Humanities desk
< May 8	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 10 >

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

May 9[edit]

Soviet invasion of Xinjiang[edit]

Why did the Soviet White Army help the Red Army in its invasion of (nationalist) China? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because White Russia was part of the Soviet Union? I assume that is the meaning of "White Russian" in that article, since the "White" (anti-Communist) forces had been long purged from Russia by 1934. Since there are two distinct meanings of "White Russian forces", only one makes sense in this context. --Jayron32 02:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"White Russians" here means emigrés who had sided against the Communists in the Russian Civil War. It seems there was an emigré community in the province that did not want strong Chinese-government control of Xinjiang.--Cam (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected then. The article should probably be fixed then, because the meaning of "white russians" is ambiguous for anyone who doesn't know the deeper history. --Jayron32 05:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguous links in that article should either link to White movement or, per Jayron and Cam's comments, to White émigré. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most beautiful women[edit]

In which country women are most beautiful? I mean what is the relation between ethnicity and beauty? Are Eastern European women are more beautiful than American women. Also are Iranian women more beautiful than Americans? And what is the genetic factor behind this? --NGC 2736 (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect the answer to depend on one's perspective and desires. →Σ τ c. 07:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only fairly universal measure of beauty is symmetry, in particular human facial symmetry. There are no good statistical analyses of populations with high proportions of highly symmetrical people, or groups of people with high average symmetries. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The media also plays a large part in determining what others should regard as beautiful. A woman who is considered beautiful in 2012 might have been judged as unattractive in the 1950s. Cultural factors also come into play.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela has a claim on this. See Miss_World#By_number_of_wins.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the picture at Surma people for an alternative idea of beauty. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That' ugly. I wonder why some cultures have such bizarre perception of beauty? So Marilyn Monroe will appear ugly to Surma men? Why some people percive beauty in different way? Why to the Surma the ugly becomes beautiful and beauty becomes ugly? --NGC 2736 (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's really no uglier than artificial boobs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One interesting anecdote -- Nigeria tends to have standards of preferred body type which are rather divergent from modern Western preferences, so traditionally Nigerian beauty contest winners fared poorly in international competitions. So some Nigerian pageant organizers decided to try to cater to outside preferences in choosing the winner, and the very first year of this experiment, Agbani Darego won Miss World. However, that meant that the following year's Miss World should be held in Nigeria, which turned out to be an almost complete fiasco... AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's always going to be cultural influences, particularly about tangential things like fashion, or body modification (think tattoos, piercings, hairstyles, etc.), but don't kid yourself. Beauty is a relatively universal concept based around reproductive fitness. There's a metric-ton of literature on this subject. This study in particular you might find interesting... finding that facial attractiveness was highly correlated (.94) regardless of ethnicity, or of exposure to western media, however body-type attractiveness varied. Shadowjams (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are obviously many similarities; however, some of the differences are by no means as trivial or minor as you seem to rather dismissively suggest (consult Neolithic Venus etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can live in whatever version of reality you want, but that there are strange outliers doesn't undermine the central point that there are universals related to not just humans, but all mammals due to basic evolution, and beauty is towards the top of that list. Shadowjams (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything about mammalian standards of beauty would have to be at a rather high level of abstraction, considering that almost no secondary sexual characteristics (such as females having breasts, etc.) are shared between humans and our most closely-related living species, chimpanzees. Most humans are not attracted to chimpanzees, and would often have difficulty in just telling male and female chimpanzees apart... AnonMoos (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that will be universally seen and beautiful is a lack of signs of disease. That is, no blemishes and no missing body parts (unless they are customarily removed in that culture). A rather strange exception formerly existed in the West, however. Women who fainted at the least provocation and were deathly pale were seen as beautiful back then. Another related ideal is that women should look like they are incapable of doing any work. This goes along with long fingernails and foot binding. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See attraction to disability. Absolutely nothing related to human judgement is universal. --140.180.5.49 (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just my guess but the notion that human facial symmetry is a universal measure of beauty is a notion that will eventually fall out of favor. Bus stop (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose extreme asymmetric faces are simply ugly, however, more symmetry doesn't mean more beauty. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself strangely attracted to absolutely perfect spheres. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us are strangely attracted (by gravity) to an oblate spheroid, although some of us spend most of their time on planet Earth being off the planet. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Early numbers of cars[edit]

A friend of mine stated that in 1896, there was the big break of car sales. I tried to research that by looking for statistics of early car numbers, but yet failed to find suitable ones. I'm also interested in engine statistics (steam, gasoline, electric). Do you know sources for that? --KnightMove (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Vehicle registration plate there is a quite well referenced history of vehicle registration, starting from 1893 in France. I suppose though it depends on what country in the world you are referring to. In Germany, where the first cars were produced by Benz and Daimler, vehicle registration did indeed begin in 1896. -- role^player 23:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Qatada Gap[edit]

So Abu Qatada was convicted in absentia of serious crimes in Jordan in 1999. In 2001 he went to ground fearing arrest, and in 2002 the British government found him and detained him, beginning the game of legal cat and mouse which continues to this day. Why the two year gap from 1999 to 2001? Did the government just not bother extraditing people convicted of terrorism until post-9/11? Because that seems a bit lax. 130.88.172.34 (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more dependent on the specifics of UK-Jordan extradition treaties, and judgments of how the case was likely to proceed through the UK legal system, than on broad policies. However, around that time, individuals in the French national police and intelligence agencies accused their British counterparts of allowing a cesspool of Islamic extremism to accumulate in "Londonistan"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trooping the Colour Music[edit]

During a recent Trooping the Colour broadcast i heard a military march of which the melody is the same as La Marcha Real (The royal march), the national anthem of Spain. Who knows the background of this remarkable similarity? I contacted the Trooping org., the UK ambassy in the Netherlands, a british military guards club, all without any success.

kind regards egbert muller <address redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.74.101.91 (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a header and removed your address to save you from unwanted junk mail. Rojomoke (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Two possibilities come to mind (both guesses): the first is that someone connected with Spain (such as the ambassador or a member of the Spanish Royal Family) was attending the particular "Trooping the Colour" that was broadcast, and so the band played La Marcha Real to honor him/her. Another is that the tune was being played during the "trooping" of a Grenadiers regiment - According to our article on La Marcha Real, the tune was originally also known as La Marcha Granadera (or "The Grenadiers March"). Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might be useful for the OP to specify which occassion this was - it sounds like he/she is referring to the annual British ceremony, but the parade for this year will not be until June, so if it was "recent" in the sense of "in the last couple of weeks" then it must be a re-broadcast of a parade in the past. It may be easier to track down the information if the OP could specify which year he/she saw in the broadcast. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having just listened to La Marcha Real on YouTube, I believe part of it bears a passing resemblance to The Keel Row, a tune which is used every year at the Trot Past of the Household Cavalry Regiment. You can hear it here. If that is the tune in question, then it is not connected to the Spanish anthem, being an 18th century folk song from the north-east of England. An eclactic mix of music is used at Trooping the Colour, I once heard Prussian Glory played, and every year there is the Imperial Russian march Preobrajensky and the slow march from Les Huguenots by Giacomo Meyerbeer. I'm certain however, that they wouldn't play another country's national anthem. Alansplodge (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican statehood vote 2012[edit]

Will the 4.6 million Puerto Ricans living in the U.S mainland also get to vote on the issue of Puerto Rican statehood in November 6 or will the 3.7 million Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico be just the ones who can vote on the issue of Puerto Rican statehood on November 6? Willminator (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has the residential right to vote in Puerto Rico will be able to vote, and if they are not currently in Puerto Rico, they may request an absentee ballot be sent to them. Puerto Ricans who have moved away from Puerto Rico do not have the right to vote as they are now considered residents of the state they live in. This is still a tricky subject that is being debated but that is how it stands now to the best of my knowledge (which is that of a High school Social Studies teacher- so somewhat educated but not the be all end all expert) Nightenbelle (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Here's the law that authorizes the plebiscite, and here's an English translation. The voter eligibility is in section 5, which says that

All residents of Puerto Rico duly qualified as voters, in acccordance with Act 78 - 2011, known as the "Election Code for the 21^st Century" (Hereinafter the "Election Code"), shall be entitled to vote in the plebiscite.

You can download the electoral code here (word document). It's in Spanish, which I can't read. However, looking at article like Elections in Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican general election, 2008, I think that there is a residency requirement. It's interesting, because H.R. 2499, on which this poll is modeled on, does make it at least possible for Puerto Ricans living in the U.S. to vote in the referendum (section 3.c.2), but I don't see any comparable section in law 283. Buddy431 (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

H.R. 2499 was never approved by the U.S. Senate and therefore never became a law. In contrast, this year's referendum was authorized by Puerto Rico's government and is open only to residents of Puerto Rico registered to vote there. Nightenbelle is correct that residents who are temporarily off the island may vote by absentee ballot, but people who have established residence off the island in a U.S. state are not eligible to vote in this referendum. Marco polo (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unemployment benefits (USA)[edit]

I'm trying to understand how the system in america works for giving needed money to people who have no chance of earning it by working, and so far as I can tell from the article on the subject, someone would only qualify if they had lost their job recently, and have worked a certain number of hours over a certain time period, and that as such someone who has recently left school and been unable to find any work since then would not be eligible at all. Is this anything close to the actual rule or am I getting this completely wrong?

148.197.81.179 (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you first have to understand is that in the United States, people do not really have a right to food, shelter, or clothing. They are supposed to work to earn those things, and if they are able-bodied and unable to find work, that's just their misfortune. This is not my opinion, in fact I think it's wrong, but that is the reality. You are right that unemployment benefits are available only to people who have worked and lost their jobs, and not to just any people who have worked and lost their jobs, but only to those who have worked a certain number of hours over a certain period and whose employers do not claim that they were dismissed for doing something the employer didn't like. If you are dismissed because your employer claims to be unhappy with your work, you have been fired and do not qualify for unemployment insurance. As for people who have never worked, there are benefits called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, but these are only for families with children and can be claimed for only 60 months in a lifetime. At present, only certain states or municipalities offer benefits for single individuals who have never worked under a General Assistance program, and these benefits are sharply limited. In many places, there is no cash benefits program for able-bodied single persons who have not been employed. Even unemployment benefits come with a time limit. In addition to these cash benefits there is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or "Food Stamps", but these can only be used to obtain food in food stores. Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marco is correct, I just want to stress that while America does not say its citizens have a right to government provided foot, shelter, or clothing- there are numerous programs available to those without a job to give them those things should they seek them out. In addition to long and short term homeless shelters and food stamps, there are government subsidized school loans to help unemployed workers get more education, there are unemployment offices that work with people to place them in jobs, and you can also enlist in the military or national guard to gain employment. While these may not be ideal- they are better than being on the street. This is not to mention the privately funded options available. So while the American system is far from perfect, it is not a total disaster either. I was unemployed for 6 months last year, I had worked enough hours at a qualifying job to get unemployment insurance- the experience wasn't pleasant (I had to justify why attending online classes did not take away from my ability to work on a daily basis for instance)- I survived, didn't loose my house and found new employment. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nightenbelle is correct that there is a private non-profit "charity" infrastructure in the United States to serve the indigent, but this safety net is patchy and full of holes. The fact is that there are millions of Americans suffering from malnutrition and inadequate shelter in addition to a (smaller but very visible) homeless population. Marco polo (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few other government-backed programs which support people who physically or mentally cannot work. Disability benefits are available for those individuals. Otherwise, it's basically as Marco and Nightenbelle addressed above. A student with no job would generally not qualify for such support. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the military comes in. They won't fire you from the military unless you really, really mess up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or historically if you're gay, lesbian or bisexual and refused to keep it a secret. And probably still if you're transgendered [1].... Nil Einne (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would qualify as "messing up". Or if you write a blog in which you say you will refuse to obey orders that you don't agree with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are images on Wikipedia part of the public domain?[edit]

Can you please tell me if the images you use on Wikipedia are in the public domain? I want to use the following historical photographs in a learning environment, but I will be charging for the workshop. I understand that copyright permission is in order if it is not within the public domain.

Alexander Graham Bell Henry Ford Thomas Edison

Thank you!209.203.137.3 (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some are, some are not, but the vast majority can be used in your workshops. Click on the image you're interested in and check out the licence associated with the image. Some will be PD. Others will have Creative Commons Share Alike licences. Links from the licence will fill you in on the details. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to changes in Copyright laws, very little produced after 1920 is truly public domain. That does not mean, however, that you can't use many of those works in certain contexts. You might want to read our fair use article. There are also specific provisions for educational use, but they're technical and if you're interested you should find a guide oriented towards teachers. And for the issue of figuring out whether a use is an infringement, whether or not the use is for profit is usually not a relevant factor. There's a common belief that if you don't charge for something or profit from it, copyright doesn't apply. That's not the case (although that may be a factor in other areas of copyright law, and in some very narrow cases of infringement). Shadowjams (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As with anything else regarding copyright, you really need to consult a copyright lawyer before using the images. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the kind of cloud-cuckoo-land advice they have Americans trained to parrot, like telling people they should talk to their doctor before starting a diet. Invariably a lie, and regarded as absolutely essential; it degrades speech to a cultist ritual. The true answer, I think, is that people consult the image annotation, perhaps do a Tineye search if they're suspicious, and trust to luck (both that nothing will be out of order, that no one will notice if it isn't, that if they do, taking down the image when challenged will be enough, and that if they sue, these first good-faith steps to avoid infringement will be enough to ameliorate past foibles. But it is all a random game, and in honor of our national religion let me assure you you must not rely on this as legal advice. Wnt (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas your entire paragraph boils down to "Do whatever you want and hope you don't get sued." Which is horrid advice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the images you are interested in and they will tell you their copyright status as much as is known by Wikipedia contributors. Most of the images on the pages you've mentioned are listed as being in the public domain, but not all of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

foreign students[edit]

If an american student wishes to study at a british university, would they receive any sort of student loans or financial aid from either government or from the university itself to help with this?

Kitutal (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, no. There are such things as the Chevening programme, being government sponsorship for a small number of students; and a couple of similar progranmmes - see here. But practically speaking, no, you're on your own. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. There you go. Marshall Scholarships, 40 per year to deserving yanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x2) Not usually, but there are exceptions, such as Rhodes Scholarships. StuRat (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French for black male servants to French women during colonial times[edit]

What is the French word for Black men in Africa being servants of French women in colonial times? I think it starts with the letter S and I think sounds like sapeur and something like that. Does anybody know? -- 18:37, 9 May 2012‎ 65.95.106.112

The French word for a servant is "serviteur". It may be as simple as that. --Jayron32 03:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Image search for "serviteur noir" brings up this saucy postcard. The past is a foreign country (and so is France). Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Christian Nation and/or First Nation Claiming to be "Christian"[edit]

Thanks for your efforts. I wish to find the "first Christian Nation", and/or the first Nation to claim "Christianity" as a national religion.

I worked for the Armenians from 2001 to 2003. They always claimed to be the "first Christian Nation Circa 300 C.E..

I've always wondered if this is true.

I have searched "First Christian Nation," "First Nation of Christianity," and "First Nation Claiming Christianity," but there aren't any entries for these.

I'm wondering exactly about the question. That is to say, ...

WHICH NATION CLAIMS TO BE AND IS OR ISN'T FOR HISTORICAL REASONS, THE FIRST CHIRSTIAN NATION.

Thank you very much for you consideration and assistance. This question isn't asked to diminish the claims of any person nor peoples.

Thank You.76.126.11.102 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no specific answer we can give. For one thing, we'd need to define what constitutes a "Christian nation." Second, many nations that might qualify have actually changed borders/governments since the inception of Christianity; it may no longer be the same nation it was in early Christiandom. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say San Marino would be a reasonable bet. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia: "The Kingdom of Armenia became the first state in the world to adopt Christianity as its religion, in the early years of the 4th century (the traditional date is 301 AD). The modern Republic of Armenia recognizes the Armenian Apostolic Church, the world's oldest national church, as the country's primary religious establishment. ... Christianity spread into the country as early as AD 40. King Tiridates III (AD 238–314) made Christianity the state religion in AD 301, becoming the first officially Christian state, ten years before the Roman Empire granted Christianity an official toleration under Galerius, and 36 years before Constantine the Great was baptized."

San Marino: "San Marino is a predominantly Catholic state — over 97% of the population profess the Catholic faith, but it is not the established religion." -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino claims its foundation date as 3 September 301, when Saint Marinus built a small church on Monte Titano, "and thus founded what is now the city and state of San Marino". Is it coincidence that both countries give a foundation date of 301? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't. The year San Marino was founded was the same year Christianity was made the state religion of Armenia, which had existed for a long time before that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the Roman Empire is thought of as a "nation", then that's the answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, if the claims of Armenia are accurate, it predates the Roman Empire adopting Christianity by a bit less than a century. Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the State religion of the Roman Empire in 380 AD. Of course, the modern Armenian state only existed since 1990, and has a rather discontinuous record of true independance during the past two millenia. --Jayron32 00:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With an asterisk for Constantine the Great, although it looks like Armenia beat him by a little bit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be recreating the wheel here. The quote I provided from Armenia says: "King Tiridates III (AD 238–314) made Christianity the state religion in AD 301, becoming the first officially Christian state, ten years before the Roman Empire granted Christianity an official toleration under Galerius, and 36 years before Constantine the Great was baptized."

The date of foundation of San Marino is irrelevant to the question; it has never been a formally Christian state, even if 97% of its people are Catholic. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vini, Vidi, Viki. I came. I saw. I concurred. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino was founded as a Christian monastic community. To say that it "has never been a formally Christian state" is being over-pedantic and not relevant to the original question. No formal claim that it was a Christian state was needed, because it was obvious. I'm not intending to prolong the argument - I expect the questioner has the information they needed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino doesn't qualify because it was not a nation in AD 301. It was not a "nation" in the sense of a people with a distinct ethnicity because its people were (and really still are) indistinguishable ethnically from their neighbors in Italian Romagna. Nor was it a "nation" in the sense of a nation-state, since it was at that time part of the Roman Empire. It wasn't even an administrative subdivision of the empire, just the site of a monastic community. Marco polo (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A competitor with Armenia might be Ethiopia. Our article says; "The Kingdom of Aksum was one of the first nations to officially accept Christianity, when St. Frumentius of Tyre, called Fremnatos or Abba Selama ("Father of Peace") in Ethiopia, converted King Ezana during the 4th century AD. Many believe that the Gospel had entered Ethiopia even earlier, with the royal official described as being baptized by Philip the Evangelist in chapter eight of the Acts of the Apostles." How much Aksum (known as Abyssinia in the west) is a direct ancestor of Ethiopia is a matter of debate. Alansplodge (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best life strategy? a - expect the best or b - expect the worst[edit]

a. has some advantages. If you believe that who works and searches really hard for whatever (jobs, opportunities, partners) finds it, you'll be more motivated to get going. But b. also has advantages: if you expect an earthquake, an economical crisis, whatever bad, you can also be prepared for that. So, which way provides better results? The optimistic or the pessimist? 23:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs)

Hope for the best and plan for the worst. StuRat (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that lead to a contradiction at times? Even if I admit the sentence sounds good, it doesn't have to be logical. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, you hope your house won't catch fire, but you still have a fire extinguisher and escape plan, just in case. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's like buying insurance. You pay for it because you need it, but you never want to use it. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bukowski, on becoming a writer, has this to say. Bus stop (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... unless being still would drive you to madness or suicide or murder, don't do it. That reminds me of the Advice for Budding Writers I saw somewhere once: Write something, even if it's only a suicide note. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They will probably soon be offering college courses on suicide note-writing. Writer's workshops will spring up on campuses like mushrooms after the rain to offer advice on how to compose one's thoughts for final words: "I could go on but I don't want to waste my tuition costs." Bus stop (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Hope for the best and plan for the worst" is perfect. Because you're very likely going to experience some of each. "Be prepared" - for both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not perfect in a concrete case. Just imagine that you have $100 extra each month. If you plan for the worst, you'll always save everything for the future, right? That would make any other different action impossible. So, you won't never ever have any fun or see different places. You simply cannot be pessimist and optimist at the same time. Unless 'the worst' is rather limited in scope, and you rather mean "bad things to happen". Sorry, if I'm being pedantic here, I just intend to be logical. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expecting is not a strategy. Doing things is a strategy. There is an argument that the most effective strategy is, at any time, focus on solving your worst problem. Looie496 (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no expecting. so what is the best life strategy? a - prepare for the best or b - prepare for the worst? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you want the formal answer, you can't be either 100% optimistic or pessimistic. Jumping off the top of your office building, assuming something will happen to protect you, is stupid. So is worrying that the Sun has already gone nova and we are just waiting the 8 and a half minutes for the first indication. The reality is that you must plan for a wide range of possibilities, leaving out the extremely unlikely ones (say one in a million). Weighting by the likelihood of each event also makes sense. That is, don't waste your money on a tornado shelter if you live in a state that has never had a tornado, but buy one if you live in tornado alley. In the first case you might invest in a weather radio, though, both for the possible tornado and any other weather emergency. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of the guy who jumped off a tall building, and as he passed each floor, observers said, "So far, you're OK." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the suicide topic, I heard a story today about the eccentric English composer Lord Berners, who had a tall viewing tower erected near his house, with a sign saying "Members of the public who commit suicide by jumping from this tower do so at their own risk". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Croesus#Interview with Solon, and the parts above that about him getting slightly frazzled. Herodotus actually emphasised this much more than our articles suggest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is probably a false dillema. The best choice would be to accurately estimate the expected value of your outcomes. But to answer the question directly, it really depends on your preference for risk. If like most people you are risk averse because you see diminishing returns to utility, then you'd be better off expecting the worst.124.170.110.86 (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally everything should appear orange, because you view the world with a jaundiced eye through rose-colored glasses. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]