Humanities desk
< August 26	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 28 >

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.

August 27[edit]

Konrad Knoll, German Sculptor, Statue of Sappho[edit]

The only information I can find about Konrad Knoll's sculpture of Sappho is found on Wikipedia, stating that a model was made and then later was sculpted in marble for King Ludwig II. Is there any more information out there about this piece, perhaps a picture of it? Do we know where King Ludwig displayed it? Do we know where it is now? Thank you for any insight you can provide.68.5.2.141 (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsches Museum, Volume 9, edited by Robert Eduard Prutz, Wilhelm Wolfsohn, Karl Wilhelm Theodor Frenzel has some information in German, and in proper Gothic script too! Sorry, I can't help with the translation. Alansplodge (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a great deal there, I'm afraid. While showing a highly expressive head, Konrad Knoll's "Sappho" suffers from a laboured plethora of forms:. Nothing else "about" the statue except for that opinion from a letter written in 1858 (yet "Sappho" was first modeled in 1860 according to our article on Konrad Knoll).

Another snippet from Volume 8 of Deutsches Kunstblatt Stuttgart: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, Baukunst und Kunsthandwerk: Organ der deutschen Kunstvereine, Ebner u. Seubert, 1857 (!), has [...] and a statuette depicting Sappho, lost in some poetic thought or perhaps pondering over the last deed of her life, by Konrad Knoll. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ADB biography of Konrad Knoll [1] describes the pose "just about jumping off the Leucadian cliffs". These two [2], [3] agree that the statue was brought to Hohenschwangau in 1869. It was marble and half life-sized. Comparing File:Johann Philipp Palm-Denkmal von Konrad Knoll in Braunau am Inn.jpg, could it perhaps be this statue? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do drama series have often have different writers and directors for each episode of a season?[edit]

The obvious answer is to save time and money, but that can't be the case, given writing isn't on a strict timeline, and the direct works the exact same hors as the cast (plus more). Is this a kind of nepotism? Any clues? This is not easy to search given the lack of focused search terms. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Workload and time constraints basically. Also, the director works a lot more than any individual cast member. This makes sense given that sitcoms (whose production is simpler) generally have just one director. Writers are still subject to deadlines and having more of them increases diversity. I doubt there is any nepotism going on - it's a competitive industry so the creator of any series would want the best people working there. 163.202.48.126 (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also could be a way to stimulate the economy and keep fresh ideas coming in. Starving artists far outnumber TV shows (or episodes). If each show had one or two writers for the entirety, the others wouldn't even get that odd bone thrown their way. If they get no work, they have nothing to put on their resume, and producers would consistently rehire the ones with experience, after their previous show is cancelled. Same writers would mean virtually the same writing, and likely complacency and poorer writing. When they retire/die, the pool of hopefuls will have dried up considerably. Hard to stay an aspiring writer without that glimmer of hope.

New writers have to get their foot in the door somehow, and a letting them have a single episode is less risky for producers than a film or whole series/season. If they bomb, fans might complain for a week, but if they do well, everyone wins. If they just do OK, nobody really loses. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Writing for television is on a strict timeline. Filming has to be scheduled to get actors, supplies, and even sets ready. If the script is late, or if a major scene changes, it could require re-scheduling to make room for the new set or bring a different actor in. And burn-out can be a serious problem; expecting one person to churn out enough scripts for an entire season of a show is a pretty big deal. Getting writer's block can put an entire production behind schedule.

If you want to read about it, try J. Michael Straczynski's The Complete Book of Scriptwriting. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did all the Spaniards go?[edit]

I recently saw an episode of Top Gear where the presenters went to Spain in some high priced cars. While there, they commented about the Spanish economy and the global financial crisis and such. During the trip, they found a large airport that was deserted and they took the opportunity to play around on the runways with the cars. After that, they went closer to Madrid (I was led to believe that they were in the outskirts of Madrid) where they found blocks and blocks of empty homes. There was nobody there with the exception of a bum that happened to be sitting on a bench. In addition to that, there were apartment buildings that they were driving by with weeds growing through the sidewalks. They seemed completely vacant.

I watch the show regularly, so I'm aware that some of the stunts and such are set up before hand and what not but this housing area actually seemed deserted. It was like something out of a plague or zombie movie. So, my question is where did everyone go? Would this have just been a block or two of homes and a single apartment building and the editing just made it seem more widespread? I would have thought that at least some people would have been able to keep their homes or at least keep an apartment. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This happens when financial bubbles burst. Interest rates are low and the money supply is high when economies are inflated due to the actions of central banks causing 'quantitative easing' or the like. Any fool can borrow money, and does, to build his dream whatever. When the bubble bursts, it turns out the investments like the airport don't even make enough money to maintain their own maintenance costs, let alone return a profit. They are abandoned. When this happened to Rome, the Dark Ages followed. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Spanish property bubble... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and more generally on 2008–13 Spanish financial crisis. 163.202.48.126 (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The airport is Ciudad Real Central Airport; "In April 2012, the airport was closed after just three years in operation, its management company having gone into receivership. It had not received scheduled flights since December 2011". Alansplodge (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you think they could find something to do with those houses rather than just let them decay ? Give them to homeless people, who never would be able to afford homes anyway, so it won't affect the market. Some of them might let the houses decay, and others might keep them up. That's better than having 100% decay.

As for the airport, let's see, you could use the runways for model airplanes, Kart racing, etc. And the terminals could be used for school classrooms, just put up some dividing walls. StuRat (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would affect the market if these homeless people start subletting these properties. Besides that, even if a property is empty, you still can use it as collateral to get a credit, so, you are not totally at loss here. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing (pretty much) happened here in Ireland. There are an estimated 300,000 new homes lying empty in so-called Ghost estates. That article seems to make a reasonable stab at explaining how such a situation came about - I imagine the essentials would apply to Spain as well. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's a case of "where did all the Spaniards go." Contrary to Detroit, for example, where the population indeed emigrated away, Spain and Ireland seem to have more or less the same population as before the crisis. They simply built too much housing and now they are empty. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with giving away abandoned assets like houses is that the new owners have no investment, so they have little incentive to improve the residence or maintain it. My German-shepherd mix had beautiful puppies when I was a grade-schooler. My father said we would give them away. But he placed an ad advertising them for $50 each. I asked him why. He said people who seriously wanted the responsibility of raising a dog would pay he $50. People who would take them for free and abandon them the next week wouldn't spend the nominal sum. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I mentioned above, SOME people might very well not maintain the homes. But compare this to the current situation where NONE of the abandoned homes are being maintained. And, assuming they won't be offered a free home again anytime soon, some people will choose to do at least basic maintenance, like replacing broken windows. Comparing with dogs, presumably some people who get free pets take good care of them. (All my pets were strays, and I took good care of them.) StuRat (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Spain is about to set off to 'grow' its economy by launching an unprecedented counter-homebuilding campaign, one in which the housing excesses of the last 'growth' campaign will be literally demolished. And thanks to the magic of modern Keynesian math, both construction and destruction will result in growth for Spain." [4] Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't to search too long to see many places where building work has been abandoned in Spain. Google Maps shows many, many places with streets laid out with either buildings abandoned during construction or no buildings at all. Astronaut (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

who said "never stop wondering. never stop wandering."?[edit]

hey, i just found that nice quote and did not find an author. does anybody have any idea who has said that, perhaps with reference? thanks, --87.169.97.82 (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase gets a large number of Google hits, but as far as I can tell it's not ascribed to anyone in particular. It sounds like one of those "inspirational" quotes you get on internet macros, and as such it's impossible to tell who first thought of it. --Viennese Waltz 11:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a song called "I Wonder as I Wander", which was apparently an oral tradition before it was written down 80 years ago. It's a pretty obvious play on words to make up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High Middle Ages contracts[edit]

Were there written contracts between businessmen for large items like grain supplies, building projects, and ship construction during the High Middle Ages? Or was all "agreements" done verbally? If written, what type of pen did they use for writing? Do we have a picture of the type of pens used then (if they used pens in England then)?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To your last question, here's an 1151 image from the Scivias showing Hildegard of Bingen with a pen. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article History of English contract law may offer some avenues of investigation; it begins thusly:

The history of English contract law traces back to its roots in civil law, the lex mercatoria and the industrial revolution. Modern English contract law is composed primarily of case law decided by the English courts following the Judicature Acts and supplemented by statutory reform. However, a significant number of legal principles were inherited from recording decisions reaching back to the aftermath of the Norman Invasion.

☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 16:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what sort of pen Hildegard is using, but I suspect that she is using a stylus, which our article says was "widely used until the late Middle Ages" in Western Europe. For writing on vellum or later on, paper, a pen would be cut from a quill, usually a goose's wing feather, or a reed. You can see a medieval picture of Saint Peter writing with a quill or reed here - note that the "barbs" (feathery bits) were often stripped off the quill to make it easier to manage. The knife was used to sharpen the quill, to mark out lines and margins on the page and to scratch-out (on vellum) any mistakes. Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for correcting. My bad - it was the only writing image I found from the time period and I assumed it was a pen. Thanks. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that you wanted to know about medieval writing in England can be found at Medieval Writing: History, heritage and data source. Although it doesn't go into great detail about contracts in particular, it does say; "Forms of Manuscripts - Most manuscripts from the medieval period survive in one of three basic forms; the single sheet, the codex or the roll. The three forms tend to form different, although overlapping, functions. Single sheets were used for many kinds of legal documents, such as charters, indentures or deeds. They were also used for personal letters." It also discusses literacy levels and says that early legal documents were a way of recording a verbal agreement, usually written by a professional scribes or scriveners, who were often priests. It's hard to imagine anybody going to that sort of trouble over a minor contract. I can't link to individual pages, so you'll have to read it yourself. Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find that "The quill fueled most written communication from the 6th to the 19th century. Quills were made of hollow bird feathers, most commonly goose feathers, though feathers from swans, crows, eagles and other types of birds were also used. To make marks on paper, quills were dipped into ink."[5] (Click on the thing concerning pencils.) Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From memory to written record : England 1066-1307 (by Michael Clanchy) is a very good survey of how this sort of thing worked in the late medieval period. It looks dry, but definitely rewards reading. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to mention that there are thousands and thousands of surviving legal documents like this from all throughout the medieval world, and who knows how many countless more haven't survived. Yes, people had contracts drawn up for all sorts of things, it wasn't at all unusual, and being a notary who could write such contracts was a pretty lucrative job. People went to the trouble of having a written contract for exactly the same reasons you would have a written contract today. This isn't just a medieval thing either, it goes back at least as far as ancient Rome - Roman law (and through it, medieval and modern law) has a lot to say about contracts, written or otherwise. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you gentlemen for all the great answers.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

tentacles?[edit]

What monster do the tentacles attacking Hildegard of Bingen from above in the picture to the right belong to? μηδείς (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The translation of the (German) description of that image is "Hildegard of Bingen receives a divine inspiration". So I think they're God's tentacles. Otherwise, it looks to me like a flumph. Rojomoke (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an attempt at Pentecostal flames? "And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." (Acts 2:1–6). Roll on the Renaissance when people learned how to draw properly. Alansplodge (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like just a decorative cloth to me. Honi soit qui tentacule y pense. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first thought, but why would the artist draw it dangling in her face? I think it's an attempt to show divine intervention which is lost on us 21st century folks. Alansplodge (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God is an octopus? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Spaghetti Monster. RNealK (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Alansplodge's Pentecostal interpretation is the best. But I do love the modified Anglo-Norman curse. As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, back in the 80's I used to suggest to theists who ask me to prove God doesn't exist to prove The Giant Fish-Head isn't directing our lives from the other side of the moon. So I don't know if I am the creator, but I think I can at least claim unpublished priority. μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did The Big Giant Fish-Head hide from the Apollo astronauts? Maybe by disguising itself as a crater? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the Invisible Pink Unicorn behind the Moon, which explains why they didn't see it. They are just lucky they didn't slam into it. :-) StuRat (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Man, I tossed you a softball and you whiffed. You were supposed to say, "Yes, hence the expression 'God the Crater'." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's a Mackerel, for obvious reasons, and I didn't think it was necessary to mention he's as invisible as all gods are. The Pink Unicorn is his profit. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not just any old mackerel, but a Holy Mackerel, eh? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the atheists, God is just a red herring. StuRat (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Hence Ichthys. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

But seriously, what an untalented artist that was. I'd expect something like that out of an elementary school art class. StuRat (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that's cartoonish, have you ever seen the Bayeux tapestry? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect theme and color are the driving values behind the image, not realism. Quite a shiny effect from the gold leafing. Logically, one would have painted the background and used the gold only for the flames of inspiration nowadays. This artist isn't so much applying skill as he is throwing money (gold) at it. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you care, obviously, but for your hypothetical edification: medieval art and manuscript illumination. (Also, if we gave you some paper and art instruments, you'd never be able to come up with something as good as that, even if you sat there for a thousand years.) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know Stu isn't an artist? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an artist, and any attempt by me to draw people would also look as bad as that (this is why I don't do that for a living, unlike this untalented hack). I have taken drafting classes, though, and with some basic equipment (drafting table, T-square, 45 triangle, 30-60 triangle, and scale (ruler)) I can draw a building in either a proper isometric or perspective view). Of course, these days, I'd use a computer instead, but I could also do it using the equipment they had at the time. And I would show divine inspiration as a ray of light, not hanging tentacles. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a banner. For an example of a 13th century place of worship that features a replica of a 17th century banner, visit the Altneuschule, which is remarkable for many things. --Dweller (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think flames are more likely. In Scivias, Hildegard describes her first vision, at 42, with the words "[...] maximae coruscationis igneum lumen aperto caelo veniens totum cerebrum meum transfudit et totum cor totumque pectus meum velut flamma non tamen ardens sed calens ita inflammavit, ut sol rem aliquam calefacit super quam radios suos ponit." [6] (my emphasis). I couldn't find a free English translation of Scivias, but with the help of a German translation (and my own crappy Latin skills) it is clear that she is talking about a great flash of light transfusing her brain, and her entire heart and chest being lit by a flame that is more warming than burning. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with the banner faction, though I'm far from confident! I don't think I've seen a flame depicted in that way in medieval art before, but it's quite common to depict banners with multiple hanging "strips". My guess is that it's a clumsy way of showing that Hilkdegard is living a secluded life, and that her male amanuensis is physically separated from her. Paul B (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more "tentacles" here - admittedly not identical but this one actually is Pentecost. Alansplodge (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And some more - these ones look like the little forks that you get in chip shops. Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, they depict "her visions, emanating like flames from above" (also search for other mentions of "flame" in that piece). And here (click on More), "Hildegard Von Bingen is frequently represented receiving divine flames". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the inspiration flowing onto Hildegard, through her head into her arm and hand and via her stylus to the tablet. I like this image even better than the modern image on the 10 DM coin.--Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see Hildegard using chopsticks in an empty bowl and wishing she had some squid sushi. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find a blueprint for depicting a cyberstalker as a character?[edit]

I'm attempting to write a short story that centers around a cyberstalker, and I want to make the cyberstalker seem real. The problem is that I have no idea what cyberstalker messages are like, beyond a vague idea. I understand why this is; privacy laws undoubtedly prevent the release of these kinds of messages. However, I was wondering if there was some kind of reference point I can use so the cyberstalker character appears real, and consequently dangerous. Thanks in advance for any help. 76.78.226.24 (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the more humorous side of it, see www.encyclopediadramatica.se (Encyclopedia Dramatica); for Wikipedia's more annoyance version, see Wikipediocracy. Or search "doxed", "d0x" etc. on your favorite social media, search "suicide" and "cyberbullying" on Wikipedia. The main rule is, just keep following the links until you get to the goods - few people ever link to them directly. You're probably better off reading the news articles though - real cyberstalking tends not to look like much, and always has a crew of folks in tow who blame the victim; it's easier to tot up the worst outrages (real or exaggerated) from a dozen articles and have your perp do them all. Wnt (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go to a victims' forum and see the details of what they went through. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I would do it:

1) First the main character innocently strikes up a conversation with the stalker in a chat room.

2) Then the stalker becomes angry when the main character chats with somebody else.

3) They then hack the account of the main character's account, erase their friends list, delete "gifts" from their other friends, and send threatening messages to them, under the main character's name. You could reveal this is steps, say with the main character thinking there was a bug that deleted their friends list, wondering why old friends don't contact them any more, etc.

4) Then the stalker reveals that they know personal info about the main character, leading us to wonder, did they break into their home, or what ?

You take it from here. StuRat (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afterwards: What hapens when a child in an orhpahage reaches the age of 18[edit]

Whats hapens when a child in an orhpahage reaches the age of 18? Do they get kicked out onto the streets? Pass a Method talk 16:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What country are you asking about?184.147.119.141 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, being "kicked out onto the streets" seems totally inimical to the ethos of an orphanage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't get kicked out, they get aged out. If you want to learn American ethics you've got to start with semantics. Wnt (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he's able to work, then it doesn't sound that dramatic. Otherwise, many countries have some form of social benefits. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the child is not self-supporting he gets section-eight housing, food stamps, lifeline/Obamaphone phone service, HEAP for his heating bill, and cash benefits, among other things, in the US. In Britain he learns to pick pockets. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the UK there are a number of governmental and charitable schemes aimed at helping children in care to make an adult life for themselves. Here is the page for the scheme run by Barnardo's, the largest charity in the field. I suspect that there is similar provision in other developed countries. Alansplodge (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Medeis, leave the politics out of it. RNealK (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Politics? You're confusing the Dickens out of me. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's maybe the first time I heard that the UK has less social benefits than the US. Indeed, I have the impression you can live a comfy gov-subsidized life in the UK. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It rather depends on your definition of "comfy". Those with disabilities and/or children benefit most, probably rightly. However there is not so much money to go around at the moment, so even those benefits are under pressure. [7] Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the legal responsibilities of the state with regard to those who were in care as children once they reach adulthood in the UK, see Children Act 1989#Children Leaving Care. Local authorities in the UK - who have primary responsibility for looking after children where parents or similar responsible adults do not exist - have a duty of oversight up until the time the former child in care reaches 25, though what this amounts to in practice varies from authority to authority. With regard to the "comfy government-subsidized life" that may be enjoyed in the UK, single workless people under the age of 25 in normal health will receive the sum of £56.80 per week [8] which is intended to meet all costs except rent. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation - which is a politically independent think tank, but which would tend to be viewed as on the moderate or liberal left by many - estimate the current average cost of living (to maintain what "members of the public think people need to achieve a socially acceptable standard of living") for a single person in the UK (excluding rent) to be £200.64 per week [9]. Valiantis (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a problem. Consider the case of an 18-year old with parents. What portion are fully equipped, at the age of 18, to make it on their own, with no further help from their parents ? If you count those who have parents who pay, in part or in full, for their college, let them continue to live at home for a few years, co-sign a car loan, etc., there's still lots of help given there. And many 18-year olds are still in high school, making it difficult to graduate while supporting themselves. StuRat (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada there are few or no orphanages (these are both now no longer used, for example); orphans are instead put into foster care. However, the kids still face some of the same issues they do elsewhere, as mentioned here with at least the minor difference that they were raised in a family-like atmosphere and would still have informal ties to their foster parents. Matt Deres (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does having friends cost us money or bring us money?[edit]

I wonder whether economists study such stuff. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain any possible connection between the two things? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, friendship implies going out, giving gifts, traveling, and so on. However, it also implies getting connections, job offers, and so on. I wonder whether friendships implies an economical advantage of disadvantage. What makes you think money and friendship are not related? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life is just a slow road to dying - but having friends make it a bit more bearable, so why not ignore any monetary loss or gains and enjoy the friendship? That said, a real friend shouldn't expect you to give gifts or travel when you can't afford to, so it's mostly a moot point anyhow. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Food costs money. But who would forgo food? Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to enter into the discussion whether friendship is important or what I should do. Think about the statistics that claim that a child costs between $150,000 to $250,000. I want a similar thing for friends. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are inescapable expenses connected with children, assuming one is trying to be a good parent. There is not necessarily any expense connected with friendship, as any such expense is a voluntary activity. What have you found on Google so far, about this subject? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any slightly academic link so far. Obviously, with children you are at an economic loss (unless you sell them or force them into child labor). But with friends that's not that clear. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure the children thing is demonstrably an economic loss. But it's certainly reasonable to measure the costs. I would be surprised if much study has been done on the friends question, but there are countless studies on countless subjects, so anything is possible. Did you google something like [how much does a friend cost?] or something more detailed/specific? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When my kids reached the age of majority, I sent each of them a bill for $1 million to partly defray the costs of their existence. The interest alone is worth having, but I can wait. I've given instructions to have the debt deducted from their inheritance. Wait .... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

You had to eat anyway, and if you're giving gifts you're probably receiving gifts also, so that should net out. Having good friends can be good for your health, so you might save on medical costs. Tangible benefits are not the whole story. But it might do you good to read How to Win Friends and Influence People, and see if you can discern where the benefits can be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read Marcel Mauss, Essai sur le Don (On gift-giving (1923-24), a fundamental treatise on the circulation of ostensibly non-economic goods within societies (The Gift: forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. Routledge, 1990). That mastered, read any of several books by Jon Elster. That's a starting point.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

personal criticisms more suited for the talk page

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thanks Nishidani, for the only useful answer. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if someone could measure the cost of putting up with snippy questioners. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same as the cost of putting up with snippy respondents. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you start paying for your answers here, you can start criticising reasonable attempts to answer your questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more with Osman. Let's stick to the actual rules. IBE (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any useful information for Osman, or are you just being a nanny? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing that you accuse others of being a nanny, but ask them to provide me useful information in the same sentence. Add to that that you did not provide any useful information on the thread, but just that whiny soap-boxing. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I and a few others at least tried to give you information. The other editor came here strictly to lecture us and provided nothing useful at all. (I thought that was VW's schtick - maybe he outsourced it.) Lacking the ability to read your mind, we couldn't know ahead of time if what we said was useful to you. But your snippy comment carries with it the idea that somehow we owe you exactly whatever it is you're looking for. When you start paying us, then you can consider imposing such expectations. Until then, keep your trap shut. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Let's be civil, people. 105.236.206.120 (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sniping has been hatted by two users, I can't imagine who thinks it is so important for us to scream across the alley in public like this. μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bizarre unstated premise here is that money is more real or important than the joy/spiritual value or whatever you want to call it of friendship. Money is just paper or coin, things with no intrinsic value at all. Its only value in the end is the joy it brings its holder. Wondering about whether friendship costs you money or not is like responding to the question, "Did the deceased live a happy life?" with, "Who knows? But he left a big carbon footprint." μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You win my "Inspired Comment of the Day" award. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, there is no bizarre premise there. With money out of the equation, people have little incentive to improve or maintain something. My German-shepherd mix had beautiful puppies when I was a grade-schooler. My father said we would give them away. But he placed an ad advertising them for $50 each. I asked him why. He said people who seriously wanted the responsibility of raising a dog would pay he $50. Let's not pretend money does not exist, or it's not important. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only unstated assumption that's indicated here is that economists might have studied this topic. That's no great leap. Academics study all sorts of weird-but-interesting topics. APL (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. (Proverbs 14:20)

—Wavelength (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're asking and I'm not going to prattle on about friends being more important than worldly goods. What I would suggest is looking for something from the guys at Freakonomics. This seems like it would be right up their alley. Dismas|^(talk) 03:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with most of the above about this not being a valid question - the value one gets from companionship may not be quantifiable but the monetary cost of friends can be calculated. Personally, I'd like to know how much less I'd spend if I chose not to have any friends (I'd definitely drink a lot less - so I'd save quite a bit!).
Unfortunately I don’t think any research has (or even “can”) be done to answer this question usefully – people are just too different when it comes to this stuff. Some people may spend more because they have friends and others may spend more if they don’t. 163.202.48.126 (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They used to be much more expensive when "going to the movies with friends" involved tickets, popcorn gouging and gasoline. Even renting a movie is free now. You don't pay postage to talk to distant friends anymore. Physical recreation is about the same price as it would be alone, but with the added value of someone to play with. On top of all that, you can borrow or have a variety of stuff (including cold cash) from friends easier than you could from non-friends.

So no exact numbers, but friends are a sound investment. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renting a movie is free? And plenty of people still go the movies with friends which is rarely free in most countries, however you travel to there and whether or not you choose to buy popcorn (people may also go to their friends house or invite their friends over to watch a movie but I'm not aware many would call that "going to the movies with friends"). Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not "renting", technically, but streaming/downloading. And yes, many people still do go to cinemas, but many more now take advantage of their larger, wider home screens than when they were smaller and square. I wouldn't call this "going to the movies" either, I just meant those who want to see a movie with friends can now pay less for a fairly similar experience. So the cost of that aspect of friendship (if you and your friends have it) has decreased significantly, while the reward (maintaining a semi-communal resource pool) stays about the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If one's neighbors are also some of one's friends, then a neighborhood watch program can save one money.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. But that is only a possibility and it would be hard to assign a general probability. Obviously the amount of potential loss would differ according to circumstance, the chance of being burgled or robbed according to location, the chance of saving dependent on the diligence of friends. Not to mention personal factors such as alarms and locks, where the level of friendship is irrelevant.

The question is clear enough, but the variables multiply further when considering the monetary value of friendship. Circumstances, lifestyle, location, culture... Perhaps a wild extrovert will lavish thousands upon their friends in parties and junkets - a cost, but one of those friends being lavished would view the relationship as a profit source, saving money that might otherwise be spent on entertainment. Depends.

In a wider sense, the question is moot. The true value of friendship is not an economic one. Money can't buy you love, we are told, and is not friendship love? Not necessarily romantic love, though friends may also be lovers, but love in the sense of affection bringing happiness. All the wise people I know or know of rate love as more important than money. Love lifts us up in a way that money cannot. Across the centuries, philosophers rarely talk of money as having any true value, but they ever remind us of the benefits of good company.

At heart, friends - and lovers - bring us riches beyond calculation. Their insights into our life, our thoughts, our emotions, allow us to see ourselves more truly. Our faces reveal our fleeting emotions without our knowledge or control - but our friends can see the secrets we reveal in the flicker of an eyelid or the momentary curve of a smile. They know us in a way that we do not. True friends share our heart, and we theirs. --Pete (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]