March 20

This question seems like an obvious one—but I'm having trouble finding answers (perhaps because it might be prone to controversy—but, still, I think it's a legitimate query):

Why does realism (i.e. photorealism) seem to be associated only with traditions in Western visual art? Strict representation seems to be the most intuitive approach to visual art—and the most straightforward criteria by which visual art can be assessed—but, most cultures seem to have traditions consisting of more stylized visual art forms, to the exclusion of more realistic approaches. Am I wrong?

Alfonse Stompanato (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consider that maybe, let's take a very early example, Egyptians tried to portray people completely realistically and not in a stylized form, but just weren't talented enough to? I mean, by your standard, every 6 year old draws in a "stylized" form, and not a realistic form, even though a realistic one would "make more sense". You understand what I'm getting at. If you want to know how people long ago lived and thought, just think of little children. 82.113.121.93 (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several serious scholarly tomes published about the "canon of proportions" in ancient Egyptian art, analyses of how Akhenaten changed things somewhat for a relatively brief period, etc., though we don't seem to have much specifically about this on Wikipedia, from what I can turn up. 10:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a school of painting in

I saw a TV documentary which suggested that realistic depictions didn't happen in Europe until artists started using optical projections as a drawing aid. See Camera obscura. Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A boring and tautological answer is "different styles of art flourish under conditions that promote them." The art historian would point out that the Western "realist" forms of art are no less stylized, specific to their period, and no more "objective" than the forms of art found elsewhere. Even in Western art, realism is hardly universal. Consider the difference between Ancient Greek sculpture (extremely "realistic" in its attention to proportions, etc.—

Art in ancient Greece

as a whole you see a whole variety of style of art (as one would expect for a period so long and so fruitful).

I think it is probably not the case that artists in other cultures couldn't have made "photorealistic" art if they had been trained to, had a tradition of it, thought it was what one should do. It is certainly the case that artists of those cultures can do it now, and I doubt it is because raw artistic talent has increased in those countries. I am not an art historian in the slightest, but I would suggest that the institutions of art—how it is taught, who pays for it, what it is used for, how "fads" and "trends" work within its dynamics, how it interacts with the larger culture in which it is embedded—probably is where we put the credit, here. The argument has been made in many other realms that the reason that Europe had such great diversity in philosophy, art, writing, culture, etc., was in part because of its long periods of very carved-up political ruling, where each little state had its own power structure, its own patrons, its own system of society. There are some limitations with such an argument (it is not like the rest of the world was exactly homogeneous), but it probably has some merit. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at just one aspect of realism: size. In ancient times, size was used to indicate importance. Thus, the king and queen always had to be bigger than everyone else (as in a modern chess board). This precludes the use of perspective to actually show distance correctly. Thus, the movement toward equality for all may have also been reflected in more realistic art. I don't think it's an accident that the Greeks and Romans, who at least flirted with the idea of democracy, had the most realistic art, while the Egyptians had neither. StuRat (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While an amusing theory, this doesn't have any correlation with any historical or artistic understanding that I have ever seen. There are large and small depictions of kings and queens in every culture. The idea that "in ancient times" (??) kings and queens (??) had to universally be depicted hugely is completely silly. Go to any good art museum, StuRat, and you will see there is a lot more variation than this! --Mr.98 (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to show me some examples ? (Note that I didn't say that depictions of kings and queens are always "huge", only that they tended to be larger than commoners, when both are included in the same peice.) StuRat (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has mentioned the "invention" of perspective only in the West, from about 1413 according to the article Perspective (graphical). 78.147.151.89 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that a talented artist could have made a realistic picture without understanding the science and math behind perspective, just like an author can write a good book and yet not have a clue as to how to diagram a sentence. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today everyone is familiar with perspective and has seen countless examples of perspective drawing and photos. But before it was invented, like any invention which seems obvious after the event, it didnt happen. Can you supply an example of a perspective picture before 1400? This drawing File:Qingming Festival 2.jpg shows stunning realism for something so early, but so this and other other Chinese paintings on close inspection look like they are based on isometric principals, not perspective. 78.149.133.100 (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a wall painting uncovered in

Vesuvius in 79 AD. It's a portrayal of the entrance to a theater, and it appears to use perspective, to me, with a vanishing point in the lower, right corner: [1]. StuRat (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

There is not enough depth in the scene to tell, so nothing that suggests it is anything more than an isometric projection. 78.149.167.173 (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of depth, as near the bottom, where the inside arch is drawn so much smaller than the front arch. StuRat (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that by the inside arch you mean the thin black line. That could be anything, most likely a decoration on the far wall. It is similar to the similar elongated shape on the right. Even if it was an arch, it may simply have been smaller in the scene depicted. Suppossing this was an example of perspective, then why only one example? Why wasnt Roman art full of perspective after it was discovered? The picture is made to look as if you were looking up at it, but you could do that with an isometric projection. Sorry, not enough evidence. 84.13.22.69 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to why one artist might have figured out how to do perspective, and it didn't get passed down, I can think of several reasons:

1) The artist may have simply done it at an intuitive level, and not have been able to describe his technique to others.

2) They may have jealously guarded their new technique, for fear that competititors would steal their customers.

3) It might have simply been unfashionable to do realistic art. Just as saints were at one time all drawn with halos, there may have been other symbolism that was considered more important than realism. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Gombrich was of the same opinion as the person who started this thread, but perhaps not 100% right. Some further examples of a Non-Western realist art: Japanese art, Maya wallpaintings at Bonampak, Mayan, Peruvian paintings/drawings on ceramics, Benin Bronzes (now seen as pre-contact). Post-contact: Afghan art after Alexander the Great, some Islamic painting (in response to Renaissance Art), Chinese Christian art after the Jesuits. The invention of the true perspective in painting still seems to be a Renaissance thing.--Radh (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I was just wondering when people started parting their hair. I've googled it and found nothing.149.125.176.38 (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to comb, the oldest combs found date to around 5000 years ago (although that doesn't mean they didn't exist before - we just haven't found any from earlier). I would guess that people started parting their hair at around the same time combs were invented (without a comb, you pretty much have to have dreadlocks or similar (or really short hair), so it can't have been sooner, and parting hair seems a pretty obvious way to comb your hair to me, so I doubt it was much after). --Tango (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can part my hair with just my fingers. It looks a bit messy, but when I forget to bring a comb, it's better than nothing. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only because you have non-matted hair. If you never combed it, you would develop dreadlocks (or something similar), and you couldn't part those meaningfully. --Tango (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you did not wash it. I never comb my hair and it does not get matted. Granted it is also less then 1" long. Googlemeister (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The former article "Part (hairstyle)" is currently a redirect, but here is the version that existed before an AFD discussion redirected: [2] It has references, so you may be able to follow some of those refs to see if they lead anywhere. --Jayron32 20:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the history of "western" fashions, center-parting became the prevailing publicly-visible style for women in the 1830s, and especially the 1840s (see File:Maria Carolina di Borbone, principessa delle Due Sicilie.jpg). Some center-parting also occurred in the 1400s, but women usually covered most of their hair then. Churchh (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a request for legal advice. Under England & Wales law, is there such a thing as a "step Will" and if so what is it? - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of a "step will" and Google doesn't find anything useful, but that isn't surprising since "step will" appears frequently in everyday language ("the next step will be to...", etc.) and just "law" isn't enough to narrow down the search. Unless someone hear has heard of one, we're going to need more context. Where have you heard the phrase? --Tango (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I've had a fair bit to do with wills in recent years, and it's not a term I have ever heard. As I suspect you have discovered, a pretty diligent Google search reveals no official-looking use of the term. If I was asked to guess the meaning, I would probably take it to signify either a will made with the intention of providing for step-relatives, particularly step-children, of whom there are many these days but who have no automatic right of inheritance from step-parents under the intestacy rules, or possibly a will in which the provisions are laid out as a series of steps and the eventual distribution of assets will depend on how the conditions in each step are fulfilled. But this is pure speculation. Is there a context in which you came across the term? Karenjc 13:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I heard of it in the second of these two meanings. If a, then b, else if c, then d else e. I hadn't heard the term before. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor have I. I think the term isn't in wide use because many, if not most, wills have such things in place. For example, for married folks, a standard will would be to leave everything to their spouse, unless their spouse pre- or co-deceased them, in which case everything would go to the children, unless their children pre- or co-deceased them, in which case... etc. Matt Deres (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be STEP - the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (website), a professional group for people involves in wills, estates, and related materials? I haven't raked through their site, but they seem to offer courses and certification for such people, so I could imagine someone saying they're a "registered STEP will writer" or that they've been on a "STEP will course". -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watching the show Pawn Stars, I notice that some people are reassured or otherwise made to favor a deal more by an offer of money as cash rather than (I assume) check. What is more desirable about cash versus whatever other payment methods may be used? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 12:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A cheque has to be paid into a bank account, which leaves a paper trail. Cash doesn't. That means you can easily get away with not paying tax on cash deals but can't with cheque payments (this is usually illegal, of course). A more legitimate reason would be to avoid bank fees associated with cheques or to avoid the delay in getting access to the money. The first reason is the real one, usually, I think. The other possibility is that people are favouring cash over credit (ie. being invoiced and paying at the end of the month, or paying by instalments over the next year, or whatever). In that case, you can expect a discount for cash since money now is worth more than money later (the time value of money). That doesn't apply if the credit option would involve paying interest, though, since not paying the interest would be the discount. You aren't usually charged interest when invoiced and given a month to pay, or similar, though. --Tango (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've also left out the fact that checks

can bounce, but cash cannot. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

True. Cheque guarantee cards are commonly used to prevent that problem when using a cheque to pay a company. --Tango (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tango has hit the nail on the head when he mentions time. That's why people are in the pawn shop to begin with. It's probably mostly psychological (How else do you expect a pawn shop to pay out?) but that's probably the urge that's being played at here.

It's actually surprising how many people are super eager to get their money on that show. Sometimes he tells them straight out that for one reason or another a pawn shop is not the most profitable place to sell an item, but they do it anyway for a fraction of what it's worth because they want the money right now. APL (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen the show, but our article on it suggests people go there to sell items. Why would anyone go to a pawn shop to sell an item? You go to a pawn shop to pawn it. That is, take out a loan secured to it. If you want to sell it, go to a shop that specialises in second hand whatever-it-is and you'll get a far better deal. --Tango (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, even worse than a check can be a prize. At times game shows give away total crap, yet claim it's worth far more than you could actually get for it. That "one-of-a-kind" sculpture they say is worth $1000 may only sell for $100, and yet you're responsible for paying income tax on the "retail value", meaning you lose money in the deal, unless you can convince the tax assessor that the original valuation was wrong. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One advantage of cash over cheques is that if you have an overdraft and pay the cheque into your bank account you may not be able to withdraw the full value after it has cleared. Cash in your hand can go to the pub and have a good time with you that very night. DuncanHill (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Pawn Stars" is not a game show. It's is a reality show about a pawn shop. It's clearly heavily directed and heavily edited, but the people on the show are supposedly off-the-street people who have showed up to either buy or (usually) sell something at a pawn shop. APL (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Pawn Stars" shop is in Las Vegas, and some sellers may wish to get their hands on whatever small amount of cash is offered so they can rush back to the casino and gamble it away to stoke their gambling addiction or to avoid a creditor breaking their fingers for nonpayment of debts. Edison (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One item to consider -- which is not related to pawn shops or game show prizes -- is that a purchase made in cash can be advantageous to the seller; the buyer can find it difficult to get his money back. I'll illustrate this from my own experience. Several years ago, my wife & I bought a car for her which was priced low enough that I could put the purchase on my credit card. The dealer refused to take my credit card, explaining that I could at a later date go to my bank & have them stop the payment. And then there is the cost banks charge for processing credit card payments, which I believe is 7%. Cash makes for a simple, clean transaction. -- llywrch (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How feasible of a job would doing voice-overs for radio advertisements, etc., be for high school/college income, and what would be its pros and cons? What other jobs are there in voice-over besides radio/television advertising? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movies and video games often need voiceover, and your college may have programs in both. Of course a college department wouldn't pay much for such work. Anyway, I can think of several reasons this isn't a great prospect for a college student. Unlike a normal job, a VO actor gets an agent, provides them with a reel for potential customers to review, and then waits ... and waits ... and waits for a call. There is 0 income during that time. You may be asked by the agent to audition for a role, meaning you have to go into a studio and act out the script provided, on your own dime; and then you may or may not be selected against the 20 other people you are competing against. Depending on where you live, there may be very little demand for voiceover work, which reduces the prospect of income even further. We have an article,

voiceover actor. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way, I'm not intending to discourage you from pursuing this — if you have an interest in the field, then go for it, absolutely. Just don't think you're going to get more than "a pittance" for a long time in the way of salary. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is stating the obvious... the folks who do voice-over work for ads on the radio are almost always the station's DJs, who are available, already trained on the equipment, and presumably have decent voices for the work. Some are the more experienced DJs, who provide some name recognition (at a higher cost), while some are the less experienced or fill-in jockeys who are doing it for less pay, but who need the exposure and experience. I was actually seriously considering starting that kind of thing as a career and attended some workshops on it. The field is not all that difficult to break in to, but it's not one you're likely to make good money on for at least a few years. Matt Deres (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at all obvious to me and I am sceptical about it. Radio ads are produced by advertising companies and then sent to stations. I don't see why the DJs would have anything to do with the production. --Tango (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think Matt Deres should cite a source for the questionable claim, and the DJs obviously do near-zero voiceover work for national advertising campaigns; but it sounds likely to me that they would do some VO work for local companies. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must be full of questions today (three questions in a row!). With campus radio stations in the US, how commonly do campus radio stations feature local news and weather coverage, such as reporting from news scenes, severe weather coverage, etc. If it is not common, why would the radio stations not feature such programming (in addition to normal programming) as part of experience for broadcast media students? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is

WP:OR, but I never saw my university's radio station do any local news coverage; they read off nationwide news feeds. Local news coverage would require local reporting and journalism, presumably provided by the students, which implies a journalism teaching program; and at my university, that was available at the college newspaper. I think only one radio station person was really interested in doing journalism; the others interested in journalism gravitated to the newspaper. There's no reason of course why any university with both programs couldn't incorporate the radio station students into their journalism efforts. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

More OR, our campus newspaper office was about 20 feet away from the college radio station but I don't remember anyone who worked on both (although they shared the newsfeed). Perhaps the kind of people who are attracted to college radio are simply too culturally different from the journalism crowd. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More OR. My campus radio studio many years ago had a news service and national and state news were read from there, along with weather. There was little or no local news reporting. Guys went on the radio either because they were geeks who liked the gadgets, or because they wanted to go into a career in broadcasting, or because it was a good way to meet girls who called in or visited the studio. This was back in the days when it would have been very expensive to have a remote radio link, so a "roving reporter" would have had to phone in a story from a pay phone or come back to the studio to report. Edison (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even more OR. I think it depends on the station and the ideology of the staff at the time. At

1980 election, several presidential candidates came to town, and we covered their appearances just like every other station did — perhaps even more so, because we didn't have to interrupt for commercials. On election night, we went wall-to-wall news, with staffers at polling places and the vote-counting locations, cutting in and out with network news. (We were a non-commercial affiliate of the American Information Network.) And on January 20, 1981, we went all-news, all-day, covering Ronald Reagan's inauguration and the release of the Iranian hostages, both using the network and local reaction coverage. — Michael J 23:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Yet more OR: I went to a small technical school. The radio station existed mainly to provide a test signal for the electrical engineering department, so it tended to broadcast whatever the person fiddling around with the system was interested in. Some of those guys were quite creative; others had lousy taste in music. --Carnildo (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Nazi Germany annex parts of the Slovak Republic? I know that Hungary annexed the lower third and that there were some adjustments with the Polish border. I seem to recall that Bratislava/Preßburg was to be somewhat incorporated because of its large German population, but I'm not sure. I also came across this map: [3] but I can't find the legend.
Moreover, was Slovakia intended to be an independent nation after the war or there were plans for it to be annexed by Hungary or Germany (I know that Nazi plans where usually nebulous)--151.51.62.111 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This[4] page has details about the Karpatendeutsche (Carpathian German) minority in Slovakia and says that on 14th March 1939, when "the Slovak Provincial Parliament declared independence. The Slovak Republic lost territory...Germany received 43 square kilometers with 16,000 people, (Engerau, and the small city of Theben/Devin)." The Wikipedia article on Petržalka (a suburb of Bratislava or Pressburg in German) says "Petržalka is annexed by Nazi Germany on 10 October 1938 on the basis of the Munich agreement. It is renamed Engerau, and the Starý most bridge becomes a border bridge between the First Slovak Republic and Nazi Germany. Several thousand inhabitants of Slovak, Czech, and Hungarian ethnicity have to stay in Petržalka. They are considered citizens of Nazi Germany but are persecuted. The occupiers closed down all Slovak schools, and the German language replaces Slovak."

This[5] document confirms that: "The Germans did not occupy Pressburg but the bridgehead of the city, on the right bank of the Danube, Ligetfalu (Petrzalka, Engerau) was taken away from the CSR by Germany on October 10, 1938 without any previous notification. It was a great shock for the four-day old autonomous Slovak government, but the Germanophile Slovaks did not dare to disagree with Hitler" (p.157). "Hitler, accompanied by Marshall Goring, visited Engerau on October 25. This was not the only community which the Germans took away from the Slovak part of the CSR in 1938. On November 24 the German troops occupied, without incident and among the ovation of the predominantly German population, the zone of Devin (Theben, Deveny) on the left bank of the Danube at the estuary of the Morava River. It was considered a rectification of the borderline. (The Danube was the border at that point with Austria on the right bank.) As a consequence of this action, the waterworks of Pressburg fell in German hands 2 or 3 km from the city limits. The City of Pressburg requested that the government of the Reich rectify the borderline by several hundred meters to regain their aqueduct. This was the same friendly German government which two weeks earlier had occupied Ligetfalu" (p.158). Ligetfalu is the Hungarian name for Petrzalka / Engerau. Alansplodge (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak territory was used as a bargaining chip in negotiations between Germany, Poland, and Hungary. In the event of a partition, early plans called for annexation up to the river

eric 20:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Because drunk people don't complain about their pain as much? Ethanol is a mild sedative and analgesic, so I imagine the idea was to provide a sort of general relief of aches and pains. --Jayron32 19:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems to be used to revive people that are barely concious too... --Tango (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is good for what ail's ya... But seriously, I am not sure that pre-mid-20th century medical science would be recognizable as particularly "medical" or "sciency" in any way. Remember that until the 1940's they were still lobotomizing people. It was probably the "Take two aspirin and call me in the morning"-type diagnosis; i.e. "Damned if I know how to fix him. Give him a shot of liquor and see what he does" is probably the depth of the science behind such treatments. --Jayron32 20:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as an aside, the lobotomies were developed in the 30s, and were common in the 40s and 50s; incidence decreased after that, but they were still performed in the 80s. As an ever further aside, I once worked with someone who'd had one done in the 80s. She thought it was successful: it enabled her to lead a normal life and was better than being on drugs. So perhaps the idea's not entirely daft...? Gwinva (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not being of age to drink, I wouldn't know, but perhaps it is the (or so I hear) burning-like feeling of drinking high-alcohol-volume drinks that revives them. This is probably a worthless answer (as a shot in the dark), but still a theory. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy was considered a 'tonic' - in small quantities it induces a warm, sleepy, relaxed feeling that can offset some of the negative symptoms of things like head colds or flus. any curative properties come from its ability to help you relax and get some uninterrupted sleep, but don't discount the value of that.

This Google-cached page may provide some perspective (the webpage appears to be down). A Google search for medicinal brandy seems to provide a couple of useful links as well. Matt Deres (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here we go. Our article on

Armagnac (a kind of brandy) seems to be what you want. In short, yes, it was definitely prescribed for medicinal use. Matt Deres (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Until WWII, brandy or rum was used to treat hypothermia. It does make you feel warmer, but actually cools your body core. A good discussion here[6]. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A 19th century doctor giving brandy as a remedy would have been less harmful than the almost universal practice of bleeding (which quieted a person down due to loss of blood) and purging with a poisonous mercury compound calomel (which had dramatic effects like causing teeth to fall out and causing nonstop drooling). Give me brandy instead any day. The following is for historical reference only and is not presented as medical advice. An 1800 publication said(page 245) "The stimulating nature of alcohol has been generally acknowledged" and said it could stimulate the heart muscles, but mostly noted in vitro experiments with animal tissue. An 1849 medical publication said "The value of alcohol as a medicine is universally acknowledged," and said "brandy, wine and porter" were the most valuable forms. It was said to be "a pure stimulant" imparting "temporary vigor and exhilaration." Its use was recommended for a variety of ailments. A popular book on natural science from 1869 said that alcohol in small quantities affects the body "like medicine" but in large quantities "like poison. It was said to "increase gastric juices" aiding digestion, to "excite the brain and nerves" to "accelerate the circulation"to "strengthen the weary and him who is exhausted bodily or mentally." The book noted the negative reaction which followed such stimulation.The Lancet (British) (1872) noted that alcohol was sometimes given "in cases of atrophy in children and in tuberculosis" and for "marasmus (severe infant malnutrition)" It was then used for "wasted children" to make them "fatter and stronger." 1877 book by a medical doctor who was an official of the American Medical Association and allied with the temperance movement noted that alcohol had little food value and little medical value, except as a stimulant, with paradoxical properties as a depressant, that it had many impurities and lacked standardized formula, and that it was subject to abuse if self-administered. The book noted that thousands of doctors regularly prescribed it (pretty popular with the patients, I would expect). An 1883 scholarly paper concluded that alcohol's "chief therapeutic use" was as a stimulant, a temporary imparter of power, which shall enable the system to stand some strain of like duration." It might be given in event of temporary reduction of heart action or fainting, exhaustion, or blood loss. It could aid in food digestion, in fevers, and in typhoid, to treat snakebite or certain poisons, or to lessen pain. He cautioned against treating depression with it. An 1888 publication discussed medicinal brandy specifically and seems very much on point. Brandy was then the first choice as a medicinal source of alcohol, as a stimulant and nutrient. publications noted common adulteration of supposed brandy and said just use pure alcohol diluted and flavored if alcohol was desired for medicinal purposes. Some of these seem to be POV from the temperance movement. An 1899 publication said the earlier physicians regularly prescribed alcohol "to combat shock," but that that use was discredited. Edison (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, it's very interesting. So doctors of that time had the impression that it was a stimulant, despite the evidence provided by drunks in gutters... It seems they were using it in a similar way to the modern use of

epinephrine (although epinephrine isn't used as often). --Tango (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The tradition of using distilled spirits for medicinal purposes goes a lot farther back. In fact one of the earliest uses of it was medicinal, hence the name aqua vitae. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually brandy does have a medicinal use which doesn't require drinking it: see Clothes_hanger#Unintended_uses. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, alcohol as an antiseptic is a valid use. --Tango (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In his 1989 letter to the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett invites business owners to contact him if they want to sell their company. He then goes on to say this:

We can promise complete confidentiality and a very fast answer - customarily within five minutes - as to whether we're interested.

What precisely is it Buffett looks at that allows him to make the decision so quickly? I suppose it has to do, at least partially, with finding a solid performance during the last ten years or so, but is it known more specifically how he values the business? —Bromskloss (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"as to whether we're interested" doesn't mean "we'll decide whether to buy in 5 days" - it means "we'll decide whether to start thinking about whether to buy in 5 days" -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the booklet "Warren Buffet and the Interpretation of Financial Statements" (a play on the original "Interpretation of Financial Statements" by Benjamin Graham). It's an extremely simple and short book that captures the simple and short way Warren looks at non-financial businesses. Warren looks for steady revenue and profitability (in good times and bad), a good return on assets and conservative financing. He also prefers it to be a simple business that he can understand and that it operates in a market that isn't going away anytime soon. As long as those things are true, he will consider bidding on it, allowing the price he offers to determine his expected return (so begins the real thinking that Finlay mentioned above). My own interpretation is that he maintains this kind of folksy, non-threatening demeanor as part of his strategy appeal to private business owners who deeply care about the business they have created. He rarely changes the operations of a business and rarely involves himself in them. He rarely sells off chunks of the business or attempts to merge it with Berkshire's existing businesses. He limits his meddling to hiring - and setting up proper compensation incentives for - management. I believe that long term private owners would prefer to sell to Berkshire - and would accept a discounted price - because they know it's likely that their creation and legacy will continue in a largely unchanged way.NByz (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's also recently been talking about the scale of the business being an important factor. It's simply not worth his time to buy Furniture stores anymore, however successful and central to Berkshire's culture they might end up. NByz (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His standard answer is that he looks for companies that have great management, a strong competitive position (a "moat"), reliable revenue streams, and a price that is far enough below fair value to provide a margin of safety. As for fair value, he is reported to calculate a discounted cash-flow that is based on what he calls "owner's income," which is EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) minus capital expenditures, and disregarding "one-time expenses" in annual accounting unless thay happen often enough to be a red flag. Using actual "owner's income" numbers for the previous five to ten years, he estimates a growth rate applied to the next five years, a smaller growth rate for the five years after that, and a low "perpetuity" growth rate after that (roughly the long-term expected rate of real GDP). He discounts this via a rate of 8%-12% depending on the reliability of revenue streams and baseline generic estimates of future cost of capital. The total derived provides the value of the company, which is reduced by a margin of safety to provide the purchase bid. 63.17.86.9 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, you should know that he never invested in technology companies, for exmaple, since his primary criterion was a good, solid, idea of how the company would be (and the world with respect to that company) ten years later. So, anything, such as high tech stocks, that no one has any idea of their market ten years later, he would not buy. By contrast, a family owned, 70 year old, traditional xyz manufacturer, now that he could start trying to picture. The main question he would ask within 5 minutes is: what is your durable competititve advantage. If the voice on the other end says "we, er, we always put 100% into everything we do, we work with such passion and dedication that, uh [click]. Hello? Hello?"
At least, that's how imagine it :). If you would like to know more about making a comapny that Warren Buffett will want to buy, you can leave an e-mail address for me, in a properly obfuscated form (for example email -at- gmail dotcom), so that it doesn't get picked up by spammers, and we can see where it goes from there. 92.229.14.140 (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.109 (talk) [reply]

Hi, I've been trying to read up on the food situation after World war II, when there was serious shortage of food in the years 1945 - 1948 and I came across something very strange.

Argentina, traditionally one of the worlds largest food exporters, especially during that era, were burning corn to use for fuel, at the same time that people were starving in Europe and Asia.

Why was there such a shortage in of fuel in Argentina in the years after the war, surely now with the needs of the war over the must have been more than enough oil to spare, and especially to trade for precious food?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of the world was rebuilding, which requires oil, and the US economy was booming then. Also, Argentina probably didn't want to get dependent on the nations that later became

1973 oil embargo, they may have been proven right. StuRat (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

That is an extremely interesting question. Chapter 6 of this [7] book is dedicated to the era. It's affordable, recently published (2003) and, according to this [8] link, the author's area of study "...focuses on grain farmers, the state, and changing economic and political conditions between the two world wars in Argentina." This political and economic situation should set the stage for - and hopefully directly address - your question. I should also mention that your question has encouraged me to add that book to my Amazon wish list; Argentina's history is very interesting and in many ways is a counter-factual to the history of my own home country, Canada. NByz (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Famines are very rarely due to an absolute shortage of food on a world scale. The food shortages after WWII, at least in Europe, were due to economic, transport and infrastructure issues, not the non-existence of food. Argentina may well have had a surplus of corn. Additionally the increase in oil requirements to get the French and German economies moving again probably outweighed the oil savings through not needing to fight. There were still a huge number of troops in Germany needing to be supplied and transported, even if they are not fighting. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. So far I've been able to ascertain the U.S. was putting much pressure on Argentina including trade restrictions in 1944 and 1945, finally leading to Argentina yielding and declaring war on Germany & Japan in March 1945. Relations became seriously strained again in late 1945 and 1946 when the US worked hard to depose Argentine President/Dictator Peron (that they saw as a crypto Nazi). In the midst of this we have the UK who was unwilling to impose sanctions against Argentina because they needed Argentine food, mainly beef. In 1947 they reneged on the agreement the US had pushed on them, (and on countries such a Sweden), not to trade arms for food (Argentina seemed to be in a paranoid phase, the U.S. was trying to interfere in the internal politics of Argentina, was sending weapons to neighboring Brazil and embargoing weapons to Argentina, while Argentina in turn was rapidly expanding the size of their armed forces). However, I've also seen that the Argentinians themselves during this time were putting restrictions on exports, for whatever reasons. The book on Argentina was a good idea, I'll have a go at it. As for oil I don't know, but my gut feeling is that the European economies were not oil based, they were still running on coal.See this.[9] And although France was being reconstructed, the same did not apply to Germany until mid 1947 or possible 1948, see this.[10] As for food surpluses existing elsewhere that is very accurate, for example the Swedish fishing fleet was working part time until 1948 due to lack of paying customers, at some point in time the Dutch had to start destroying the harvest because Germany was occupied and not in a position to pay for the food it traditionally bough since they were under production restrictions and their country divided into hermetically sealed occupation zones. Meanwhile in the U.S. they were destroying potatoes[11] while during that very same winter in Germany under Allied occupation several hundred thousand starved to death[12]. It seems a bit messy to understand the whole thing for now, but perhaps it might have been a question of a reluctance in Congress to release funds for purchase of more than the very minimum of food-stuffs for the enemy aliens? --Stor stark7 ^Speak 01:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Sweden, and in Swedish TV you can see quite a few American shows. One thing that I simply cannot understand is the doll-like appearance of men and women, especially talk-show hosts. Have a look at this picture, for instance: [13]. To me, and - I would be surprised if I were wrong - probably most Europeans over 18 years of age, the female looks more like an ever-smiling, plastic doll than a living human being with true emotions. (And the man is not far from this as well.) Please - believe me - I have absolute nothing against Americans, and I truly believe that everyone should dress the way she likes. But although I try my very best, I cannot understand why American TV show hosts want to look like this? (Now I am only speaking for my self, but when it comes to women I find they attractive when they look natural, as humans do, without makeup and strange clothes. And when they are not ever-smiling (unless they really are happy all the time - maybe Americans really are that happy).) I would guess that most mature Europeans almost could laugh at this American "phenomenon", and I find it very hard to understand in what way Americans are different. What is so different about the American culture? And again: please, trust me: I have nothing against Americans. I simply want to understand. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how do Swedish talk-show hosts dress? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Less like I tried to describe above. Actually, I almost never watch TV, for most programmes in Swedish TV are ... sick (as I guess the case is world-wide). You know people arguing and huring eachother without any reasons, a lot of sex, very little respect and understanding etc. It has to "sell". However, public-service TV is still a bit better. (In Sweden the public-service TV company is called SVT.) But, to provide a couple of screenshots from SVT: [14] and [15]. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI, the woman in the picture is

thighmaster for a number of years, I wouldn't be surprised if she's had a little plastic surgery. Dismas|^(talk) 00:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops... I guess she was older than I thought when I used to watch Three's Company as a kid. Somers is 63. Dismas|^(talk) 00:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture in link 17 is not from a talk show but from the 1990s version of the hidden camera prank show Candid Camera, the joke in this case being that people at the license bureau were given offensive license plates. A sweater vest like the guy in link 19 is wearing would seem incongruously casual, like they picked some guy up off the street to host the show. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Most Swedes would think wearing a suit just because you are a TV show host is like: "Hey, I am the president of the United States". In Sweden, TV hosts would not wear a suit unless it is some really, really major traditional, classy, formal event, such as the

Nobel banquet. Nevertheless, I still do not understand why women tend to look so utterly plastic and unnatural. (I mean 50+ and trying to imitate a plastic doll?) I guess that many Americans react as I do, but it is still accpted. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the kind of thing that feminists began griping about in the late 60s (if not much earlier), but it persists. The archetype would probably be

Wheel of Fortune was challenging, "because you have to know the whole alphabet." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

As backwards as this might sound, I don't think it's for the male demographic that women look this way. I don't know any guy (I'm a 30 something American) that likes the look of plastic women. They may like plastic women but not the look thereof. I think it's the women who find the plastic look most interesting in a "look what she can afford to do to try and look younger" sort of way. It's a sign of wealth and opulence. The older looking woman from the second link looks like she would fit in on an American news program but only if she were a more respected newswoman. Then she'd be able to "get away" with looking older. As my reference for this last statement, Diane Sawyer and Connie Chung. Dismas|^(talk) 01:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds quite reasonable (but, of course, a bit "sad"). Personally I really do not like when women alter their appearance. I think they look the best (and least "silly"/"immature"/"superficial") when they look natural, as human beings do look. (Also, I think that the wonder of (sexual) attraction is much about the insight that it is a real, living human being, just like youself, that has opened herself to you.) Now, of course, I am 22 years old, and like women of my own age, so I cannot really tell for sure exactly how much I would dislike the plastic appearance, but I sure would not like it. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, without getting into who actually wants plastic people, from a feminist viewpoint "women should look more natural and not alter their appearance, which looks silly and superficial" is not a great improvement on idolising barbie. After all, you alter your appearance. Do you think all men who shave or trim their beards look silly and superficial? This isn't intended as an attack on you at all, just saying not to be surprised if women don't generally look very happy when you make this argument. 86.177.124.127 (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is actually a very good point. But even if it is not a great improvement, I think we can agree that it at least is a small improvement. I mean, I shave my beard, but I do nothing else, and I am afraid that there is quite a lot else going on here (excessive makeup, daring clothing (even in 50+ persons, who should be more mature than that), maybe even plastig surgery, etc.). --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you provided pics of your public broadcast station, here's a pic from ours,

tuxedo ? StuRat (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Gwen Ifill looks pretty casually dressed in that picture. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that's a

pants suit, made infamous by Hillary Clinton. She has the top unbuttoned, but probably just because she had gained some weight and it looked too tight buttoned (and she didn't want to give us an "eyefull"). StuRat (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe it is linked to the different TV systems. I find that when I watch US TV which is poorly converted from NTSC to PAL, the fine detail is smoothed out and the colours look false (unsurprisingly, NTSC is sometimes dubbed "never twice the same color"). This effect is particularly prevalent on entertainment/chat shows and studio news programs. Strangely, the same effect is not so obvious in syndicated TV shows. Add to that the excessive makeup, extensive plastic surgery, and expensive cosmetic dentistry, it is no surprise the skin tone appears unnaturally smooth and plastic-like. Of course, in real life Americans are just as varied as the rest of us. Astronaut (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat: Yes, I realised that was a potential bias in my post. But still, even in Swedish "crap TV" (i.e. not public service), it is very hard to find this "doll-imitating" tendency. But truly: the people in the picture you provided sure looks much more mature/trustworthy/understanding.

Astronaut: Well, the TV system might explain a few percent of the issue, but I doubt it can explain much more than that. But, I am curious, as a citizen of the United Kingdom, how do you react to this issue? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the case of US news presenter

talk) 13:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, that is also a very good point. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to look into this would be the ideas raised by Naomi Wolf in a book called The Beauty Myth. It's been a long time since I read it, and what I don't recall for sure is whether she totally blames this problem on men, or also points out how women themselves feed into it and help perpetuate it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to look stupid, but I really do not understand what meachanisms there are that would make it the "fault" of men that mid-age and elderly females struggle to look like Barbie dolls, because I cannot believe that men actually like the plastic appearance of such women. (Personally, they almost frighten me!) I would not be surprised if American men were a bit more tolerant (and even slightly more attracted) to this appearance than European men, but I still would believe that the majority of American men would prefer a natural-looking (i.e. unmodified) mid-age woman to a mid-age woman with excessive makeup, daring clothing, and maybe even plastig surgery. And even if you would like this appearance, at least I would be frightened by the "mind"/"soul"/"personality" of this woman: how can she be that obsessed by her looks? If she is that obessed with her looks, is she really tolerant/understanding towards minorities/etc.? Well, maybe it's just me having prejudices, but me point remains valid: if men does not like the plastic appearance of these women, how can you blame men for these women's "obsessions"? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I have to admit to being immature, then. I can only view someone like

comb-over. When they only have a slight thinning of the hair, a comb-over works great and fools everyone. But, when they are almost completely bald, it's more like a bad joke. Still, once a man gets started down that path, it's hard to stop. StuRat (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I have read quite a few of your posts at RD/C, and you appear to be highly mature. I agree totally with your reasoning. And as I said above, I cannot really tell whether I would be attracted to this plastic style or not, because I am far to young to be interested in either [17] or [18]. But I find the doll style so "silly" that I really believe I could never like it. But, I cannot help to wonder: You say that you do not like the appearance of Dench, but surely you would prefer her appearance to Dolly Parton or [19]? Personally, I feel that Dench look so much more mature, wise, and understanding compared to Parton or the Candid Camera one, that I would not care a bit about the looks of them (even if I would not find the plastic look extremely awful). However, of course, we can probably both agree that the "sexual attractiveness" of any of Dench and Parton is far, far below that of e.g. Emmy Rossum. (Although the latter appears to have a BMI that might be lower than what is healthy - I hope Rossum does not actively try to maintain a subnormal weight just because she thinks that she have to in order to "look good". She will look great at any healthy weight.) But: what is inside one's head is far more important than how one looks. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Suzanne Somers is 63, yet still looks fertile in that pic, so she seems to have pulled it off. (I suspect that she'd look worse up close, or in HD TV.) But, I'd still rather watch her than Judi Dench. StuRat (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. Personally I have nothing against Dench, but would prefer not to be in the same building as Somers, not because of her appearance, but because of what her appearance hints about her soul. Well, I was about to start an argument, but then I realized that this website is not the place for it. The factual question was about the cultural differences between US/EU when it comes to the dollification of mid-age to elderly women, and I think we have examined those rather well. My hypothesis is that American men and women are more tolerant to this phenomenon because they are more used to it. Indeed, they grow up watching "dolls" on TV. It also would appear as if American men really can be attracted to these "dolls", although - at least personally - that is somewhat of a mystery to me. I do find the appearance of these "dolls" terrible (without exception), and - more importantly - I find the pursuit of these women highly silly, even embarrasing. I think that a 40+ woman ought to be mature, ought to have a bit more distant view of things and life. After all: appearance is not important compared to personality, and everyone inevitably grows old, and - if you ask most people - attempts to dollify old women seldom (ever if you ask me) succeed. Without dollification they do look good - they look human. Also, I find it very tempting to associate these "superficial" women with properties like narrow-mindedness, poor understanding of minorities (with that I mainly mean unusual personalities), subnormal intellect etc. To a large extent these associations are probably wrong, however (I hope). I do not know if European men are like me in general (it would be interesting with some statistics), though. But perhaps the most important aspect of all is that these women probably cannot be very happy: they are in fact trying to win a war - the war against ageing - that they cannot win. And, as Lisa Simpson would point out: they set a really lousy example for young Americans. I hope that Rossum will age with dignity. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I should clarify, in case it isn't obvious, is that women in the entertainment industry go much further in trying to look young than the rest of the women in the US. So, if you walk down a street here, you aren't likely to find women who look like that. So why do women in the entertainment industry do it ? Because they think it will help their careers, of course. StuRat (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I have actually been in NYC, and I do not recall that the people there looked any different from how they look in Stockholm. All people I met were very kind (maybe even more kind than people in Stockholm - Swedes are a bit reserved). But still, if people in media/the entertainment industry dollify themselves, it must be more or less accepted by the public? Also, I guess that the US is a vast country, with a lot of nuances, so the situation in LA is probably different from the one in NYC? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's so much about what American men like in their women as about the history of television. TV shows in the U.S. have always aspired to make the viewer think they're watching something special, something that's a big deal. Indeed, one of the first big TV series was called Your Show of Shows. Certainly it would not have looked right for Fred Astaire to do one of his specials wearing a turtleneck, or for Ed Sullivan to show up in a sweatshirt and jeans! More casual dress would be appropriate for a show aiming for a different sort of feel, such as something aimed at a young-adult audience. When David Letterman's show aired at 12:30 a.m., he dressed more "business casual," but he switched to a suit and tie when he moved to the 11:30 p.m. slot and a broader audience. Candid Camera may be a low-budget show, but they don't want to give that away to the viewer. If the hosts appeared in casual clothing, it would say either, "We're making a lame attempt at seeming young and hip" or "We're not even trying to look professional, so don't bother watching our show." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Americans can't be casual before a large audience because casualness is more diverse than formality in dress. Casual dress would alienate portions of the audience less so than formality does. America is a country of diverse ethnicities and formal wear is more limited in scope than casual type clothes. Bus stop (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That last remark is very interesting. In Sweden it is quite the opposite: it would be very alienating for a TV show host to wear a black suit with tie... --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a rather pleasant hypothesis. At first I thought American TV show hosts wear suits because, you know, they thought they were so important and rich people, much more important and far richer than the average American. But the reason you suggest is more sane: They do not want to offend people, and so they are wearing "natural" clothes. And the reason why I did not recognise this reason is because the black suit is more uncommon in Sweden, and rather associated with... well... unbelievably rich and powerful people, or at least people who think they are that (or Matrix-styled agents or whatever!). --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming Sweden is a less ethnically diverse population. Don't forget America also has a unique relationship between black people and white people. You have competing interests in the clothes one chooses to wear, among other appearance choices. Formalwear is off-putting, it is true. But one has to weigh what is to be gained by looking attractively "natural" against what is to be gained by appearing more "nondescript." My theory is that if it is a nondescript appearance that one values most, one is more likely to find it in that which adheres to a degree of formality. Casualness is too "expressive." That expressiveness is certainly valued too, but I think it may tend to be valued more in contexts in which one is relating to a more narrowly defined segment of people. Bus stop (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand why formal clothing is used - why men wear suit and tie. But now we can study my major concern regarding "dollification" in the light of these new ideas: are not "normal" US women alianated by 50+ women who (mostly in vain) use plastic surgery, cosmetics, etc., to look like they are 20-30 year old? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think celebrity is about alienation. You wouldn't want your next door neighbor looking like an alien from another world. But stars (of the human type) lend themselves particularly well to outsized thoughts of the possibilities of human life. We never get to know them, so we can load them up with all our ideas about what people can be, and even though we are probably wrong, we blissfully never find out about it. Bus stop (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are right. But personally I just get angry/afraid when I see how stupid people can be. I would boycott any TV show hosted by someone like Somers. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To make sure we're comparing the same things, let's look at some Swedish actresses, for a fair comparison with the American actress you used in your example, Suzanne Somers. When I do a Google image search on "Swedish actress", I also get a lot of "dollified" women, such as

Barbie doll, to me. You might argue that she just naturally looks like that, but it appears that she dyes her hair blond, to me, in the pic at the top of our article on her. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I cannot deny that whe have a lot of <can't find the right word, thought of "morons" but we should watch our language> in Sweden too. I had never heard of Silverstedt before, and she appears to be more of a pornographic model/actress than a regular actress. But I still think there is a difference between US and Swedish TV: First of all, men do not wear black suits and tie (unless its an exceptional event), but this has been explained above, and it is very, even exceptionally, rare that well-known 50+ TV women try to use plastic surgery, cosmetics, etc., trying to look like 20. I think I have never seen that, at least. (I only watch SVT public-service TV, but occasionally I "overlook" when others are watching other channels, of course.) And I think that it would not even be accepted to look like Somers in Swedish TV. People would just say "Oh, my God, she is 60 years old and dress like a teenager. And she has probably used plastic surgery too. She really embarrasses herself." People would just ignore her as a silly person that most likely have nothing wise to say. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Suzanne Somers is also a pornographic model: Suzanne_Somers#Playboy_pictorials, so my comparison is a valid one. StuRat (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, of course, one difference is the age: I think it is a bit worse that a 63 y.o. woman tries to look like 20, compared to a 35 y.o. woman trying to do the same. (And I would not be annoyed at all if Emmy Rossum tried to look like 20! (not factorial)). This does not mean that I am right and you are wrong, however: to make statistics we need a lot of American and Swedish TV hosts. Nevertheless, I do believe that such an analysis would show that older Swedish hosts make less of an effort to look (significantly) younger than they are. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course it is not good to think that a 60 y.o. dollified woman has nothing wise to say. That's an oversimplification. There is nothing that says that such a woman cannot be wise. However, I suspect there is an increased probability for that, for a wise 60 year old woman, who is satisfied with her life and has understood what is important in life, really should not use plastic surgery as a futile attempt to stop ageing.

I must also admit that I am a slightly untypical Swede. I react much stronger to things I find (morally) wrong than most people I know. For instance, a lot of Swedes actually watch TV shows such as

Expedition Robinson, an some even watch shows like Big Brother, and Paradise Hotel, all shows I would not watch even if I was paid for it. (People being immature and hurting eachother without rational reason, animal cruelty, too much ethanol consumption, strange views on sex, etc.) But most people are not constantly upset by these shows, as I am. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Why do you even care how old the actress is? You've apparently invented a narrow, one-size-fits-all idea of what every 60-year-old woman "should" look like, and now you're unhappy because some of them don't.

If Somers can do her job -- and her employers apparently think that she can, because they keep hiring her -- then why do you care how old she is or how natural her hair color is or whether she meets your personal aesthetic ideal for a woman with a given, but 100% employment-irrelevant, characteristic? Do you also have ideas about what people born in a certain town should look like, or norms that you expect women with a given number of children to meet for their appearance?

BTW, I probably don't fit your curve, either. When I was fifteen, I had people assume that I was 25. I don't think that anyone has correctly guessed my age since I was a young child. It runs in my family. I have a pair of nearly identical photographs showing my grandfather at age 16 and age 50; he doesn't appear to have aged at all during this time. People regularly thought my mother was my sister -- my younger sister, even. When she was forty, she almost had a young man faint in front of her because her response to his wildly inaccurate guess (24 or 25) was to whip out her photos of her five kids. She died some years ago, but she'd be 60 now. Would you be equally offended if you saw her on television now? I guarantee that, despite shunning cosmetics and despising cosmetic surgery, she wouldn't happen to line up with your narrow-minded definition of what a 60-year-old woman "should" look like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that you have misunderstood my views. I do not care a bit about how people look. People can look exactly as they do, or as they wish. I just say that I find it a bit (to say the least) immature when a 60+ woman spends a lot of money, time, and effort trying to look like 20 by menas of plastic surgery, excessive makeup, daring clothes, etc., more or less fighting a futile war against ageing, and setting a lousy example for young people. I mean - she must really think it is important how she looks. Which is is not, compared to how she acts. Personality, wisdom, understanding, etc., is so much more important than appearance. And it is seldom wise to fight unwinnable battles (she will become old, no matter what she does). --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I would not be offended if I saw her. But I am pretty sure that Dolly Parton, Suzanne Somers and their likes actually have been modifying their appearance rather heavily. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually didn't care, you wouldn't have spent four days talking about it. It wouldn't bother you any more than things that you actually don't care about, like the color of the carpet in their bedrooms, or what they had for lunch three weeks ago.

If you actually didn't care, you also wouldn't be judging these women's moral characters on the basis of whether their appearance lines up with your personal standard for what women aged 60+ "should" look like. People who actually don't care don't declare that women are "immature" for caring about their appearance or deride them for "setting a lousy example for young people" (as if young people could be credibly expected to follow senior citizens for fashion standards).

Who cares why these women choose the appearance they have? Maybe they believe that it brings them millions of dollars (and it might), but who cares?! It doesn't hurt anyone, and it doesn't cost anyone anything. Isn't there some real injustice you could be worrying about, like whether children in Haiti are going to drown when the hurricane season begins? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. I am particularly interested in animal rights. And, yes, you are right to some extent: if I had not found these people, 60+ women trying to look like 20 by means of plastic surgery etc. far more ugly than 60+ women who have not altered their apparances, I would maybe only have spent - say - 75 % of my effort in this discussion. I am only human. Still I find it hard to believe that these women are happy. They are fighting in vain - eventuelly even Dolly Parton will become 80. How will she handle that? And why did she spend maybe a huge amount of money on plastic surgery? Is that wise? As you say, people are starving and drowning around the globe. And her publicity is huge: her behaviour is likely to make people accept plastic surgery etc. to a greater extent. People might destroy their bodies, become frustrated, and waste a fortune on this. And one more thing: if I were a kid and saw Dolly Parton, I would be scared. And scaring people is not really god either. I know you will not accept my reasoning, so I think I will leave this discussion at this point. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did read my text

Well, of course it is not good to think that a 60 y.o. dollified woman has nothing wise to say. That's an oversimplification. There is nothing that says that such a woman cannot be wise.

above, right? If not I understand why you rect... --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if I knew that Dolly etc. do not feel bad about the race against ageing, that they can afford the surgery, that they are not narrow-minded but understand even the unusual people, and if it is not the case that the public is misled by their appearances, and if everyone is happy etc., then I do not mind how they look (although, of course, I would not marry any of them!). I do believe that we can understand each other if we only interpret each other's messages with the proper nuances. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also notice that my original question was more or less a purely factual one: I have simply noticed that American TV show hosts dress and look in a way that probably would not be accepted by a Swedish audience, and I wondered what mechanisms have created these cultural differences between the US and Sweden. An excellent partial hypothesis was given by Bus stop above. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They look weird for most Americans too. They are generally older than they are made up to look, and they use puffed-out hairstyles and clothing to that cover or distract from the effects of aging. Also, most US tv shows are made around Los Angeles, which has sort of a distinctive appearance of its own. It's probably like that all over, like you might be able to tell from someone's hairstyle and general demeanor that they live in a particular part of Stockholm, even though they didn't necessarily grow up there. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I guess that was what I wanted (or needed) to hear! --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I've worked in

Woodland Hills, California, a suburb of LA, and there I did occasionally run into women who looked like that. When I did, I thought to myself "must be a porn star". StuRat (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]