Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 May 2

= May 2 =

Large organisation recruitment strategy
Do all large organisations prefer recruiting people internally than external applicants? If so, why? 2A02:C7D:B957:F500:6596:55DA:4867:C538 (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The categorical questions you ask such as "Do all civil engineers do....." and "Do all large organisations do...." are so wide ranging, and encompass so many people and varied situations, that the answers to both questions are almost certainly No. AllBestFaith (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you want to read OP very narrowly and literally, the answer is likely "no". However, if we replace "all" with "many" then the answer is obviously "yes". And if we replace "all" with "most" it becomes very hard to answer. And maybe OP just wants to learn about prevalence of internal recruitment, as well as the motivations. That's what I have some refs for: here is a piece claiming that internal hire and recruitment is on the rise for large and small businesses. Here  is an interesting little hand-out from MSU about the pros and cons of internal/external recruiting. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Recruiting people internally has advantages:


 * Morale can be improved if people see an opportunity to advance.


 * It can help to avoid layoffs if you can find new jobs for people who are no longer needed in their current position. (In addition to being bad for morale, layoffs also generate negative publicity and costs, such as severance pay.)


 * So why hire from the outside ?


 * Lack of the needed skills in the existing employees.


 * Not enough employees to spare.


 * Changing corporate culture often requires "new blood". StuRat (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * O'Meara and Petzall (The Handbook of Strategic Recruitment and Selection: A Systems Approach 2013, p. 77) say that many large companies prefer to recruit internally and give examples of BHP, Cathay Pacific, Dow and Shell. They also note that some public sector organisations [the Australian Public Service, comes to mind] are compelled to make vacancies available both externally and internally. Their observations accord with my experience and recollections. In the first article referred to by SemanticMantis, the assertion by Schawbel, that "In the past, external hiring was in many ways the preferred norm" defies credibility. Sandbh (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Are creepy-crawlies meat?
I am referring to arthropods, mollusks, macroscopic helminths, and fish. I've heard that fish is not considered meat by some vegetarians, so they eat fish. But what about the creepy-crawlies/earth bugs? 140.254.77.172 (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, see meat for starters. In a sense, everything you describe is "meat", because it is part of an animal that people eat. On the other hand, people make up all kinds of classifications and rules, and they don't have to make sense. So some "vegetarians" eat oysters and some don't. Eating bugs is called entomophagy. People who eat fish but not other meats are more properly called pescetarians, not really vegetarians in the strict sense. We have an article on Semi-vegetarianism that covers these "mostly vegetarian" diets. Most pescetarians don't mind eating mollusks, but then again some pescetarians keep Kosher or Hallal, and would avoid Mollusca as well as Insecta. Whatever you consider bugs-as-food, the FAO has identified insect-based food as a key factor in future feed and food security - . SemanticMantis (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be pescetarians. Dismas |(talk) 17:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks! I had accidentally posted my preview, now my response has the right spelling and more info. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Easy mistake to make considering Pisces is a fish and starts with "Pi". Dismas |(talk) 13:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hallal is a recognized variant, but our article is at Halal. Also, Islamic dietary restrictions do not specifically disallow eating molluscs and insects. Matt Deres (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Belief in Bible
Is there any evidence to prove that the bible and the teachings of Christ stand up to scientific scrutiny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.51.253 (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Not if taken literally. For example, the universe having been created in 6 days requires not only that "days" be far longer than 24 hours, but that they vary dramatically in length, with some being billions of years long.


 * As for the teachings of Christ, they are mostly moral teachings, and morality is not something you can prove or disprove with science. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "scientific scrutiny" with regard to the teachings of Christ. Christ taught moral lessons through the use of parables and also gave several sermons that explained his moral code.  They are not statements about the operations of the natural world.  -- Jayron 32 17:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Depends what you mean by teachings of Christ I guess. To give an example, I'm sure some would argue that at least some of the Seven signs in the Gospel of John e.g. the Healing the man blind from birth are not just an indication of Jesus' divine status, but also an important part of his teachings. Others would consider the literal truth of the miracles irrelevant to his teachings. If you're in the former camp, then I would suggest yes you can discuss whether they stand up to scientific scrutiny. (The answer most likely being no, as with most "miracles".) Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Historical Jesus is a good article if you're wondering about if some guy named Jesus actually walked around and told stories. TLDR: From a scientific/historical perspective, we're pretty sure he existed. Not too sure on much else. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Evolution of Altruism is another interesting read. That is about the scientific study of how things can evolve to be nice to each other in certain contexts, much like Jesus recommended we be nice to each other. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That seems to be the way his teachings get interpreted, but I doubt he ever said anything remotely like that. He enjoined people to love one another but, as we all know, loving someone often means challenging them to do/be better, and that can come across as being tough and heartless. Tough love is not "nice", "pleasant", "polite", "meek" or "mild".  When he found the money changers in the Temple, he didn't approach them gingerly cap in hand and ask would they mind awfully winding up in the next hour or so, if it wasn't too much trouble.  No, he ripped into them right royally, upending their tables and scattering their loot.  That wasn't "nice".  The sort of Christian who goes along to Church on Sunday and is terribly "nice" to everyone, and then gossips about them when their back's turned - that wasn't what JC was on about at all, but there's a never-ending army of such people. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Does any religion? Asmrulz (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The tragedy of the West is that Christianity couldn't stand up to scientific scrutiny but then it was found out that, hey, religion is really good against social rot. Ergo, we need a science-compatible religion. I suggest Marxism (the real thing, not the SJW Frankfurt School heresy) Asmrulz (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see this is uncontroversial.... good. *strokes cat* Asmrulz (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

There really can't be much evidence to indicate whether the Bible and the teachings of Jesus (two separate matters) can hold up to "scientific scrutiny" until and unless someone devises a way to scientifically scrutinize them.

As said above, it is worth noting that the writers of both the Old Testament and the New Testament did not have our overriding "scientific" orientation or bias, and, on that basis, did not construct their material in such a way as to meet the requirements of scientific proof, as they did not think such proof to be a priority. And any attempt on our part to try to retrofit what we have in the Bible with those principles would be inherently subjective and therefore not scientific itself.

Regarding Jesus' and the Bible's moral and ethical teachings, and general sociological stance, there are studies which indicate that they can be effective and/or useful in society, but that is a long way from being proof of them, particularly as much of the society which can be studied in such a way already, to an extent, expresses support for such principles. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Historicity of the Bible - which oddly no-one has yet pointed to - is wikipedia's considered answer to the question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Christianity (at least) neither seeks nor particularly desires scientific proof of its beliefs. It is based on faith - it requires people to accept as truth things which cannot be proven in human terms. If someone came up with absolute, incontrovertible proof that Jesus did rise from the dead, or that god did create the world from nothing, that would actually undermine the entire christian message. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm dubious of that argumnt. The story of Doubting Thomas states that it is considered better to believe without seeing evidence first, but it doesn't claim that having evidence undermines the message.  "Faith" in the general sense means trust, or loyalty.  To me, looking at the Old Testament in particular, it treats the existance of God and miracles as self-evident.  The concept of atheism or agnosticism is very rarely discussed - issues of "faith" are mainly about remaining loyal to the God and traditions of your ancestors, even when living among foreigners who worship other gods.  And God is repeatedly portrayed as directly and unambiguously intervening in the world.  The idea that faith, belief, or religion requires a lack of proof, and incontravertial proof of God would undermine Him, seems to me to be a modern idea - presumably brought on by the fact that God no longer goes around nuking cities, killing people for commiting coitus interruptus, or casting Mass Raise Dead in major cities.  Iapetus (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The history books tell us that William the Conqueror was crowned at Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day 1066(?)  Would people require "absolute, incontrovertible proof" of that before believing it? 92.23.52.169 (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It would depend on whether they worship William of Normandy as a god. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Why USA TV ads use so much the word you?
I am from South America and went to usa on a vacation, after some amount of time watching tv there I started to laugth, and I did that because of the amount of times the word you was used by different ads. It was so strange that this made me start to laugth. Anyway, what is the reason USA ads do that?201.79.73.19 (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This article may help you research the answer to your question. -- Jayron 32 18:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * According to Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People, using a person's name repeatedly is important. Some web ads, emails, etc., can now do this, but where that's not possible, "you" is the best substitute. StuRat (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There's something similar in Britain.  Some people complain about letters they get from banks, using their Christian names, trying to sell them credit cards or loans.   The company I bought my mobile phone from also does this, trying to get me to upgrade although it's served me well for ten years now. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoa, showing your age there with "Christian name". A person chosen at random is as likely to be a non-Christian as a Christian, so the preferred term for many years now is "given name".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  13:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but in many cases you can tell a person's religion from their given name. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "John Smith", for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What he said. The point is that where religion has nothing to do with the context - and most contexts, including the above, are like that - why bring in religion at all? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * On a tangent, I noticed in a documentary recently that various members of the royal family appear to have been told to say "you" where a normal person might say "I" and, I suppose, where a royal might once have been expected to say "one". It's slightly odd because they say things like "when you go in, you feel that you shouldn't be treated differently just because your mum is the Queen", when it is almost absolutely certain that no-one who is watching the show have ever thought that. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, people often say "you" when they're referring to their own experience, particularly the emotional aspects of it. Particularly the negative emotions.  It's a way of distancing oneself from one's own horror.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answers.
 * So the word you has some power. Doesn't the word lose its power if they use it in a so "aggressive" way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.73.19 (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone likes to think they're special. By saying "you", the ads are clearly being directed at you, not necessarily at some anonymous other being. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is your overwhelming urge for a luxury iguana food unsatiable due to existence issues? Is your iguana tired of boring common iguana food? Then you need IguanaYum™ — the premium cockroach! Available at fine pet stores near you. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See also Dobbiroids. "Is your horse dull and listless? Do his fetlocks go limp in the night?" Tevildo (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are some Texaco TV ads from like 50 years ago: To me they don't seem "aggressive", they seem "confident". Must be a cultural thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "To me they don't seem "aggressive"," If they weren't aggressive, I wouldn't laugh as I said I did on the story.201.79.77.74 (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The classic example of this is Lord Kitchener's First World War recruiting poster featuring him pointing directly at the viewer with the strapline "Your country needs YOU". 92.23.52.169 (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This one (for those from outside the Commonwealth). Alansplodge (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And three years later, the Yankee equivalent: File:I want you.jpg ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)