Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 September 14

= September 14 =

Culture
Low culture and high culture are class based distinctions of culture but when it says culture is the social behavior and norms found in human societies are they including or excluding low culture and high culture or are they saying only clothing, cooking, ritual, art, music, dance and science etc is culture? I could be wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7471:6C00:D052:F548:73F0:75AF (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See earlier question and the answers. DroneB (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One problem is that meaning of “culture” can shift depending on context... anthropologists may use one definition while journalists may use another. So we would need to clarify the context to answer your question. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culture#Noun Gem fr (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Well what's the anthropology perspective and journal perspectives on context? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7471:6C00:454F:6890:28CE:FF0C (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Both anthropologists and journalist discourage trolling. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Material culture
Are board games material culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.112.135 (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * According to anthropologists, yes... AnonMoos (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Speaker Explains
Hi! I'm curious. Are these videos https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLj3mInRJqIenu11GhIbyxFmif0SqYJVTO recordings of parliamentary proceedings? Why? --Roy17 (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Why are they or are they not?--Roy17 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No. The link is to 5 videos in which John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, sitting by a fireplace, explains procedures. DroneB (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Does "Why?" mean "Why would they record that?" or something else ? SinisterLefty (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The fireplace is in the Speaker's Residence, a rather posh apartment in the Palace of Westminster and one of the perks of the job. He got into a bit of trouble for a pricey makeover at the public expense, before he would move in.  Alansplodge (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

opium addiction in 19th century US?
I half-remember characters in Mark Twain novels treating various ailments with laudanum, which according to the article was available without a prescription until around 1906. Was there a significant problem with addiction before that? I'm aware of the opium wars between GB and China in the 18th century and there was apparently considerable addiction in China. It seems logical that if the stuff was so easily available in the US, there would be addiction here as well, but we don't hear about it much. Is it a brushed-aside bit of history, or what? (Of course there were also even worse problems like slavery, but that's separate). 67.164.113.165 (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This looks promising as a source: Inside the Story of America’s 19th-Century Opiate Addiction, and this study of the language used over the centuries to describe addiction may also suggest some good keywords to try while searching for historical accounts. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a sad truth that many of the drug prohibitions in the U.S. were passed during kind of racist panics -- opium/heroin during an early 20th-century anti-Chinese "yellow peril" phase, marijuana during an anti-black phase. Harry J. Anslinger was the U.S. anti-drug czar for many years.  He came after the original outlawing of opium, but was very much involved in the outlawing of marijuana... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * How addictive a substance is depends on it's purity. However, I'm not sure how pure opium was in the US then. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It also depends on the individual user. A Feature Article in the current issue of New Scientist dealing with the causes of addiction (No. 3247, 14 September 2019, p42 'Is it really addiction?', Moya Sarner) asserts that about 15–20% of people have a predeliction for addictions (to both substances and behaviours like obsessive use of pornography or playing of video games), due to an excess of the neurotransmitter GABA in the amygdala, probably due to a lack of a chemical GAT-3 which clears excess GABA, seemingly associated with a varient of the DRD2 gene. The other 80–85%, by implication, are much less likely to become addicts of anything even if exposed to it.
 * If this is the case, then in a population with unrestricted access to a given addictive substance, up to 15% or so may form an addiction, but if the addictive substance does not cause immediate major health problems and is freely available, cheap and legal, most users may still be able to function in society. Laudanum was extensively (and legally) used/administered in Victorian Britain by people of all ages (it was used to passify babies) without people of the time noticing a major problem (growing objections were, I suspect, based on 'moral' grounds). Heroin was available on prescription to registered addicts in Britain in my lifetime and most were able to thus control their addiction and function. Many of the problems of addiction to substances that have been made illegal arise from having to use contaminated versions (more deleterious to health) supplied by criminals at high prices that necessitate turning to crime in order to pay for them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.210.107 (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. The question was inspired partly by the current US opiate crisis which has caused a lot of fatalities.  I don't think impurities in the drugs has been an issue.  I wondered if there was a comparable situation pre-1900. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I want to make sure you understand what I mean by "purity". I mean the concentration of the active ingredient(s). Modern drugs tend to have a lot more of that and less of the inactive ingredients. Those inactive ingredients limit the rate at which a person can consume the drug. For example, some alcohol is common in over-ripe fruit, but you wouldn't be able to get very drunk on them, because you would have to eat massive quantities. But if you distill the alcohol to increase the concentration, then you can get drunk and develop alcoholism. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah I see. The article on laudanum says it is equivalent to about 1% morphine. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * That's rather low. At that concentration, I wouldn't expect many addicts. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You probably would not be alone with such expectation, however, Laudanum DOES mention dependence Gem fr (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Dreams
I had a shower thought the other day that maybe dreams are just the experiences of our alternate selves in various dimensions/multiverses. It would explain why were always actors in our dreams and why we never die. Is this idea a thing in theories about why we dream? Thanks —Andrew 20:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You might want to review Dream. Be aware that animals dream also. And how do you know we never die? Maybe the ones who do, don't live to tell about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Any conjecture involving alternate selves and interdimensional communication is going to be flagged as pseudoscience by pretty much everyone in mainstream academia today. So, your literal question about whether this is a "a thing in theories" is going to depend on who you qualify as holding "a thing". Psychologists, psychiatrists, and sleep scientists? Probably not. Dorm room bros who took Philosophy 101 and are trying to impress friends with their profundity? Much more likely. Matt Deres (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)