Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 9

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.

March 9

Why Is Only Saturday Named After a Roman God?

As the article on Saturday notes, Saturday is the only day of the week in which the English name comes from Roman mythology; the English names of all of the other days of the week come from Anglo-Saxon polytheism. Why did Saturday alone receive this distinction? Saturn doesn't seem like an obvious choice of namesakes at all. I assume we got "Saturday" from the Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) settlers of Britain (it's akin to Old Frisian sāterdei, according to Merriam-Webster), so why would there even have been a Latin influence on something as basic as the days of the week? And if there were a Latin influence, why did it not extend to the names of the other days? John M Baker (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

According to our article Saturday was named after the planet and not the god directly. Of course, you are right that it is the only one sharing a name with the Roman gods. Sunday and Monday are of course named after the Sun and Moon, while Tuesday (Tyr), Wednesday (Odin), Thursday (Thor), and Friday (Friga) are all named after Norse Gods. Not sure there's a reason for this beyond "just cuz"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Pushing it back a level doesn't make much difference. Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter are all planets named after Roman gods, but none of them have their own days. Also, I note that the article's assertion that the day is named for the planet is uncited, so I'm not sure how much credence to give it. John M Baker (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably because of England's Norse heritage. Other Romanized (not sure if I spelled that correctly) countries in southern Europe might use names of Roman gods. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not "might", "do". For example, the French for Tuesday is "mardi", named after the Roman God/planet Mars. --Tango (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

John M -- The week was spread to northern Europe through the Roman Empire, so of course it wouldn't be surprising for Latin to exert an influence. None of the West Germanic languages use the name of a native god for Saturday (high German uses a very altered form of the word "Sabbath", while the other languages use a form of "Saturn day"), so maybe no god was considered equivalent to Roman Saturnus, or was assigned to the planet. The North Germanic languages use forms related to "Laugardagur" for Saturday... AnonMoos (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that there is excellent information in the article on week-day names, to which I've added a link from Saturday. If I'm following the discussion there properly, actually all of the weekday names are translations from Latin, but with cognate Norse gods substituted for the original Roman gods (a somewhat strained cognate in the case of Mercury/Woden), and apparently there was not thought to be any cognate for Saturn. The assertion in the Saturday article, that the English names of all of the other days of the week come from Anglo-Saxon polytheism, is apparently a bit misleading, particularly in the cases of Sunday and Monday. John M Baker (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it curious that when the Catholic Church held sway over all of Europe, they didn't declare that it was blasphemous to use names for days (or months) which were named after non-Christian gods. I'd expect they would have provided us with names like Johnday, Josephday, Maryday, Mosesday, Solomanday, Adamday, and, of course, Jesusday. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

StuRat -- look at Franz Werfel's strange (but kind of interesting) semi-classic science fiction novel "Star of the Unborn" for a hypothetical Christianized version of the names of the planets (I can't remember them all, but Venus was Mary Magdalene, and I seem to remember that Jupiter was John the Baptist). Some of the names of the Roman calendar months originally had connections with Roman pagan religion, but they also survived the coming of Christianity... AnonMoos (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. StuRat (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Quakers used to avoid using "pagan" names for days of the week and instead just called them First Day, Second Day, etc. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Once these names take hold, they stick. When the Bolshevik atheists came to power in Russia, they didn't change the Russian name for Saturday just because it's cognate with "Sabbath" (Суббота - Subbóta). Nor that of Sunday (Воскресенье - Voskresénye - which literally means "Resurrection"). -- JackofOz (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems like, during the Spanish Inquisition, they endeavored to wipe out entire religions and cultures in Spain, so forcing people to use new names for the days of the week, months, and planets would be relatively easy, if they could burn anyone alive who refused. I'd have to conclude that changing those names just wasn't a priority with the leaders of the Inquisition. Perhaps they considered other religions and cultures to be far more of a threat to their power base. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a mystery. Saturn, the deity, is glossed in Old Norse sources with the North Germanic god Njörðr, so one would think Njörðr would be the nearest equivalent. Njörðr's importance is well attested among the North Germanic peoples, and his female "twin" is attested in Tacitus' 1st century work Germania; Nerthus. Therefore Nerthus would have been known to the Angles—who later became the West Germanic Anglo-Saxons that formed England—and the North Germanic Danes. So why didn't they gloss Saturday as "Njörðr's day"? While the connection may be obvious with the late gloss in mind, I've never seen the Njörðr-Saturday thing mentioned by anyone anywhere, so this is just my personal commentary. Jacob Grimm wrote a bit about how the name may point to a similarly named, unattested figure potentially from Germanic mythology in volume I of his Teutonic Mythology, and this likely deserves some more attention. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't people buying stocks in mass?

According to the indexes, stock prices have dropped more or less in half. I would think this is a great time to buy stocks, considering that the recession is bound to end some time. Correct me if I'm wrong: Do people wait to buy stocks because they want to wait for it to be at the cheapest price? In other words, are they pouncing only when they think the market is at the bottom?128.163.224.198 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

People who invest are investing. People who do not invest are, in general, not investing. Asking why people don't invest really has nothing to do with the stock market or the economy. It is mainly just the person. If you give one person a thousand dollars, he might invest it. Another person might off credit cards. Another might race off to Vegas and lose it all on the first night. -- kainaw™ 01:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

People are not "pouncing", as you put it, despite the low index, because of several reasons. One, no-one can foresee how this current crisis will turn out, or when the market will recover. It may still fall further in some markets. It's a fairly risky time to be investing. It is precisely your confidence ("recession is bound to end some time") that many people lack. Plus, "some time" could be quite some time.

Two, the reason the stocks fell in the first place, if you remember, is because people had to sell, for various reasons including due to their exposure to subprime mortgages. Many of these issues have not been resolved: it is still not easy to find debt financing, for example. As a result, those people who sold out are often still not in a position to buy-in.

Given this, there *are* safer forms of investment which people may prefer. At the moment, a term deposit in a bank is not a bad idea. Others are investing in gold and other commodities. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter what anyone says, investing is a form of gambling. Thus it should only be done with discretionary funds - money one doesn't need for other purposes. With the current financial crisis, many people are worried that their jobs (thus incomes) may disappear, so they hold on to their cash. For those who do have extra funds available, you are correct that this would be a good time to invest, but, as PalaceGuard008 points out, some have lost their discretionary funds, while others are in a "wait-and-see" mode. On the other hand, as per Kainaw, those with extra money at hand and who wish to invest see this period as an opportunity. Then, again, why do you expect everyone to act rationally in the first place?

Let me ask a counter-question. When, in the last six months, have you heard a call for George W Bush's proposal to take half of the Social Security Trust Fund and invest it in the Stock Market because that will give beneficiaries larger retirement accounts?

The Stock Market will come back. The question is "When?" After the 1929 crash it took 25 years for the Dow-Jones to return to pre-crash levels. New Deal regulations and the federal government's quick response to this crisis should shorten the recovery period considerably, but it is not surprising that many people are taking a cautious approach - which is the proper attitude under all circumstances. B00P (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically speaking the stock market is not a zero sum game so it's not 'gambling'. The reason people are not buying stocks is much like people have noted. Confidence at the moment is very low - people invest in different 'cycles' - some day-trade, some want a return in 12-24 months, some longer, some just want to buy it and leave it for 20 years. Each person has a different level of confidence in the current price. I've no doubt there are plenty of people picking up stock at these prices and then expecting in 5 years when they return to them that they'll be worth X-times-more. That person is happy tieing up their capital in something that is highly volatile currently and so maybe can only be sold at profit in 3 or 4 years. The person who has 10k they don't need now but might need in 12 months is less likely to invest - but in a positive stable market they might consider it worthwhile to invest for that period. It's all about individual choices all adding up to make up the market sentiment. Beyond that institutional investors will have a huge impact too and they have similar worries but on differing scales. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wall Street Crash has a salutary lesson for the "I'll get in at the bottom" investor. A lot of those who really lost a lot of money were not those who were invested in the market at the beginning, but those who invested at a "shelf", which they thought was the bottom of a u-shaped depression but was in fact just a temporary station on an ongoing decline. Such investors even caused little rallies (and whatever happens to the modern market, you'll see the same things). The trouble is that you can't tell the difference between the market bottoming out and a temporary shelf, and you can't tell the difference between a genuine beginning to recovery and a (destined to be short lived) false rally caused by others' mistaken optimism. Serious investors study the "value" of the company, which they compute using a bunch of metrics including its P-E ratio; but with the profits of so many companies negative, that's hard to do. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

All investment is a judgement on the balance between risk and reward. If people are not, in your opinion, investing, it is very likely to be because they judge the risks to out-weigh the rewards at these prices. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question very simply, you could have said exactly the same thing three months ago, and it would have sounded just as convincing. However since then stocks have plummeted even further. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the comments made above, but I have this to add: Stocks represent ownership of a fraction of a firm. Therefore, their price reflects investors' perceptions of the value of the firm. That value is relative to its earnings and its expected future earnings and to the dividends that investors might gain from those earnings. As firms' profits have shrunk or turned into losses, the perceived value of those firms has dropped accordingly. Investors might still bid up the price of a firm that they believe is temporarily loss-making if they believe that it is likely to regain profitability. However, a huge question mark hangs over the future of many firms and the economy as a whole. As the economic data steadily worsen, investors fear a severe recession in which many firms might go bankrupt and see their value evaporate. This fear leads many people to shun a market that seems much more risky than it did just two years ago and to try to find a safer haven for their savings. Marco polo (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Those investors or institutions who are buying in mass will be keeping quiet about it, as if they make it know they are buying prices will rise and they will have to pay more. 89.243.95.28 (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

accented poetry

When a poet writes poetry that counts accented syllables (iambic pentameter, etc.) does the poet consider the secondary stress as part of the rhythm? For example, would the word "universe" be considered a dactyl or something else?

Normally each accented syllable is counted. "Universe" theoretically could be a cretic foot, but typically it would be combined with an unstressed preceding syllable to make two iambs ("the UniVERSE") or with an unstressed following syllable to make two trochees ("UniVERses"). John M Baker (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the female form of the Kayser-i-Rûm?

What is it in Ottoman Turkish? Kayser-i-Rûm means the Emperor/Caesar of Rome. It was claimed by Mehmed II who conquered Constantinople. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that Ottomans had any real concept of "empress", as this term has been used in European languages. The Ottoman sultans fully indulged their rights under Islamic law to take four wives and/or an indefinite number of slave concubines, but none of these women were really considered partners in helping the sovereign to rule or had a formalized publicly-visible social role (as was often the case with European royal wives). In fact, the only woman who regularly appeared in public at all was the mother of the reigning sultan, who occasionally decorously appeared on high balconies overlooking certain ceremonies. AnonMoos (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice that also. But I was wondering if there is female form of the title. Were the Mother Sultans a mere copy of the Roman and Byzantine title Empress Mother? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're seeking equivalences where the predominant characteristics of societies meant that such equivalences didn't really exist. The role of the queen-consort in European societies was consistent with the fact that women at a lower social level had a publicly-visible "hostess" role (meeting men whom her husband invited to their home), and supervised most of the economically productive activities in the household other than heavy agricultural field work, etc. The lack of any real public "queen" or "empress" role in the Ottoman sultanate was consistent with the fact that upper-class women in many Islamic societies were often kept strictly secluded from public view, were not present at social events involving men outside their family, etc. It was not considered a good thing for women to rule in either type of society, but at least a few prominent European women could influence events in a somewhat open above-board and quasi-legitimate manner -- while women exercising political influence in the Ottoman system was always considered illegitimate pernicious boudoir-harem-eunuch intrigues and corruption by definition. AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

For the puroses of this discussion, it might be useful to know the existence of Sultana (title). The article Islamic honorifics needs improvement. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Participants in a survey more/less likely to trust it?

Are people who participated in a survey more or less likely to trust the results than people who could have been selected to participate but weren't? NeonMerlin 01:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that it makes any difference. Let us suppose the survey is to determine the relative popularity of odd and even numbers. If you participated and chose "odd," but "even" was more popular, would you be more likely to trust that result than if you hadn't participated? In fact, you might be more dubious, as you know how you voted. On the other hand, if you had voted "even," you would be more likely to trust the results, and for exactly the same reason. However, this is only my opinion; in order to find out, I suggest that you take a survey. <!> —B00P (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer depends on several factors. Call the dependent quantity the participant's trust of the survey, which is really the participant's view of the reliability of the survey. Assume that the reliability of the survey depends on - and can be deduced from - the process and conduct of the survey. Then: one, the act of participation would give the participant some insight into the surveying process. I'll assume that the surveying process is honest and is not a deliberate attempt to exaggerate the reliability of the survey. In that case, the participant will either gain no information or a positive amount of information about the process of the survey (i.e. no disinformation).

If the amount of insight is none or negligible, then there should be little or no neglible effect on their trust of the survey.

If they do gain some information about the process (and thus reliability) of the survey, then this information will tend to move the participant's assessment towards the true position: i.e. the actual reliability of the survey.

The second factor, then, is how the participant's a priori assessment of the survey's reliability compares to the actual reliability of the survey. If the participant trusted the survey less than they should (i.e. their subjective, a priori assessment of the survey's reliability is lower than the actual reliability of the survey), then the additional information will move their assessment of reliability will now be higher than before, and they will trust it more.

Conversely, if the participant trusted the survey more than they should (i.e. their subjective, a priori assessment of the survey's reliability is higher than the actual reliability of the survey), then the additional information will move their assessment downward, and they will now trust it less.

When I participated in the Australian Bureau of Statistics's repeated panel data survey of household income, I could see something of the scale, comprehensiveness and relative rigour of the process; at the same time, by participating myself I also gained more knowledge of the weaknesses of the process. Balancing the two, I would say I came to trust the published statistics a little more than before. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that some of the surveys in which I've participated have made me no longer trust any survey results. The would say they "just have a few question", but 100 questions later I was just picking choices at random to make them go away. Then they would ask stupid Q's like "what's your favorite reggae radio station ?", when we don't have any in our area. StuRat (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject of behavioral economics to some extent addresses questions of the sort you are asking. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Christians of Bangladesh by division or district

Which divisions or districts of Bangladesh has the most population of Bangladesh?

You mean largest Christian population, I assume? Only about 0.3% of Bangladeshi's are Christians; that's around 1 000 000 overall. Check out the article Christianity in Bangladesh - considering the Portuguese traders settled around Chittagong and Dhaka, I figure those two areas might have the largest Christian diaspora. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I did check the article but it says that the Roman Catholics have dioceses in Dhaka, Rajshahi, Mymensingh, Khulna, Dinajpur and Chittagong. So, I am assuming that these six cities of Bangladesh have Christian population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.50 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

food rationing in the US?

Sorry to ask but I'm from Europe and this is a notoriously hidden topic when seen from afar. Is it true what a blogger states today that there are 30 million people in the U.S.A. having their food rationed? --Ayacop (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the blogger you read was trying to refer to the thirty million Americans who are receiving food stamps.--Rallette (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, "having their food rationed" makes it sound like there isn't enough food to go around, and people are being forced to eat less. This isn't the case at all. StuRat (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are also some food aid programs like WIC that will only pay for certain healthy foods. But that's not really rationing either, If people on WIC want to buy Twinkies and coca-cola they can pay cash.APL (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sending flowers to a new baby

Are there any health risks to the mother and newborn if you send congratulatory flowers? Gallaghp (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There can be, due to allergies, which unfortunately makes this a medical question and probably unsuited for further discussion. Thorough Googling would probably help you out, though; I can't imagine you're the first person to have ever wondered about this.--Fullobeans (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A query on the possible harmful effects of flowers (or plants) upon postpartum moms and their newborn infants might be posted more successfully on the Science Ref Desk. Note that there, too, actual medical advice is not dispensed. (I'll add from personal experience: In that situation, I most appreciated receiving a decorative, reusable box filled with dried fruits and nuts. The baby appeared oblivious but presumably had no objection.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the hospital might have some objection to flowers in the maternity wing. I second Deborah's idea of fruit. Dismas|^(talk) 13:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If allergies are a concern with flowers, they may also be with nuts. On the other hand, I think people with nut allergies are only affected if they eat them, and will know not to do it. --Anonymous, 05:08 UTC, March 10, 2009.

Allergies can be strange things. If someone has a severe allergy to nuts, the smell of nuts can be enough to trigger breathing difficulties. Eating nuts is not the only danger; touching surfaces that have been touched by someone who was touching nuts, and then touching their own face or eating something with their hands. With a severe nut allergy, there's a seemingly endless list of ways to go into anaphylactic shock. But if you know the mother well enough to know she probably doesn't have a severe nut allergy, then go for it. If she's sharing a room with someone with a severe allergy, hopefully this should be mentioned when the nuts arrive (sealed in packaging) and she can save them for later. 79.66.56.21 (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sending flowers as a congratulatory statement to the new family is nice. I used flowers for corporate gifts. They are "safe" and you need not find detailed information about the likes and dislikes of the recipients. They are also sex netural, depending on the type of bouquet. Flowers are frequently an indulgence a couple would not purchase themselves. Food is necessary for live. Flowers are a luxurious splurge. I purchase ten dollars worth a week to brighten my space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sending flowers is nuts. Sending dried fruit is a blooming good idea!! ;-)) Richard Avery (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Subcamp of Dachau at Königssee vs. Königsee

The Dachau concentration camp was in Bavaria, and I'm trying to determine the location of a particular subcamp ("kommando;" i.e. forced labor camp). A period document relating to Dachau subcamps' staffing, written by one Obersturmführer Wilhelm Ruppert, cites such a camp at Königssee, which is indeed in Bavaria. My problem: The "Catalogue of Camps and Prisons in Germany and German-occupied Territories, Sept. 1st, 1939 – May 8th, 1945" issued in July 1949 by the International Tracing Service HQ at Arolsen (now Bad Arolsen), cites a "CCKdo. of Dachau" at "Koenigsee" (vol. 1, p. 208). It's in the Berchtesgaden kreis, so the location is promising... but per that spelling, we get Königsee and Königsee (Plötzky), the former in Thuringia, the latter in Sachsen-Anhalt. I'm told that the ITS was quite rigorous in its documentation, so how might I reconcile all of these? -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As you probably already expected, Königssee is frequently (mis)spelled Königsee. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; I've just sent a query via e-mail to the ITS via its website's Contact Us feature. Clarifications will be duly posted on relevant WP pages here and in the German Wikipedia too. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Another World War II Topic

Its in conection with the 6th Australian Division

In the article its states; During the campaign, Brig. George Vasey's 19th Brigade (minus the 2/11th Battalion) was defeated by the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler brigade, at the Battle of Vevi. The 2/4th and 2/8th Battalions became the only Australian Army units to face elite Waffen SS soldiers in combat.

I am sure this is the only time the Australian Army and the Waffen SS ever met in combat but I am unable to find a source so any help would be appreciated --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Word - Free version of some kind?

I'm an MA History student who's working on his latest essay, and I just finished recovering from my hard drive dying on me. I have a new one, but I now have no Microsoft Word, and I'm currently trying to use Notepad to finish the essay, which is hardly ideal. I downloaded a student version of Microsoft Office called 'The Ultimate Steal', and have sent an email to Microsoft begging for a second chance to download it. Eventually I'll get a copy of Word, one way or another, but for now I'm in something of a bind. Is there a free derivative of it online that can be downloaded (legally, of course) so I can use it as a stop-gap solution. I'm fairly desperate at the moment. Thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not Microsoft Word, but OpenOffice.org has a free wordprocessor which can read and write Word files. Marnanel (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

open-office is great, I have it myself on the Mac. Other than this though is google-docs (http://docs.google.com/?pli=1#) which allows you to write documents online that you can save and access anywhere. ny156uk (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you had a legal copy of Word and it got destroyed when your hard drive crashed then I don't think Microsoft or anyone would object to you finding someone with a CD of Word and installing from their CD. Someone at your college must have one.

OpenOffice is a strange beast (or was when I last used it), and confusing for anyone used to Word. It will probably get you through a crisis. But frankly if this is for one essay then I would recommend using Wordpad. It's many steps up from Notepad, and it will probably take less effort to write the essay with it than to install OpenOffice for doing just one task. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What country do you live in? That will make a difference to the legality of some methods of acquiring Word. NeonMerlin 20:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the United Kingdom, of that helps! Skinny87 (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OpenOffice is the ticket in the long run. For the short term, Google docs or Zoho writer are a big step up from Notepad and will survive that pending crash. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please help with Columbine High School Massacre

I am studying at University and I have to categorize the shooters in the scale of evil of American psychiatrist Michael Stone (T.V. program Most Evil), so I read their article because I need to know if they suffered mental illnesses, etc. I found Harris was a psychotic but at the end of the text ... "Harris was a clinical psychopath"... so, was he a psychotic or a psychopath?. And another question ... if you are a depressive person (Klebold), are you a psychotic or a psychopath?.. thanks a lot!!!! It's University homework but I have attempted an answer first and don't understand that. --190.49.101.52 (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hard enough to diagnose mental illnesses when interviewing a living subject and giving them a battery of psychological tests. It's harder still when dealing with psychopaths, as they're so good at concealing their inner selves. Surely it's impossible to make any worthwhile diagnosis of a dead person? Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are writing for a University, don't forget to check whether they consider Wikipedia an appropriate source. Many don't, in which case you'll have to find evidence elsewhere. If you find any please come back and add to the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is nothing wrong with reading Wikipedia to get information. You, of course, would never cite Wikipedia in any scholarly paper, but that has nothing to do with the quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. You wouldn't ever cite it in a scholarly paper because it is an encyclopedia. Instead, what you should do is read Wikipedia to get an overview on the topic, and then follow the references to find sources you WOULD cite. Well written articles have sources which themselves can be read, and THOSE can be cited... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess the point I was trying to sneak up on is this. Wikipedia contains information which is contradictory. That's actually pretty common. Someone reads an article saying that Harris was psychotic, so they add that to the article. Someone else reads one saying that Harris was a psychopath, so they add that to the article. Very rarely does anyone do the (extremely hard) work of researching to find out whether these are contradictory or if they are which one is the consensus, or if they are both educated guesses. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As you don't seem to have received an answer, if I reach back 30 years in my memory I find that depression is usually classified as neurosis, whereas psychosis refers to conditions with hallucinations or delusions. Psychopathology often refers to conditions which are incurable and/or untreatable, whereas psychoses/neuroses respond to treatment. Our article on psychosis refers to "In contemporary culture, the term "psychotic" is often incorrectly used interchangeably with "psychopathic or sociopathic", which actually describe a propensity to engage in violently antisocial behaviors, not usually involving hallucinations or delusions." Hope this helps. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You say you're studying at a university where you're asked to rate the evil of the Columbine shooters on a scale as presented by a tv program, Most Evil?--Wetman (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

...in which case I'm guessing using Wikipedia as a reference is going to be perfectly acceptable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The OP doesn't specify what subject they are studying... Presumably it isn't psychology! --Tango (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if this helps, but: There actually is an article on Most Evil and the scale of evil deployed by Michael Stone. Categories 01 to 22 are listed together with the names of the criminals profiled in this TV "show". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Desirable self-fulfilling prophecies

The examples given at Self-fulfilling prophecy are almost all undesirable. What desirable effects can be achieved by self-fulfilling prophecies? NeonMerlin 20:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Multiple investors could see a low stock as vastly undervalued, which leads to them buying it, which leads to the price of the stock rising, which leads to wealthier investors and the stock (with its new inflated price) showing how undervalued it was. Livewireo (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, whatever you like? An example: let's say that the prophecy is that you're going to become a rich and successful man by inventing a new computer operating system. Your self-confidence and motivation are boosted by the information that your labors will not be in vain, and naturally you take an interest in programming, since that's where your big success is supposed to come from. Consequently, you create MerlinOS, which sells like hotcakes and becomes a new industry standard, and you indeed become a rich and successful man. If it wasn't for the prophecy, you would have gone on to become, uh, I don't know. A chimney sweep! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two bullet points at at Self-fulfilling_prophecy#Real-life_examples. The second one has examples of desirable outcome. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Is successful cognitive behavioral therapy a form of self-fulfilling prophecy? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're talking about mythology specifically, there's a very good reason why almost all of them have bad outcomes. The lesson those stories are trying to teach is that you don't mess with fate. The stories all follow the same basic structure: first, someone receives a prophecy (it could be in a dream, or from an oracle or something). Then they foolishly make every attempt to stop the prophecy from coming true. And finally, the prophecy comes true because of the steps taken to avoid it.

What's the lesson here? It's this: don't mess with fate!!! Don't do it! Your fate is your fate, and it's hubris to try and avoid it. You can't do anything about it, and if you try, it's just going to get even worse in the end.

One should note that it isn't universal in mythology that the outcome is bad (although it's vastly more common). The article mentions a few fairy tales where the outcome is good, but almost all of them follow that same structure too, the difference being that it's usually the bad guys trying to stop the (good) prophecy from coming true instead of the other way around, and they are the ones to pay the price. Belisarius (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Moore's law. Applications engineers count on the projected abilities of the hardware that will be available when their project goes to market. Chip-makers, in turn, know that there will be a market for their improved chips, without which they wouldn't invest in improving the technology. —Tamfang (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

really 12-year low?

The dow is what it was 12 years ago. But doesn't that mean that it's really much, much lower, because isn't a 2009 dollar worth WAY less than a 1997 dollar? And isn't the dow denominated in current dollars? Or am I missing something... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.221 (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are missing anything. But I think we're all far too depressed to begin calculating the inflation adjusted matching point. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Math is simply a luxury we can't afford in these troubled times. Belisarius (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Using the GDP deflator to compare prices from the different dates, you'd have to go back to November 15, 1995, to get a closing quote for the Dow as low as today's, in inflation-adjusted terms. So, in real terms, today's Dow close was a 13-year, 4-month low. Stocks rose rapidly during the mid-1990s, so you don't have to go much farther back in time from the nominal price to get the same real price. Marco polo (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Dow isn't "denominated in dollars", it's a scaled average. See Dow Jones Industrial Average. --LarryMac | Talk 14:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and it is helpful to note this, since it was one of the OPs questions: but probably equally important to state that it has no bearing on the other element, which is that the index does not adjust for inflation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the scaling is just to account for non-market changes to the stock price (like stock splits). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

True enough, but the components of the Dow also have changed, making any comparison to the index value from twelve or more years ago somewhat suspect as well. --LarryMac | Talk 14:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

However, it is a scaled average of prices that are denominated in dollars, so the original poster's point about inflation is correct. (That is, it's correct to the extent that values in different years can be compared; see Larry's point about the components changing.) --Anonymous, 19:44 UTC, March 10, 2009.