Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 August 9

= August 9 =

Afghanistan
Are there any non-Muslim tribes in Afghanistan (specifically North Afghanistan)? Thanks in advance! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * From a quick perusal of Demographics of Afghanistan and Religion in Afghanistan it would not appear so. Of course, the Nuristanis had their own religion prior to conversion in the 1890's, but I'm not aware of any other candidates. DuncanHill (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Define "Muslim tribe", please. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A tribe where Islam is the only sanctioned religion, or the religion adopted by the chiefs/elders in the name of the whole tribe. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect it is a tribe whose members have historically practiced Islam in some great proportion. -- Jayron  32  02:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (un-indent) After perusing Religion in Afghanistan, I've found that there are some VERY small (and persecuted) minority groups in Afghanistan that practice Hinduism, Sikhism, Christianity, and (possibly) Zoroastrianism. But does anyone happen to know which parts of the country they can be found in? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The US Department of State suggests Kabul as the most likely place to find non-Muslims in Afghanistan. DuncanHill (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Any places up north, like Mazari-Sharif? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've not been able to find any. Probably a hundred years or so too late. DuncanHill (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do the Juggi people count? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell they are Muslim. You'll find more ethnic minorities than you can shake a stick at all over Afghanistan, but precious few non-Muslims. Of course, there are significant divisions within Islam, and in Afghanistan a religious minority could mean a particular form of Islam (for example, Ismaili, Shia, etc). But as for non-Muslims, as I say, we are probably a hundred years or so too late. The Nuristanis were the last significant group that I can recall. DuncanHill (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, technically they're Muslim, but in the article they're described as "careless in their religious duties... women go unveiled" and also as practicing fortune-telling (forbidden in Islam) -- which is good enough for my purposes. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Remember, that was just one white man's opinion of part of a group he briefly met, which he called a slightly different name. In Uzbekistan. 130 years ago. Is that worth much today? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't actually been able to find anything about Juggis beyond Wikipedia and mirror sites. DuncanHill (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Jughi" produces a handful more hits, and suggestions that they are Roma or Lyuli, but really very little at all. DuncanHill (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are Afghan Sikhs in Kabul. You might see them running business - that is not a stereotyped remark but an actual observation.  In the 2000s there were somewhat famously two old Jews who, I was told, lived harmoniously in Kabul society.  I remember reading that they were religious and had some sort of dispensation for doing some Jewish practice or other without a rabbi because there wasn't one.  I understand that at least one has died.  Sorry, I'm only contributing minor numbers and not for the north Hayttom 16:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)
 * We have an article on the last Jew of Kabul, Zablon Simintov. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be too obvious to mention, but there are still remnants of the period when a sizable nomadic tribe of Americanists settled the land. As before, too soon to say whether the mission was accomplished. Footprints fade so fast in the sand. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"Canadian winners subject to skills testing requirement"
This odd line is on my receipt from Applebee's, where doing a survey enters you into a contest. So, what the heck does it mean ? Is this some attempt to verify that the entrant is an adult ? StuRat (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:WHAAOE wins again. See Skill testing question.  -- Jayron  32  03:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I see. In the US they typically have to say "No purchase required" to make it not legally be gambling.  Of course, they make you write a letter to their HQ to get your free entry, and the cost of the postage (not to mention your time) is always far more than the entry is worth. StuRat (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The same applies in Canada as well. Contests held in Canada must have both a skill testing question and a "No purchase required" entry method. These are two different things that satisfy two different aspects of the (wacky) law. WinterWall (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Basically, in some countries, using skill to win a prize is legal, winning a prize by luck isn't because it's gambling. So they add some stupid "What is 2+2?" type of question to add the legally required element of skill.  In the UK, we have a similar law - so a traditional "gambling-but-not" trick is a Football pool.  The idea is that you use skill to predict the results of a large number of soccer games.  However, you don't predict who wins and who loses - you have to predict the draws...and you get extra points for predicting draws where the score isn't 0:0 ("score draws" versus "no score draws").  Clearly, this is much more a matter of luck.  Sure, you can find teams that are closely matched - but being sure that neither will sneak one extra goal in is hard.  When both teams have excellent defense and poor offence, you might find it easy to predict a few no-score draws...but predicting score-draws is just about impossible.  So it ends up being essentially a game of chance - but carefully circumventing the law. SteveBaker (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Our local Northern Store has these occasionally. You fill out your name, phone number and answer the simple math question. If you are having trouble, and even if you are not, the cashier will give you the answer. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 16:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Skill, eh? Reminds me of W.C. Fields in his film Poppy, where he's a carnival barker inducing people to play a shell game: "This is not a game of chance, it's a game of science and skill." Yep. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Or his reply in My Little Chickadee, when asked "Is this [i.e., poker] a game of chance?": "Not the way I play it, no." Deor (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Many places in the United States used to forbid carnival games based on luck (e.g. the "wheel of fortune") and allow games based on skill (e.g. the ring toss). This led gambling authority John_Scarne to quip that local authorities must be in league with the carnies, because these games of skill were so difficult that the average player could succeed only through luck. OldTimeNESter (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are we surprised when children grow?
Some OR here: I work with teenagers, both professionally in schools, and elsewhere as a volunteer. If I don't see one for some time, and meet them again some years, or in some cases, just months later, I notice they have grown taller. I am often surprised by how much. Sometimes it seems they have grown taller by a surprising amount.

I know I'm not alone. "Look how much you've grown" is a clichéd exclamation at extended family gatherings. That phrase alone get over 2 million Google hits.

But why are we surprised? Rationally we all know that kids grow. Rationally, it would be much more surprising if they didn't grow. So why do so many people express so much surprise when kids grow? HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Probably has to do with growth spurts. That is, the non-constant rate of growth confuses our expectations. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In some cases, maybe, but not in all the situations I covered above. And why should we be surprised by growth spurts anyway? HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Your mental picture of them is whatever it was when you last saw them. The more time passes, the more significant the difference. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There's also the idea that we don't really realize how much time has passed. For many of us, 2000 may feel like just a few years ago when it's actually been 14.  Or how many times have you heard people say "How is it August already?!" which is usually followed by some lament over not having done anything with the summer (or winter for the Aussies in the audience).  We don't think about time in these lengthy ways until it's forced on us by some jarring event.  Dismas |(talk) 23:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * See Time perception: "Psychologists have found that the subjective perception of the passing of time tends to speed up with increasing age in humans. This often causes people to increasingly underestimate a given interval of time as they age." When we are children, we perceive a year as taking a MUCH longer time period than when we are middle-aged.  Adults are ALWAYS thinking "children grow up so fast..." because they remember growing up as taking a LOT longer, insofar as their perception of the passage of time was different when they were kids than when they are adults.  -- Jayron  32  23:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I regularly hear people 20 or more years younger than I, complaining about how quickly time is passing these days. I always tell them they ain't seen nothin' yet.  It only ever gets quicker.  Even if you take certain substances to temporarily alter the perception of time, it always catches up, with interest, when you get straight.  Assuming you ever do.  It's what mathematicians call a monotonically increasing function.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying growing old is monotonous? That only the young lead interesting lives?  -- Jayron  32  19:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No. I promise you neither of those propositions is true. I am literally* stunned when I see the hordes of young people, online and in RL, whose perennial complaint is that they are bored.  They have the entire world at their fingertips, something people of my age couldn't even dream of when we were their age.  How many more options could they possibly want! Boring, more like it.  (* Not to be read literally.)--   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I recall the old saying, "The world is so full of a number of things, I'm sure we should all be as happy as kings." They probably don't teach that in school anymore. Too old-fashioned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The world is full of fascinating things, but what's the point? Not everyone is suited to counting the number of hairs on a spider's leg. People want something to do and a reason for doing it. Western civilization is sucking the life out of our lives. Pergelator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.11.252 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find your secret passion, then come out of the closet with it. If you can't think of anything to do, sit and meditate (it's not what you think) . You've apparently got all day, every day, so don't say you don't have time.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)