark; a section heading should not be a question.)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the same OP that wondered what was wrong with touching women below the waist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He or she also asked whether natural breasts can look like silicon breasts.Hofhof (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In the US, at least, a man can cross his legs so that one ankle is on the other knee, but thigh-over-thigh leg-crossing is considered effeminate or a sign that they need to urinate (probably because it squeezes male genitals uncomfortably, so most men don't do it normally). StuRat (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not true at all. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Ghits showing a small portion of men with legs crossed in the thigh-over-thigh position doesn't disprove what I said. They also showed many in the "Indian guru" sitting style, which is fine for sitting on the floor, or maybe a sofa if you remove your shoes, but not chairs. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Mostly standard aesthetically accepted postures these trapped creatures. --Askedonty (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

MREs
For my history project, we need to create fallout shelters and must stock up on food. We chose 360 servings of army rations. The army rations can be MREs, but we still have 360 servings. While I was researching MREs, I saw that one MRE has around a plate of food and a lot of calories. I noticed that the individual packages within the MRE have a serving size of 1, but how many servings is the entire MRE considered to have? NerdyPerson (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * One. MREs are intended as prepackaged, single-serving meals for a single soldier, or in my case, wildland firefighter. They contain many more calories than an average meal for an average American for a couple of reasons: the first being that a soldier who is fighting in war, doing training exercises, etc. generally burns a lot more calories than the average person and thus needs more caloric replacement, and the second being that it is assumed that the person eating the MRE may not eat the entire meal (maybe they don't like one particular component) so they stuff more in than would otherwise be necessary. Source: I lived on MREs for several days while fighting the 100 Mile Creek Fire. Everything was helicoptered in to our spike camp and the assigned ration was three MREs per person per day. (Though we had access to more if we really needed.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * MRE = Meal, Ready-to-Eat ? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Opinions differ on whether it's even fit to eat, but otherwise yes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to Meal, Ready-to-Eat. Thank you NorthBySouthBaranof, Baseball Bugs, and Stephan Schulz for the very prompt and helpful answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyPerson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

NerdyPerson, You have already made a bad choice by choosing Meal, Ready-to-Eats. MREs are optimized to give a soldier in the field a hot meal. You are buying 360 Flameless ration heaters when a portable camp stove is a much more sensible choice, plus the shelf life of an MRE is only three years. You would do far better to buy a prepackaged "food for one person for a year" kit with a 20 year plus shelf life from some place like nitro pack, the ready store, or valley food storage. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I forgot about ready reserve foods. They have the advantage of storing the food in double-enameled cans filled with a nitrogen atmosphere. That makes the food last a lot longer than food packed with an oxygen absorber in the can. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. When the Zombie Apocalypse arrives, I want Guy Macon on my side... - Nunh-huh 05:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You could get some further ideas from the movie Blast from the Past. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)