Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 February 3

= February 3 =

Basis of difference in politics
If you generalise, is differing opinions in politics overall basically due to differences in views on human nature and how people think the economy works? 2A02:C7F:C42F:6400:C811:1CA0:B490:75F9 (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are a series of articles on the topic of the psychology of political differences. Here is another general overview with links to more articles as well.  -- Jayron 32 12:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there are a lot of political disputes that, while you could come up with a way in which it reduces to one of those two things, the way you get there would be tortured at best, and adherents of those views would disagree as to the reasoning. That said, "views on human nature" is a phrase with very little concrete meaning and could be argued to apply to basically any attempt at providing a counterexample. So, it could claim to apply to criminal sentencing ("The dispute reduces to views on human nature in terms of criminality and whether crime is best prevented through punishment or rehabilitation.") as well as abortion ("The dispute reduces to views on the nature of what it means to be human.") and many others. The same arguably applies to "the economy". In fact I'd argue that you could reduce "how people think the economy works" to "human nature", as economic behavior is very much a facet of human nature. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Some humans are more competitive and selfish, others are more cooperative and altruistic. It appears to me that much of the differences in political views can be derived from which of these is believed to best characterize human nature. Naturally, if one takes the former viewpoint, a strong state imposing order and preventing freeloaders to profit from the efforts of others will be seen as essential; those embracing the latter viewpoint will tend to see the state as an instrument to provide for the common good and further an equitable distribution of wealth. --Lambiam 20:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, again, I think the argument can be made for a wide variety of political viewpoints as originating from how their adherents view humanity. But I also think that in most cases, the reasoning from specific viewpoints to that amorphous general concept becomes tortured. You do see shades of that distinction in some penological theories though. The classical model (uses deterrence) is on some level based on the idea that people are fundamentally amoral and only obey the law because the consequences for lawbreaking are worse than the benefits. The modern model (uses rehabilitation) is on some level based on the idea that people are fundamentally good, and only commit crimes because they lack the education to do better (or something to that effect). Those are hardly the only theories, though. And it's only penology, not the general concept of public policy.My personal opinion is that attempts like OP's to reduce and simplify politics to some root behaviors, beliefs, or desires are more counterproductive than they're worth and tend to generate less nuanced understandings of public policy (and consequently greater partisanship). 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But clearly, there is a strong alignment between the axes of fundamentally amoral versus fundamentally good, and competitive and selfish versus cooperative and altruistic. --Lambiam 04:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I brought up penology, because it is similar to what you threw out there. It's still tortured in most other political contexts. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think some differences can be summed up that way, but there are other aspects as well. Much of it also relates issues of actual or perceived interests.  (Marxists for example would I think argue that the main or sole driver of political differences is the conflict of interests between those that own the means of production and those that work for them). Iapetus (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Artist responsible for this image.
This image doesn't have any artist named and I'm having trouble finding any relevant information. It looks like the initials HSM are visible? But I may be mistaken.95.150.37.129 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The initials are indeed HSM, the artist would be Henry Stacy Marks. DuncanHill (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As Henry would have been 10 yrs old when Jenny died, is the picture one of the later 'Jenny' orangutans that lived at London Zoo, or was he drawing her from description? Or is something else going on?95.150.37.129 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume it'll be a later female orangutan. Marks was a regular visitor to the Zoo. I suspect the identification as Jenny in the Researchgate publication is mistaken. DuncanHill (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suspect so too. The original portraits look less developed and this one seems as if the artist has taken some time over the work. Later 'Jennies' were introduced to Queen Victoria etc. I can't find a date for this image though.95.150.37.129 (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like there's a copy in the John Fillinham collection at the British Museum and British Library, which would date it before about 1860. DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So, a good estimate would be circa the 1850s as this was after Marks was 20 but before 1860. I've added some text by the image on the Jenny page but it could maybe do with being lower down the page where the second Jenny is mentioned. I'm not overly confident about doing this, so I've left it for someone else.95.150.37.129 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)