Humanities desk
< September 25	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 27 >

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.

September 26[edit]

Gini coefficient for house sizes.[edit]

My guess is that 80/90% of houses in The Netherlands are in a quite small size range, between 100m2 and 200m2 and I also think that in other countries there is more variation in size. Has someone every done research on this, similar to income variation? Joepnl (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the numbers from the U.S., from the census bureau. Counts are in thousands (e.g., 988,000 houses of less than 500 sq. ft.). 1,000 square feet is 93 square meters.

Square Footage of Unit Single detached and manufactured/mobile homes
Less than 500 -- 988
500 to 749 -- 2,765
750 to 999 -- 6,440
1,000 to 1,499 -- 21,224
1,500 to 1,999 -- 20,636
2,000 to 2,499 -- 14,361
2,500 to 2,999 -- 7,589
3,000 to 3,999 -- 7,252
4,000 or more -- 4,456
Not reported (includes don't know) -- 5,529
Median -- 1,700 sq ft.
-- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've never heard of such a statistic, and a quick search didn't reveal one to me. While Mwalcoff's numbers do give a sense of home sizes by numbers, the stats are unfortunately not very helpful when it comes to gini as many people own multiple homes/cottages. A rich man could own 10 homes scattered across the size brackets. While I have no proof, I would imagine a gini house index would correlate with wealth inequality (not income inequality-big difference), though it may change by culture, and regional land cost. Due to culture, rich people might not choose to live in excessively large homes, but prefer modesty, homes can also be an investment, in Beijing many rich people have multiple homes in the same city, just as investments, while this is less common in other parts of the world. By land value, to have a large house in Tokyo you must be rich, yet one could have an even larger house in Newfoundland and be poor, so rural vs urban would affect such an index. Just some thoughts,Public awareness (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. The reason for asking was what you refer to, the rich deciding to live modest. I wanted to know if one could calculate a "modesty" index for different countries by comparing the Gini coefficients for both income and housing. People owning multiple homes makes it complicated, yes.Joepnl (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the census bureau says the median home size is 1,700 sq ft., I've read that the average U.S. home is 2,300-2,500 sq ft. That indicates that while most people live in homes of 1,000 to 2,500 sq ft., as described above, the curve is skewed by people living in mansions. I don't think the U.S. would rank very high on your housing modesty index. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is good, and more honest. :) Regulations may play a big part, too. I don't even think I could find a 4000 sq area that I was allowed build a house on. Joepnl (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

economics[edit]

critically analyze the different school of thoughts of macroeconomics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.23.41 (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that you haven't even attempted to hide the fact that that is a homework question. We won't do your homework for you, but I will point you at Macroeconomics. That should get you started. HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't even say "Please". These kids today. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One well-known basic non-technical introduction is The Worldly Philosophers... AnonMoos (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can answer the question... Let's see... "There are many schools of thought for macroeconomics... most of them are rubbish". (Hey, no one said it had to be a good analysis... And the question did ask us to be critical). :>) Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with Father Guido Sarducci and his Five Minute University,[1] in which the student's entire economics class consists of memorizing the statement "supply and demand". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

on the nature and definition of God[edit]

I was recently informed of the belief said to be held by Jewish people that God is the bond things have with each other and the sum total of all bonds between things.

If so where does Satan fit into this picture?

Is Satan then the disruptor of bonds or do bonds have states such that in the case of God the state is love whereas in the case of Satan the state of the bond is hate?

Please ignore this question if it is offensive.

--DeeperQA (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Judaism, the term "Satan" is usually used as "The Obstructor" or "The Opposer". That makes it more clear. Satan obstructs/opposes whatever you define God to be. -- kainaw ™ 17:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah.. so I might like to kiss girls but not if she very much needs a bath. Dirt the Obstructor. --DeeperQA (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that there is not always agreement in the scholarship as to which characters from the Bible represent "Satan", and whether there is one such character or many. For example, it is commonly understood that the Serpent in the Adam and Eve story is Satan, but there isn't any textual evidence of that in the Hebrew Bible itself. Satan as a character (that is, as a direct participant in the action of the story) only appears in the Book of Job, while he is referred to tangentally in several other places; there is also some contention over whether the term Satan always refers to the Job character; or to a more abstract force which opposes God's will, it comes down to translating the term from the original Hebrew as "The Adversary" (as in, one character) or "an adversary" (as in, the concept); and the original text is not always clear. Thus, different translators will tend to put different spins on whether all of these represent the character described in Job, or as a generic term for an adversary or opposition. --Jayron32 19:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In his translation of the Bible, Ronald Knox interpreted the character as man's adversary rather than God's. His translation of Job 1:6–7 runs: "One day, when the heavenly powers stood waiting on the Lord's presence, and among them, man's Enemy, the Lord asked him, where he had been? Roaming about the earth, said he, to and fro about the earth." Deor (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about competitor? --DeeperQA (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about competitor for what? --Jayron32 20:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It popped into mind when I read "...adversary or opposition." In the Christian belief Satan decided he was the equal of God and took on the roll of adversary, opposition, obstructor or competitor. It stands to reason that anything or anyone who might be viewed as the competition therefore may also be viewed as Satan and therefore justifiably treated as such. --DeeperQA (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. Competitor is a fine synonym for the other terms as well. In Judeo-Christian thinking, God has a plan, and that which opposes that plan is evil. Whether such opposition represents a specific personification (Satan) or a more general, diffuse form of evil depends on which specific sect or religion or tradition you are working within. Whichever specific synonym of opposition or adversary is probably OK, so long as said synonym doesn't extend too far. For example, Jacob wrestled with God, and that is the source of the name Israel, which may be translated by some traditions as "struggled with God", which is kinda like "competes with God", but that shouldn't mean that Jacob should be viewed as Satan or Satanic... --Jayron32 21:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, competitor implies that both parties are seeking the same value. Satan as adversary seeks to destroy your happiness, not to achieve his own. There is a huge difference between two men actually loving the same woman or one killing a woman so the other cannot have her. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

God and Satan are both competing for your soul. That seems like a fine understanding of the situation. --Jayron32 21:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~And if I say all the prayers and go to all the meetings and yet love or covet money more than God has Satan won my soul?~~ --DeeperQA (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely arguing the linguistic question, not the theological one, on the use of the word "compete". If you'd wish to have the religious discussion, I would be glad to in another venue, but here is probably not appropriate. My statement was purely on word usage, and was not an attempt to make a clear pronouncement on the need to believe the statement itself. --Jayron32 23:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that is a question for you and your religious authority of choice. He iro 23:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are both right. I withdraw that question - over exposed to a life of Reductio ad absurdum. --DeeperQA (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by another user here, Satan is not God's "adversary", as God cannot be defeated. Satan instead attempts to interpose himself between God and man, and because God gave man free will, it is up to man to choose the right or wrong path. (Note that I don't necessarily buy into all of this, but that's the conventional Judeo-Christian viewpoint.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the OP's question, the premise sounds flawed to me - I've never seen or heard or read a traditional Jewish view of God that approximates to that position. Although I've not studied much Kabbala, I've read enough to know it makes many strange comments about God, which require deeper understanding than face value. For ordinary people like myself, rather than learned mystics, God is not my love of peanut butter sandwiches. A more traditional Jewish view would be that by making a blessing over a peanut butter sandwich, I transform it from something mundane and physical, into something godly. But that's not the same thing as the claim stated, which sounds quite new agey to me. Oh, and as for Satan, Jews are far less bothered about him than we are the yetzer hara, which may or may not approximate to the same thing, but the latter is far easier to comprehend... and perceive in oneself. --Dweller (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "New Age" or is it "Star Wars"? Sounds like he's describing "The Force". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.Satan is merely the manifestation of man's ego, or Self.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is, I suppose, one possible interpretation, but it does not appear to be a widely-held interpretation, based on evidence at Satan. Your interpretation seems close to that of the Baha'i Faith, which is but one of the world's many religions. --Jayron32 18:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship that the god of the Bible has to Satan is 'gambling buddy' as portrayed in Job. So they are competitors in that sense.Greg Bard (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One can't define something that doesn't exist. In this case, there's no God & no Devil. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's bullshit. One can define things which are fictional (I am not saying that God is fictional, just saying that if you hold that he is fictional, you can still define him). You aren't doing well to answer the question by refusing to answer it on the grounds that you believe that God doesn't exist. Even if he doesn't, he can still be defined. Afterall, other mythological and religious figures have clear definitions (Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, etc.) and one does not have to actually believe those religions in order to discuss and understand what the religions themselves say about their figures. So, one can certainly reliably discuss God and the Devil, and discuss what various traditions say their nature and relationship is. Please don't try to sound "smart" or "enlightened" by being dismissive and insulting about the religious beliefs of others. If you don't know the answer to the question, leave it unanswered. If you just want to be mean and insulting, take it somewhere else. --Jayron32 21:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to you, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference desks have their own version of Godwin's Law: As a religious question discussion on the RDs gets longer, the likelihood of an atheist chiming in to bash religion approaches 1. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bashing, just being practical about the topic. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm atheist too (Technically Buddhists are considered atheist, at least my sect) but I don't think that your comment was germane or helpful in this situation. I'm just saying... Rabuve (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenation[edit]

"“Does Tim the jerk’s face look wonkier now, or before he paid some..." - should "Tim the jerk" be hyphenated? --2.216.135.109 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. If his name (or nickname or cognomen) is "The Jerk", then something like:

Tim The Jerk or
Tim "The Jerk"

would probably be standard usage. Hyphens wouldn't be used in this way, normally. --Jayron32 21:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]