Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 May 6

Humanities desk
< May 5	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 7 >

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.

May 6

Alien abduction insurance

What proof the insurance companies want to show that a claimant have been abducted by extraterrestrials? --Yoglti (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You should buy a plan and then show us the paperwork. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A signed confession by the extraterrestrials? Dbfirs 08:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, apparently. According to this blog the requirements for a valid claim include a signed statement from an alien, as well as photographs of the inside of an alien ship and/or alien biological material. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Supposedly a London-based firm has issued policies,[1] but I'm not convinced it isn't a joke as the company's name is Goodfellow Rebecca Ingram Pearson. You've got to get a GRIP, you see. Anyway, if you can track them down, why don't you ask them? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If someone fakes ones own abduction, constructs a lab interior and make alien suits with humans inside, how will the insurance company know the documents are man-made or extraterrestrial? --Yoglti (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that I read this in the 27,000 pages of the Affordable Care Act, no American will be denied coverage for pre-existing condition of alien abduction again . . . if memory serves it was on the same page as the free birth control! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"NEWS | Insurer Stops Issuing Policies on Abductions by Space Aliens | April 3, 1997 | Associated Press | The company that insured the 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult against abduction by aliens said it stopped writing alien-related policies after the group's mass suicide. The cult members paid $1,000 on Oct 10 for a policy that covered up to 50 members and would pay out $1 million a person for abduction, impregnation or death caused by aliens."[2] So rather historical then. It seems that GRIP was an underwriting agency (in other words, they persuade Lloyd's of London underwriters and small insurers who specialise in the out-of-the-ordinary to carry the risk and earn a commission by doing it), rather than an actual insurance company.[3] The years around the turn of the millennium were ones of rapid mergers and acquisitions on the London Market, so I'd be rather surprised if they still exist. To answer the original question, it seems that claimants were required to "pass a lie-detector test, and provide video footage or a third-party witness."[4] In this article, GRIP's managing director called his "alien abduction" customers "feeble minded". Alansplodge (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Global Employment in Automotive Driving?

Are there any estimates for the number of people employed as drivers in the US, UK or preferably globally? This would include all taxi drivers, bus drivers, UPS delivery men, private limo, etc. --CGPGrey (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify your requirements, would this exclude those for whom driving is an essential element but not the main purpose of their jobs, such as travelling sales representatives, Mobile/cell phone antenna riggers/repairers, etc. (The latter is my Company's principal activity). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.66.241.41 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Link between watching porn and sexual violence

Has there been any study on whether watching pornography causes persons with impressionable minds to commit crimes of sexual violence against women and children? -124.125.31.129 (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You may find Wikipedia's article on this helpful at Social effects of pornography and also these articles here and here. One must also take into account cultural, socio-economic, racial and regional differences not to mention all forms of sexual orientation and under a Google search there are studies just for Japan, Europe etc. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not be an area for simple study. We can't do a double blind test where one group of subjects is force-fed porn, and then watched to see if they become sexually violent. It all has to happen in reverse. People who are found to be sexually violent are investigated to see if is they consume abnormally large amounts of porn. But that's a pretty subjective measure anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There's also a correlation does not imply causation and/or post hoc ergo propter hoc problem. Even if people who are sexually violent view more pornography (and I have no idea if that is true. It may not be, but lets concede the point just to make a further point), it doesn't mean that the pornography caused the sexual violence. For example, they may have some predisposition to sexual violence caused by something else entirely, and that predisposition may also lead them to view more pornography. That would mean that even if the person in question had no access to any pornography, they may have been just as sexually violent. There would also need to studies done regarding a negative correlation: that non-sexually violent people view less pornography. The fact that sexually violent people had viewed pornography doesn't mean anything. I'm pretty sure most of them drank milk as children as well; that doesn't mean that milk causes sexual violence. --Jayron32 14:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Or more generally, obesity is caused by food, so we should ban food. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Also related is the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax effect, just because there are a ton of facts supporting a conclusion doesn't mean water is out to kill you today. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Water is essential to life, and can also kill us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The subtle distinction being that porn (unlike water or food) is arguably not essential to life. Gabbe (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Not strictly on the topic, but you might be interested in this YouTube video, or in the Video game controversy. The YouTube video is only about violence rather than pornography, but the two debates always come up together, even if they don't necessarily go hand-in-hand scientifically speaking. IBE (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

See the United States Department of Justice, Final Report: Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1986), part 4, chapter 3, and the bibliography at part 5, chapter 1, section D. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Loads of studies and a lot of hot air and some rather complex results. As far as I can see it may cause people to view rape as not so criminal - but overall the effect is good as far as such crimes are concerned because people who do feel that way can very often turn to pornography as a substitute. So definitely not a no brainer type of problem. Dmcq (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What is obvious is the fact that the vast majority of people who watch porn are not sexually violent. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That may be obvious, but what is confusing is why someone would preferentially name non-men and non-animals as the victims of pornography readers? Are only children and women sympathetic enough? μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Great point μηδείς, as I answered in my first reply sexual orientation may have different results along with regional, cultural and other differences. And by sexual orientation that would include women that prey on boys, men that prey on other men, women who prey on women and all possible variables. The OP specifically asked its effect on women and children so I think we are all answering that, but a better question really is neutral as far as any victim profile. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Either that or an intentionally emotion-manipulating meme is being used without stated purpose, as I tried to demonstrate in my answer to the supposedly unbiased semitic endogamy question. μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Pokemon Species by Popularity

Remove duplicate question - see WP:RD/E.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey, all! So we all know that there are many (649) species of pokemon. In order of popularity, what would be, say, the top 20? For example, can someone find an official list, or perhaps see which one has the most hits on Google (the latter method may be inaccurate, and besides, there are 649 to look up...)? I ask because I can't find out for myself, due to my restricted network only allowing Wikipedia access (it's not here, either. Perhaps someone can create a list of this sort?). Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.79.50.132 (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)