Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2023 May 5
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 4 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 6 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
May 5
editStendhal syndrome
editThe article on Stendhal syndrome reads like an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. For example, 1.5 million tourists a year visit the Galleria dell'Accademia to see the famous artworks. Cardiovascular disease alone accounts for 18 million deaths per year. Wouldn’t we expect some people to die or have health problems while viewing art? This syndrome doesn’t sound like very much of a syndrome, but I admit Stendhal had a way with words. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, the article also doesn't claim it is a medical condition. Just because the word "syndrome" in the name doesn't mean it appears in medical textbooks or is a real medical diagnosis, anymore than Murphy's law is a tested scientific principal, or something like that. Things can be called things in common speech (metaphorically, hyperbolically, etc.) and not actually be that thing. --Jayron32 14:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- We report what reliable sources have to say on a topic. It is impossible to decide by armchair theorizing how real the effect is. Scientific studies have established that viewing artworks in a museum can elicit physiological responses, including an increased heart rate.[1][2][3] Such physiological responses are also reported for the experience of being moved by music. In reporting the experience of awe on appreciating a work of art, people may say they were overwhelmed by awe. While I have no source, the assumption that such an overwhelming experience also has physiological correlates is not unreasonable; this may add to the effect of being struck by beauty. All considered, Stendhal's anecdotal report may reflect something real. An altogether different issue is whether the effect is notably stronger for Florentine art. I don't think this has been investigated; it is unclear how to set up an unbiased study. --Lambiam 14:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- People having physiological responses to strong emotions is well documented. That there is a disease caused specifically by the art of Florence is less so. --Jayron32 15:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, no one but you has said anything about the responses being a disease or medical condition per se. Instead the OP seems to be suggesting that if people really had such responses, we would also expect deaths or at least health problems from viewing art. IMO this is somewhat flawed, but it is true that something can be associated with deaths or health problems without itself being a disease or medical condition. For example, although regular exercise is generally a good thing including an overall positive effect on health, people can be killed or suffer health problems from exercise, one reason a lot of guides tell you to speak to a medical professional before beginning regular exercise in certain circumstances. But I don't think it makes sense to call exercise a disease or medical condition. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- They seemed to be objecting to the use of the term "syndrome". My only point is that people use words to mean things in a metaphorical or hyperbolic sense, and that doesn't mean they are trying to say they are the "official, scientific, dictionary-approved definition" of those things. My point was that, just like "Murphy's law" is not meant to be taken as a bedrock scientific principle in the same way that "Ohm's Law" might be, calling something a "syndrome" like "Stendahl syndrome" doesn't mean that anyone should take it to mean it should be held to the same level of rigor as "chronic fatigue syndrome". That's my only point, if the objection as the OP notes in their own words is that "This syndrome doesn’t sound like very much of a syndrome", then maybe the OP is placing too much restriction on how people may use the word "syndrome". I don't really care about the medical aspect at all, it wasn't a feature of my response. It was purely on the ability of people to use words imprecisely. As I did with the word "disease". --Jayron32 17:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- If you look at biographical sources, it appears that Stendhal was already suffering from syphilis well before his so-called experience with art in 1817. The "syndrome" Stendhal experiences sounds very much like the effects of neurosyphilis, ocular syphilis, and otosyphilis. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- They seemed to be objecting to the use of the term "syndrome". My only point is that people use words to mean things in a metaphorical or hyperbolic sense, and that doesn't mean they are trying to say they are the "official, scientific, dictionary-approved definition" of those things. My point was that, just like "Murphy's law" is not meant to be taken as a bedrock scientific principle in the same way that "Ohm's Law" might be, calling something a "syndrome" like "Stendahl syndrome" doesn't mean that anyone should take it to mean it should be held to the same level of rigor as "chronic fatigue syndrome". That's my only point, if the objection as the OP notes in their own words is that "This syndrome doesn’t sound like very much of a syndrome", then maybe the OP is placing too much restriction on how people may use the word "syndrome". I don't really care about the medical aspect at all, it wasn't a feature of my response. It was purely on the ability of people to use words imprecisely. As I did with the word "disease". --Jayron32 17:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, no one but you has said anything about the responses being a disease or medical condition per se. Instead the OP seems to be suggesting that if people really had such responses, we would also expect deaths or at least health problems from viewing art. IMO this is somewhat flawed, but it is true that something can be associated with deaths or health problems without itself being a disease or medical condition. For example, although regular exercise is generally a good thing including an overall positive effect on health, people can be killed or suffer health problems from exercise, one reason a lot of guides tell you to speak to a medical professional before beginning regular exercise in certain circumstances. But I don't think it makes sense to call exercise a disease or medical condition. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- People having physiological responses to strong emotions is well documented. That there is a disease caused specifically by the art of Florence is less so. --Jayron32 15:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Pre-wedding legal advice
editAs is well known, the percentage of marriages that end in divorce in Western societies is high, particularly compared to stats from earlier generations. Obtaining a divorce, particularly where there are children and/or significant assets to consider, is usually a matter about which legal advice is sought by both parties, and such advice is not cheap. But knowing these statistical and financial realities, how many people seek legal advice prior to marriage, to find out exactly what they're getting themselves into legally? And I'm not talking about prenups, although that may well be covered in such advice.
I know that many people consider the very notion of a prenup antithetical to the notion of the love and trust that are meant to form the basis of a marriage, and I would assume that such people would also have a reluctance to get any sort of pre-wedding legal advice. But it is, after all, a binding legal contract like anything else, and harder to get out of than most other contracts. Simple mutual agreement to end the contract is just the first step in a typically lengthy process. Yet, I've never heard of pre-wedding legal advice being much of a thing, except for the very rich. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Although I can't speak from personal experience (being single and non-practicing), I have gathered from reading various things over the years that, in the Anglican church in England at any rate, engaged couples could/can (voluntarily) visit their local vicar for a series of preparatory talks about the various aspects and responsibilities of married life: since divorce is allowed in Anglicanism, the vicar might touch on the subject. Perhaps someone else can enlarge on this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.18.208 (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that's a common practice in many Christian denominations. I assume that such talks are more about the spiritual and moral aspects of marriage, but not the legal aspects. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- A quick google of pre-wedding legal advice indicates that is is a very common service offered by solicitors in England & Wales. DuncanHill (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- How very interesting. I never thought to google it. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Personal observation: As worshippers in the Church of England in the UK, my fiancee and I did attend marriage preparation with our vicar, but I do not recollect any specifically legal advice or any reference to preparation for divorce. I also consulted my solicitor and had them write up a new will in anticipation of marriage, and of possible offspring, but not of divorce. (In this context, marriage annuls any will not written explicitly allowing for the marriage.) I am happy to report that both marriage and offspring have occurred, but not divorce. -- Verbarson talkedits 18:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sure your children will be delighted to know they have occurred. :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Personal observation: As worshippers in the Church of England in the UK, my fiancee and I did attend marriage preparation with our vicar, but I do not recollect any specifically legal advice or any reference to preparation for divorce. I also consulted my solicitor and had them write up a new will in anticipation of marriage, and of possible offspring, but not of divorce. (In this context, marriage annuls any will not written explicitly allowing for the marriage.) I am happy to report that both marriage and offspring have occurred, but not divorce. -- Verbarson talkedits 18:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- How very interesting. I never thought to google it. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- A quick google of pre-wedding legal advice indicates that is is a very common service offered by solicitors in England & Wales. DuncanHill (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that's a common practice in many Christian denominations. I assume that such talks are more about the spiritual and moral aspects of marriage, but not the legal aspects. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
ResolvedWorld Trade Center and lightning
editCould both of the Twin Towers have taken lightning strikes or was it always the North Tower? The South Tower obviously didn’t have a spire. Hmm1994 (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Tall buildings will be struck by lightning during thunderstorms, whether they have a spire or not. Presumably, both towers were adequately equipped with lightning conductors. --Lambiam 06:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Since that's true, you would think that a photo would exist showing lightning striking 2 WTC, but I wasn't able to find one in Google Images. Certainly the decision to reuse the name World Trade Center for the replacement buildings has made such searches harder, though! --174.89.12.187 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- The name "World Trace Center" is a licensed franchise name, just like KFC. There are many WTC's around the world. --Lambiam 07:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- How many of them have, or had, a North Tower and a South Tower? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- The name "World Trace Center" is a licensed franchise name, just like KFC. There are many WTC's around the world. --Lambiam 07:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- As the expression goes, 1 WTC (with its spire) "acts like a lightning rod", thus attracting lightning that otherwise would strike 2 WTC. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Rarely, but occasionally, lightning is initiated by an upward leader from a tall building.[4] A nearby spire may attract downward leaders but does not repel upward leaders. --Lambiam 09:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Mentioning a photo of the lightning strike, keep in mind that there are two very popular "photos" of a lightning strike on the North Tower. Both of those images are computer generated. They are not actual photos. But, as with just about everything on the Internet, widespread use of the images has lost the fact that they were computer generated and they are now distributed as photos of a lightning strike on the tower rather than a computer generated image of a lightning strike. The main point is that expecting a photo of a strike on Tower 2 could be misplaced because of the theory that there are common photos of a strike on Tower 1. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Since that's true, you would think that a photo would exist showing lightning striking 2 WTC, but I wasn't able to find one in Google Images. Certainly the decision to reuse the name World Trade Center for the replacement buildings has made such searches harder, though! --174.89.12.187 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Including the spire, the North Tower was about 100 m higher than the South Tower. The separation between the centres of the towers was about 120 m. I expect the North Tower would have drawn some lightning away from the South Tower, but the height difference was too small or the separation too large to draw away all lightning. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Two concepts used in lightning protection are the "Cone of protection" and the "Rolling sphere." A tall grounded metal object or lightning rod might protect things within a cone extending out at a 45 degree angle. The protection can also be judged by rolling an imaginary sphere, with a radius determined by the peak amperage to be protected against, and the degree of protection expected, between the lightning rods, cables, or grounded metal architectural elements. Things the sphere cannot touch are protected. It is a specialized area, with degrees of protection and not absolutes. See NFPA 780: Standard for the installation of lightning protection, published by the National Fire Protection Association. There is in Europe the IEC 62305 Protection against lightning, published by the International Electrotechnical Commission. There is also "The art and science of lightning protection" by Martin Uman, Cambridge University Press, 2008. Edison (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC).