Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< February 3 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 5 > |
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. |
I'm watching a documentary on the military channel, and they just showed a clip of Hindenburg making some sort of announcement (it might have been a press conference) and when he finished, many people in the room gave the Nazi solute but not Hindenburg. Did Hindenburg ever give the Nazi salute? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
If a person who isn't close to you or who isn't your friend but just an acquaintance greets you by calling your name, is it rude of you to greet in return but without addressing their name? For example, say my name is Bob. Then:
Person: Hi Bob.
Me: Hi.
Rude or doesn't matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.129.94 (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
what can you do,as a manager, to increase the likelohood thayt your employees will exert ahigh level of effort? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha dabral (talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
2010 (UTC)
In just about every submarine movie I've ever seen (and a Star Trek episode or two), the trapped sub shoots out loose debris and spare oil to make it look like it's gone to the bottom. Was this real or just another Hollywood invention? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
As with plane shootdowns, the number of claimed submarine sinkings always greatly exceeded the actual results (for instance, when the Allies went over German Navy records after the war and compared them to all Allied reports). Considering the extra structures that WWII subs carried on deck compared to most modern subs, some of the debris reports may just have been from stuff knocked loose from deck but I would imagine desperate submariners to have used the fake tactic and eager surface mariners to have been keen to claim a kill on little evidence. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that males and females view attractiveness in a different manner. Annecdotally some women find me *very* attractive, but some evidently find me quite unattractive. This appears to be the same with others as well, but when it comes to male-female attraction there seems to be more agreement. That is, if 50 percent of men find a woman attractive, chances are most of the other 50% will as well whereas this is not the case with female-male attraction. Is this correct? If so, why is this? 98.20.170.216 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
(deindent) Male and female attraction are different in their modalities. Both have nothing to do with "what's on the inside", or at least, not with any qualities that anyone would interpret as positive. Men generally don't care about how attractive a woman is to their own judgement, rather they care about how attractive a woman is to their peers. Of course, they think that they are responding to their own individual judgement, but what they do is they slowly change their preferences until it settles on the dominant preferred model of their social group. When they change their social group, they will slowly change their preferences. Men in a given social group all agree on attractiveness ratings. They come to agree by gathering together in public and rating women by attractiveness. They then shame any member of the group who rates differently than they do. Since men like a woman to be attractive to other males, they prefer a woman who has been with many men. They will say the opposite. Men don't have modalities of attraction--- so that a woman that they would like to take to bed is the same woman that they would want to marry, and is the same woman that they fall in love with. They will say the opposite. If a woman is unfaithful to them, they will become more strongly attached. They will say the opposite. Women on the other hand have strict modalities of attraction. They will say the opposite. They each classify men into two classes: the "superman" and the "ordinary man", with two different roles. The "superman" is above your powers of control, generally above your social class. He cannot be manipulated by female casual hypnosis. He is extremely attractive, but become unattractive the moment he shows any deep attraction or attachment. He can be taken to bed, but he is not suitable for long-term relationships. He has the characteristics of a Nazi SS officer. The "ordinary man" can be placed under control by hypnosis, and is normally not attractive at all. This man only becomes attractive when he is mistaken for a Nazi SS officer, which happens once in a while under certain conditions. Since this is a question of random chance, a few women will find this man attractive, but most will not. Once the woman finds the "ordinary man" attractive, and he is captured, he can become a boyfriend/husband. This requires waiting for a rare random event. The female distinction between "supermen" and "ordinary men" is defined entirely socially, and is all in women's collective mind. It has nothing to do with the man himself: it does not depend on his physical characteristics, on his intelligence, on his race, on his wealth, nothing. It only depends on the shared perception of other women, and on the man's callous behavior. To be seen as a "superman", a man just has to be perceived as one who casually sleeps with many women, shows no compassion or kindness, disobey authority, but succeed socially. If this man is portrayed as having this characteristics, even if he has no verifiable manly traits, he will be attractive. This operates in much the same manner as the male social-group bonding, except with subtler cues depending only on submission and domination. Women will gather together and ask males to do tasks in front of other women (get me some coffee, etc.). Those that do the tasks are shown to have submitted to female hypnotic control, and are therefore eliminated from the class of supermen. The "supermen" are those that don't do anything that is asked of them. Men do not respect this distinction, and know that there is no real difference between the superman and the ordinary man. Likewise, women know that there is no real difference between a woman whose features are currently in-favor with the social group and one who isn't.Likebox (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC) |
does/did noam chomsky drive, and if so what kind of car —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.194 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Did any kings of England ever claim descent/right to rule from King Arthur? 174.20.67.206 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)