Humanities desk
< June 15	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 16[edit]

What do psychologists call "emotionally hurtness" and is there some related-cures for it?[edit]

As an example, say I have a credit card lost, and then successfully cancelled it. But then, got an alert that someone attempted to swipe $550 at a Macy's store, denied, then 2 minutes later, another attempted swipe of $450, still denied. Go to Macy's, ask them to send the surveillance photos to the police, but they make the "Unfortunately the police have to come to us, 1st. Not the other way around." Then, I get so emotionally-hurt by this. It prompts me to send "** you letters" to them. And then gets me revenge-based. For example, every time a vandal or looting happens to the store, I glorify it. If there's articles posted about unfortunate things that happened to the executives who work there, then I get happy over it. What do psychologists call this kind of phenomenon, and is there a cure for it? This kind of stuff should be taught in elementary schools, but I don't think it is. Btw, a quick look at the Reference Desk, psychology is not listed under Science desk or Humanities desk, so it looks like I have a choice to put this. But since Econ is in the Humanities section, I decided to put this here. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

According to our article on Psychological pain "Technical terms include algopsychalia and psychalgia, but it may also be called mental pain, emotional pain, psychic pain, social pain, spiritual or soul pain, or suffering". As for coping with psychological pain due to conflict, I found this book The Psychology of Demonization: Promoting Acceptance and Reducing Conflict which at first glance appears promising. -Modocc (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't what you asked but you might want to consider that for most of what you describe, the people who are affected are likely employees very low on the totem pole probably also on low wages and if this is the US as I guess it is who may not even have any sort of decent health insurance etc which properly covers harm they suffer from what you describe and who have zero say in a policy likely developed by someone in Macy's head office and who could even lose their jobs if they were to ignore this policy. And even if someone had sent the CCTV image to the police the only difference would likely have been someone working for the police saw the photo, filed it somewhere and well that's it since no one ever looked at it ever again except maybe to decide whether to discard it some time in the future nor was it ever analysed by any program or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My question is why you woudn't go to the police yourself in the first place? Seems like you are getting mad at Macy's for no reason. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I didn't go to the police. Unfortunately since no money was actually stolen the police aren't even apt to investigate. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

If the credit card was the only thing stolen, usually you would let the credit card company deal with the police re getting the video etc. As for the psychological upset and reaction, you could look at anger management. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Strangelove - was his appearance based on anyone in particular?[edit]

I have read that Stanley Kubrick said, when asked that the characterization of Dr. Strangelove was basically a satire of Werner Von Braun (and no-one else, despite rumors).

My question is this. Was his appearance (wheelchair, dark glasses, wild hair) based on anyone in particular, from back in the days? I have seen it suggested that his look was based on Edward Teller. But as far as I am aware, Teller didn't use a wheelchair or dark glasses until about 20 years after the film had been released. Anyone know? This might be one of those things that would be an obvious pop culture reference if you were around during the Cold War, but not so much all these years later. I know a couple of "The Real Doctor Strangelove" books have been written about Teller, but that might just be someone's opinion. --146.200.127.139 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dr. Strangelove article has some good details. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been speculated that the wheelchair was an allusion to John von Neumann.^[1] But, of course, von Neumann did not harbour any Nazi sympathies, and the wheelchair was essential for Dr. Merkwürdigeliebe to be able to proclaim, "Mein Führer! I can walk!", implying that he is still in heart a Nazi. --Lambiam 05:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was a reference to the preceding scene, where Strangelove was talking about how only the fittest of the fit should be taken down the mineshafts. He was like "hey, look at that, ″I can walk after all!" - and the Nazi stuff was a reference to the story that Von Braun and once addressed JFK as "mein fuhrer" in a meeting. --146.200.127.139 (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That article says that the character was an amalgamation of Herman Kahn, John von Neumann, Wernher von Braun and Edward Teller. The problem is that those people other than von Braun were Jewish and in now way, shape or form Nazi sympathizers. As for von Braun who hitched himself to the Nazis because of his enthusiasm for spaceflight and the Nazis were in charge when he was young, after he came to the US, he was completely involved with developing space launch vehicles, not nuclear weapons. I am sure that his work impacted ICBM development but that was not his focus. So, the character should be seen as an amalgamation with some completely creative inputs, rather than a depiction of any one real world individual. Cullen328 (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Vonce ze rockets are up, who cares vhere zey come down? Zat's not my department", says Wernher von Braun. --per Tom Lehrer --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While obviously I don't think Von Braun was as bad as the Japanese Unit 731 guys (one of whom became a consultant to the US Department of Defense or the CIA after the war and another two became board members at a pharmaceutical megacorp and made millions after the war, if the stories are to be believed) and there's probably room for "did he go along with it to save his own ass or because everyone else was going along with it and he didn't stop to think, or both?", he did switch from "SS-Sturmbannführer, accused of exploiting slave labour, Werner Von Braun" to "nonpolitical rocket enthusiast, didn't really agree with any of it, Werner Von Braun" pretty fast after the war. Just saying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.127.139 (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hazy memory of reading once that The character was a reference to Robert McNamara. For what its worth. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In an american biography of Wernher von Braun I have read, that von Braun ("Nazi Schmazi says W v Br" Tom Lehrer) was the real target of Eisenhower's "military industrial complex" speech.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought Strangelove has a striking resemblance to actor Peter Sellers, but I'm not sure if that was intended by the filmmakers. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another nuclear war question[edit]

My previous question referred to Dr. Strangelove. I've been watching old nuclear war movies tonight. This one refers to Failsafe (which is basically the same movie, until the last 10 minutes).

At the end of that one (spoilers) the US president agrees to order his planes to drop a nuclear bomb on New York in response to an accidental (caused by electronic equipment failure) US nuclear attack taking out Moscow. Done as a way to prove to the Russian president that the bombing of Moscow was a mistake and that he didn't want World War III in retaliation. Implied that he chose New York specifically because his wife and children were there at the time. The Russian president being utterly horrified, but in the end being all like "it must be done - even if I believe you that you didn't intend this, my generals will remove me from power and launch a full scale attack themselves if I just let this one go".

Wondering. Was this ever a part of the official nuclear war doctrine? I suppose the question of "what would happen if the other side bombed us and then claimed it was just a mistake so we wouldn't respond - but maybe they were lying?" came up... --146.200.127.139 (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The doctrine that mutual assured destruction is an effective security policy leaves no room for mistakes or less-than-perfectly rational and ruthless agents. However, MAD has not been publicly announced or acknowledged as being official doctrine. --Lambiam 05:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of WarGames (1983). WOPR, a computer, "learn(s) the concept of futility and no-win scenarios". At the end, WOPR says, "A strange game." (referring to thermonuclear war) "The only winning move is not to play." Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the doomsday machine (as mentioned in Dr. Strangelove) was something that was intended to take nuclear war entirely out of human hands. I think it's somewhere in the Dead Hand article. The idea that the Russian nuclear response to an attack could be entirely computerized and automated and that once activated, the machine could never be deactivated, even by the Russians (any attempt to interfere treated as sabotage by default, no matter who did it) - and that any attempt to disable the machine would activate the machine and launch the entire Russian nuclear arsenal. But it was (rightly) suggested by generals and scientists at the time that this was utterly bugfuck insane and instead the machine should lie dormant until the Russian president activated it as a last resort in time of war and still had the capability to override it. I'm not sure if the Americans considered that too.

Another, what do you call this kind of situation?[edit]

What do you call this kind of situation, where there is no win-win thing. As you do X, then they do Y, as you do Xx, then they do Yy. For example, as criminals get more violent, then police get more tougher. As hackers get more tougher 1st, then security gets more tougher next, or, or security gets more tougher 1st, then hackers get more tougher next. I think if this were political science, we call this checks and balances? But what do we call this in other subjects?

Another example, is in religion. Even in Christians vs. atheists. If you say to Christians "Suppose you have an atheist son, how can you be happy in Heaven, knowing your son is burning in Hell?" Well 1 such Christian response is "You will have no memory of your son in Heaven, God wipes the memory of that." So, this is almost like a loophole, found in every kind of subject, from science to computers. So I think only politics has a word for this "checks and balances" like in the power of the president vs. the 2 other branches. Or Democrats vs. Republicans. It's basically like an enclosed network, where no matter what you do, there can be a counter attack. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

It reflects humans' ability to adjust to changes. --<-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 06:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first examples you give sound like arms races. JoelleJay (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

67.165.185.178 -- The non-technical name for the first is "Escalation". You can also look at Anatol Rapoport and Tit for tat... AnonMoos (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are dynamical systems with positive feedback (which is not necessarily as positive a thing as it sounds). Balance of power (international relations) is also relevant. Card Zero (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The religious defence example suggests that the commonality is the inability to gain the upper hand or break free – every attempt will be countered and neutralized. Like for Number Six in the Brtish TV series The Prisoner. Resistance is futile. --Lambiam 20:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edouard Bouchaud-Praceiq photo[edit]

Does anyone has photo of these people? 1. Edouard Bouchaud-Praceiq (1864-1926), a French scientist 2. Edward Sonstadt (1829-1908), a British chemist 3. Albert Nodon (1862-1934), a French scientist 4. Umberto Ciantar, (?-1908) born in Malta, died in England — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.114.18 (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A photo of Albert Nodon is here (not sure about copyright status). No luck with the others. Alansplodge (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks more like a drawing to me. --Lambiam 15:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely drawings, though possibly made from photos. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]