Datasets:

minkyungpark

/

SHP_test_expanded

like 0

rd0f8w

askdocs_test

Tested Positive for Cocaine, but I've never done Coke or any derivatives of it 29M, 6'3 210lbs, no relevant location/duration of complaint, straight edge lifestyle, not on any meds. So I took an oral drug test for work, and the test results came back saying that I was positive for cocaine. The trouble is that I've never done coke or any derivatives of it. I asked about retesting the sample, and the testing company told me I need to pay $150 in order to retest. So my question is: What do I do? I need to fight this result but I don't know how. Should I just fork over the $150 to get it retested or is there something else I can do? Also are oral drug tests known to show a false positive result? And if I can't get rid of this result, is it going to make future employment opportunities difficult? If anyone here has any advice I'd really appreciate it. Other Info: I don't do any drugs, the only time I ever have was when I would occasionally smoke weed in college 10 years ago, but I haven't smoked in years, and I haven't ever tried anything else either. I'm also not on any medications and have not been to a doctor or dentist in years. I also don't live with people who do drugs either. Also I'm in California, if location matters.

hnyp9md

hnyojcm

This could be a genius business plan, offer company drug tests with every few being positive. Oh, you don't like it? $150 to retest

It is definitely possible that this is a false positive. To prove you are not a cocaine user, you could ask for a blood test or a hair test, since this would undoubtedly more accurately show metabolites. An oral test is only a screening test. I don't , however , know the specifics of your situation and how to rectify this without any financial costs. Maybe you can talk to your boss and figure out a solution?

zwr6xt

askdocs_test

Im afraid I’m losing my 9 year old daughter. My daughter just turned 9 a couple weeks ago. Her life has taken a major turn. She’s been the funniest, happiest girl here whole life and now it’s like something took over her brain. She all of a sudden is stressed all the time, scared to go anywhere, even school. She cries all the time and says “What’s wrong with me!” “I wish this could be taken away.” “Why is my brain doing this to me!?” It’s absolutely heartbreaking seeing her, especially at such a young age, go through this. She did start going through puberty early. Starting when she was 7.5 she skyrocketed in height, developed breast and has pubic hair. Though hasnt started her period. If you look at photos of her the year before she doesn’t look like the same person. Could her issues be related to puberty? Would hormone blockers help her? Are they safe? I miss my happy girl and hate seeing her suffer.

j1x33zw

j1x5t6u

Im so sorry this is happening to her (and you!). 7.5 is by definition precocious (early) puberty. Did she see a doctor when this was happening? If not, she should to make sure there’s not any kind of physical problems that caused it that could cause other issues. Its very hard to say what's going on, but its clear that something has changed. It could be anything from physical/hormonal problems, bullying, anxiety, school stress, even abuse or harassment by somebody. Going through puberty as a young child is really difficult, especially as a girl who will unfortunately start receiving unwanted attention once they start physically maturing—because people are disgusting. See if you can talk to her and figure out what’s happening. Whether or not she wants to talk to you, I would suggest you try to get her to speak to a counselor or therapist who can help her work through whatever’s happening. I wish you the best.

Sounds like it may be time for therapy. Honestly, solid job paying attention to her and how she’s feeling. She’s going through a lot of changes and it sounds like you’re trying to be as attentive as possible. Research says girls that start puberty younger struggle with body image, self esteem, and anxiety more than their male counterparts and girls who have puberty later. “Why is my brain doing this to me” sounds like anxiety. There are many many coping skills that she can learn to help this. Therapy could be a huge help. It’s not just for “crazy people.” Sounds like she just needs a few skills to help her out. In terms of interacting with her, remind her that she’s safe, you have her covered, and that there is nothing wrong with her. Feelings are not facts. And she’s going to be ok.

j615kx

askdocs_test

Girlfriend had 2 seizures after 1 glass of alcohol Girlfriend is early 30’s and female. She can usually drink 2-3 units without getting drunk. On average, she has 1 drink (beer or glass of wine) with dinner with me, once a week. That’s it. She is definitely not addicted to alcohol or going through any withdrawal. No medication either. No family history of seizures or alcohol abuse, or any other medical condition. She recently had 2 seizures, both times with me. The first time, she drank 1 glass of wine on an empty stomach. Then after 10 minutes of finishing her drink, she suddenly froze and looked confused for about 2 minutes. She started to pee her pants and didn’t know what happened after she “came back”. We didn’t think it was a seizure because she wasn’t shaking or anything, but now I know that was a seizure because it happened again. About 2 weeks after that incident, we were having a beer together with sushi. She had drunk about 1/6 a bottle of beer (literally like 3 sips). Then, she started actually shaking and making weird noises while her eyes rolled back— what you’d expect a seizure to look like. I tried to hold her up but she was shaking so violently that we both fell to the ground. It lasted about 45 seconds. She did not pee her pants, but she again didn’t know what happened after. We went to the doctor but because of COVID-19, we need to wait a couple weeks to run tests. I am wondering if I can get any help or ideas on reddit. Please help, I am very scared. She is not as scared as me because she doesn’t even remember the experience. But I saw and witnessed everything both times and am traumatized. Please help what this could be, and what we should do. Thank you. More background: -she was on her period the first time, but not the 2nd time -this was the first time seizures ever happened -we haven’t had a single drop of alcohol after the 2nd incident -the only common factor in both seizure incidents was alcohol -she is 165cm (5’5) and 51kg(112lbs) not under or overweight -no mental illness, no medication, no family history -she is not an alcoholic, nor does she smoke or do any drugs

g7wa8e8

g7w3nnt

I had my first seizure after half a glass of wine. It turned out that my alcohol consumption was completely inconsequential (as I continued to have seizures regardless of whether I was drinking). My trigger is the relaxation/let down after prolonged periods of stress. For many, alcohol can lower the threshold and cause or contribute to seizures. I would recommend seeing a neurologist that specializes in epilepsy. I’ve seen both regular neurologists and epilepsy-focused neurologists and much preferred my care under the epilepsy specialist. It is worth noting that seizures don’t always mean epilepsy, but it does mean it’s time for a neuro consult. We welcome both you and your girlfriend at r/epilepsy. — it is a great community for those experiencing seizures, even if it turns out it’s not epilepsy. BIG IMPORTANT EDIT: your partner should not be driving until the cause of the seizures is determined. It’s been too short of time to actually know if alcohol and hormones are her triggers.

INAD, but my partner has epilepsy, and all of what I've read here suggest epilepsy. you still need to get this accurately diagnosed by a doctor, as there are many other causes for seizures than epilepsy, and some of them require urgent diagnosis and care. ​ Why I think it could be epilepsy: Seizures can be triggered by alcohol intake Seizures can be triggered by hormonal changes (period) ​ Epilepsy is very individual, and everyone has different triggers, but these are common ones. ​ If its epilepsy, it's not the end of the world, its a condition, that while having a definite effect on your life, generally can be managed except in the more extreme cases. If this is not epilepsy it could be something more serious. Not sure where you are located, but ER is free here, so I would immediately go to ER, say she had another seizure so that you get immediate treatment and can push to get the tests done sooner.

zzmu2v

askdocs_test

Can anyone please help me get answers? my doctors arent helping me and ive been struggling since i was 15 I am female, 19, 5'6, 136 pounds (2019) One week when I was 15 In the fall I began having issues pooping, this was weird because id NEVER had issues pooping before and always had a big healthy poop every 1/2 days. I was being late to school because id spend so much time straining in the morning. I told my parents that week that i hadnt been able to poop all week and they made me a black coffee with coconut oil. it kind of helped, but the constipation continued despite no change in my life style. I was taken to the doctor around december and even though i was drinking plenty of water, i had a smoothie before the appointment so my pee was more yellow than usual, and the doctor just rubbed it off as me needing to drink more water. (2020) I continued for about a year only pooping once a week, and needing a laxative to do so. I started getting extremely bloated and not wanting to eat or even drink water because i felt so full and it hurt. I ended up waking up one day extremely nauceous and threw up, and i threw everything since my lunch from the previous day completely undigested. This cycle continued where id be constipated all week, get sick and throw up undigested food at the end and use a laxative as an emergency. I was taken to the doctor again and she told me I need to eat more (even though I was eating a normal amount, a pretty equal and balanced diet actually) I was at my massage therapist and told her about my issues and that it hurt to lay on my stomach, she started feeling my stomach and gut and told me that she felt some sort of mass in my gut and tried to gently massage it, but told me to go to the doctor and demand answers. (2021) I was taken to the doctor and this one actually listened, she had me do an x ray and they found that I was full of poop, pushing on my organs, making me llook bigger, and pushing on my lungs as well, all the way up to my lungs was poop build up. The doctor was extremely bothered that none of the doctors before me paid attention to my complaints and said this was extremely dangerous. They said it seemed like my digestive system wasnt working properly/failed They planned another visit for me to have testing done, but till then had me to a colonoscopy prep(for 7 days) to empty my bowls so that the medical risk went down. I was so excited to finally get relief Nothing happened About 3 days in of taking 7 laxatives a day i got a little but of diareah, but it was like it was leaking around it and not actually emptying it out. It was a normal amount. When i finally got the test done, they said that my bowel muscles seemed to be working fine and that they wernt sure what was wrong, they told me to not eat much and try to drink mainly liquids till they could figure out the problem, but they just never followed up?? So eventually i started eating normal again. Ive since moved and am not with my parents doctor anymore, but the constipation has only gotten worse. Everytime i poop i need to strain so hard and almost always bleed feel my anus tearing no matter how small it is. Sometimes 1 tiny circle poop comes out and abunch of blood and blood clots/clumps is a majority of whats in the toilet and it gets everywhere. Another thing i noticed is that the non tiny poops/normal ones are extremely too big for the hole, and almost flat, so the hole cant gradually expand to let it out, like a cone shape. If the hole is 1 inch open the base of the poop is 2 1/2 inches or more. pooping makes my body so sore and shakey and it covers the toilet and my hands in blood. I tried to get help with medicaid but they said because i was moving states soon they couldnt help me. Does anyone know what this might be?

j2dvgub

j2eix3a

You should follow up with the doctor that did your colonoscopy.

Get all your previous medical records and find a gastroenterologist.

9yeg6h

askdocs_test

My saliva has smelled bad my entire life. Never kissed my wife at our wedding and rarely will. Help me, to embarrassed to confront her or doctors about it. **28** **Male** **159lbs** **6ft** **White** ​ My saliva has always smelled this way. I assume I was born this way and have been too embarrassed to confront doctors about this and especially my parents or siblings. No matter how much I brush my teeth, mouthwash or stay hydrated my saliva will always smell moldy or have a vinegar scent. I only kiss my wife with a peck on the lips and barely kissed her at our wedding. It is now starting to bother her that I dont kiss her, she is starting to believe I am either gay or dont love her. Please help me.

ea0u9x1

ea0taep

Please tell your wife why you don’t kiss. She will understand.

Could be a Zenker’s diverticulum or similar esophageal disorder where a an abnormal “pocket” forms, trapping food you have swallowed. The trapped food then can causes bad breath and other symptoms you described. Worth it to go see a gastroenterologist or a general surgeon where a swallow study or a scope can diagnose this.

eur94u

askdocs_test

What killed my(30M) nephew(19M)? Hey everyone! As the title said, my nephew died unexpectedly 16 days ago, and we have no idea how. We are still waiting for the autopsy report, but our family is obviously grieving and the uncertainty is killing us. Therefore im turning to you, in order order for, even if it's very little, information. I will do my best in explaining the whole situation. Im also an CRNA and therefore have some medical knowledge. My nephew was a typical teenager. Just finished high school, didn't have a job yet. Was up all night gaming and sleeping all day. Had alot of friends, was a very kind-hearted person. Had no known medical issues apart from being born pre-mature and having ADD. According to his little sister and some friends, after the incident, he occasionally took Lyrica as recreational drug use, but very certain that there was no other drugs. The night he died he hung out with two friends. The friend suspected that he had taken Lyrica before arriving at their place, but that he got more normal as the night progressed. All they did was playing video games and watching movies. At 5 in the morning my nephew texted his little sister that he was coming home at around 11-12 and then they all went to bed (all three slept in the same bed). At 11 the friend's father enters the room and finds my nephew on the floor stone-cold dead. Probably been dead for a few hours. Anyway they all freaked out and started CPR and called 911. When help arrived they worked on him for about 30 minutes before going to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. About a week later I called the pathology lab asking if there was any information. I didn't talk to a doctor but the person read from some report that there were no structural causes for the sudden death. Heart was normal, no ruptures etc. The lungs were abit enlarged and that the brain weighed too much (cerebral edema?). They have taken samples and biopsies that's been sent away for analyzing. We're at a loss here... I have two scenarios in my head. First, he just died. Sudden cardiac death without structural cause (cardiomyopathy etc), maybe caused by some recreational drug. Second, he OD'd on opiates and fell out of bed and stopped breathing. This however feels so out of character for him. It also seem strange to take something just before going to bed. What do you all think? Is there anything im missing or not seeing clearly? Or maybe someone with more expertise?

ffrhvww

ffrfjws

The toxicology report will eventually come out from the autopsy. If it’s positive for opioids, or less likely other substances, then that’s the probable explanation. If not, then most likely sudden cardiac death, as others have mentioned. Our guesswork isn’t going to outperform the autopsy.

People take opioids and nod off all the time, they make you tired, so it’s not uncommon for drug users to fall asleep when on opioids. I’m sorry for your loss. :( you’re in my prayers

nxj6o6

askdocs_test

Can anyone explain why once I see a GI doc, no other GI docs will see me? 36M My current GI isn't ideal for me. He made fun of me for being anxious. He dilated my esophagus so far (used maximum dilator) I couldn't eat for almost a month, they denied what they did had anything to do with it. I don't care for his ego. I hate that he won't explain anything to me and everything I ask is either "nope won't show anything" or "you need a colonoscopy". I've tried to go to other GI's but nobody will see me. Been to three different GP's and they all say the same thing, once one GI see's you others won't. WTF? Is there some kind of GI cult in the South Eastern US? I have no idea what to do.... I just want to know why this is even a thing.

h1g6arl

h1fu3dv

,

Our neurosurgery practice doesn't like to see patients as 'second opinions' or who have seen another neurosurgeon because the typical reason they're seeing another neurosurgeon is that they didn't get an answer they wanted to hear. When our answer is then the same they get upset all over again. Another reason might be they have chronic pain after another surgeon operated, and no one likes taking care of someone else's mess if they can avoid it. Not saying any of that applies to OP, but those are some reasons why practices don't like doc shoppers. Also bad for continuity of care and sometimes to abuse pain prescriptions. *Edit: prefer not to do second opinions doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's not a hard stop. Also consulting another specialty is not a second opinion, that happens all the time

x0un63

askdocs_test

Why was my wife's pain treated so inadequately after surgery? My (41M) wife (38F) recently had abdominal surgery. I arrived back at the hospital to find her basically overwhelmed with pain the morning after the surgery. She had had no pain relievers administered in almost 11 hours. She was sobbing, writhing, shaking, with blood pressure 50 points higher than normal. They hadn't given her any opioids overnight, nor had they given her tylenol or NSAIDS. My limited understanding of pain relief after surgery is that you stay ahead of the pain. You don't let it become overwhelming for the patient. We are trying to figure why this happened, particularly so we can prevent it from happening again. She was semi-traumatized from the experience. My wife has no history of opioid abuse and in fact has a history of using opioids briefly after other surgeries and then getting off of them quickly with no issue, so opioid abuse should not have been a concern preventing my wife from getting proper care. What we did figure out is that the process that was in place for pain relievers at this hospital was that my wife was supposed to be asking for them, or they were not going to be given. The nurses kept saying that pain relief was "PRN". However neither my wife nor I were ever informed that she would need to be doing the asking or would get nothing for pain and with major abdominal surgery, we had both assumed that the doctors and nurses would be providing for her pain relief so soon after surgery. She did not know to ask and did not realize that she would be absolutely slammed with pain so soon after waking the morning after surgery. Further, the process in the hospital even after asking for pain relief is that it takes about an hour for the medication to be approved and provided. Even after the oral medication was provided, it would take another hour to become active for her symptoms. So we're talking even after my wife is begging for pain medicine, not knowing she should have to, she would be in growing pain for another two hours. By the time an oral medication was approved the morning after, my wife was afraid she was gasping and sobbing so hard it would not even be safe for her to attempt swallowing anything and requested an IV pain reliever, but this was initially denied. The nurses told her that she was in this much pain because hadn't peed and she would feel better if she walked and got up to pee, but being up and attempting to walk only increased her pain. Eventually the doctor arrived to check in and was completely appalled at the state that my wife was in and ordered the IV opioid pain relief. He said that she had been undertreated for pain. In short order after IV opioids, my wife was okay, walking, conversing, peeing and sitting up. We are left with questions about why this happened. This is a hospital with a good reputation in a major metropolitan area. Do I need to just plan on being with my wife every second if she has any future surgeries so that I can protect her? Should we just avoid this hospital? Is the way that pain relief was provided related to systemic concerns about preventing opioid addiction that we might encounter in other hospitals as well? Why on earth would pain medication be PRN so soon after abdominal surgery and why would no one tell us? Why didn't they at least provide some ibuprofen on a schedule? How can we prevent this from happening in the future and is there any particular person at the hospital we can talk to communicate that how they handled this was highly problematic and is likely to be highly problematic for other patients as well?

imdtyfc

imdt2kt

I am sorry this happened to your wife. This is inexcusable. You should get the patient advocate involved.

What surgery did she have done? Her pain should've been assessed periodically throughout the night. If a patient is asleep, I try not to wake them however. One should not assume however that just bc a patient is sleeping, her or she isn't in pain. I don't want to sound insensitive but I do find it odd that during the night, when she was woken as you mentioned, that she didn't ask for any pain medicine? Did she tell them she was in pain? Does she remember being asked for a pain score? She shouldn't have "known" to ask for pain meds, but I would think she would've communicated her pain *somehow* throughout the night. If she *did* communicate the pain, at that point the nurse fell through for not asking if she would like her PRN pain meds at that time. The reason strong pain meds are rarely given regularly without a patient having to ask, or while a patient sleeps, is because this is dangerous and you risk over sedating the patient. I do find it odd that they had to *call and ask for oral pain meds* and then wait an hour for it to be approved? Why couldn't they go ahead and pull one of the PRN meds that were ordered? That's the part that doesn't make sense to me.

g1eaxq

askdocs_test

UPDATE 2: Told that the reason I pass out when I turn my head to the side is because I’m a girl Age: 20 Sex: Female Height: 5'7" Weight: about 125 lbs Race: Caucasian Duration of complaint: about 3 years Location: Neck/Vascular Any existing relevant medical issues: Raynauds Current medications: Zoloft, Vyvanse **Previous Posts**: First post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskDocs/comments/ai45qn/told_that_the_reason_i_pass_out_when_i_turn_my/ Second post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskDocs/comments/cyqhyh/update_told_that_the_reason_i_pass_out_when_i/ **Recap/Short Summary**: When I turn my head laterally I experience symptoms such as lapses of consciousness and blindness in one or both eyes. It seems like episodes are less likely to happen in situations where I am anxious. I'm thinking that has something to do with raised blood pressure. There are more symptoms which I listed out in my second post. **Since my last post**: * I had a neurologist that decided I have conversion disorder after he couldn't find anything else wrong * I decided it was worth it to wait for a top neurologist to see me. That neuro did not think it was psychiatric. * That neuro decided to send me to a Thoracic Surgeon to test for Thoracic Outlet Syndrome for the 4th time because he said that he knew one person who would perform the test and would produce reliable results since most people don't properly test for it. These were his thoughts: > It sounds like a vascular issue to me. Thoracic outlet is certainly in the nix and we will test it by ultrasound 01:12 . If negative, we will do a tilt-table to look for dysautonomia and then finally may look at the cervical occipital instability. She had a flexion and extension MRI that showed some findings, but we may need to get her to see a local neurosurgeon who has an expertise on that. I doubt she is having epilepsy. * Test for TOS came back positive, meaning 2/4 prelim. tests I have done for TOS have come back positive * Did more tests **Diagnosis**: Suggestive of mild-moderate venous thoracic outlet syndrome on the right and equivocal mild venous thoracic outlet syndrome on the left. They also found a small hyper enhancing lesion on my liver which they are going to do an MRI of later, but it is most likely just a benign flash-filling hemangioma so I'm not worried about it. So now that **I have a diagnosis** you may be wondering, **what is the problem?** #**My diagnosis doesn't fit all my symptoms** Specifically, my problems with lapses in consciousness. I wanted to hear your thoughts on what underlying 2nd condition there may be if there is one. I recorded some videos where I induce episodes. I accidentally hit my head in two of the videos, but I didn't know that I did until I watched the videos. I also had some memory loss of immediately before and after each episode. Note that these episodes are what I was classify as mild-moderate. I frequently have more severe ones but they only really get severe when they catch me off guard. In each video you will note there is a lag between when I turn my head and the visible symptoms occur. During this time frame one or both eyes are going blind, either partially or fully. #**Videos:** Where I hit my head: https://youtu.be/Uhh8IfT9qb8 https://youtu.be/ZBv9uVBed3w Where I don't hit my head: https://youtu.be/WwwnYFYrfhU https://youtu.be/Hcp6u9ciX3c https://youtu.be/sXGE847b9QI https://youtu.be/H87RnuA4rqk If you want to know about what tests I have taken or if you would like clarification on anything just ask! Thanks to everyone on here for helping me through this nightmare since my first post ~1 or 2 years ago.

fnf364b

fnfek6u

Have they done any carotid testing?

Some people, usually older people, but much more rarely thin young people, develop bradycardia and pass out with even light pressure to the carotid sinus. At least that’s my best guess. I have a few patients with other neurovascular problems, like migraines or vasovagal disorders, who describe something similar. Although, admittedly, not to the degree that you describe. I’m not aware of any reliable or safe treatment for this phenomenon.

zq0gte

askdocs_test

Should I be worried about my nurse practitioner's competence? Female, 29, 5'8" 160lbs, Anxiety and PMDD, on Jenel and some anxiety meds I recently moved to a small town and the only appointment I could get was with a nurse practitioner. My appointment came around last week and when I was telling her about my medical history she needed me to stop and explain PMDD to her. She had never heard of it. I thought this was strange and I've never had this issue with a medical professional before, but if that was the only problem I wouldn't be posting here. I'm on Jenel to manage my PMDD. Without it, my periods cause truly severe pain that make me unable to move or sleep for several days every month. When the pharmacy mailed me my prescription on Saturday all of my medications were there except the Jenel. She hadn't ordered them for me. She knew I'm leaving the country for vacation tomorrow and there's an entire prescription she didn't order for me and I ended up having to jump through hoops to get them this morning. She also made an off-hand comment that made me think she might be anti-vaccine. When I mentioned I was travelling she said "I wish I could go, but they want me to be vaccinated." Should I be concerned about this?

j0wigwl

j0x4qto

I don't see midlevels for my care. I tell my friends and family not to either. It's shockingly controversial, but I think our years of education and training as physicians are valuable and important. Some NPs are competent to manage whatever issue you might have. But this extremely hit or miss, and minimum training requirements are frightening. Your NP may have worked in an ortho clinic for several years, and have no relevant experience in primary care. There's nothing that really dictates they have to have expertise in whatever field they choose to work in, and they can change that field on a whim. You have no idea what you're dealing with unless you do a bunch of sleuthing or have inside knowledge of who this person is and what their level of competence is.

If you are explaining the disease to the person who's supposed to treat it, something is very wrong

n2kys3

askdocs_test

My doctor has just diagnosed me with having two uteruses, two cervixes and two vaginas. Can I get an IUD, or will I need to get one in each uterus? I (25F) have just had a transvaginal scan which revealed I have either uterus didelphys or complete bicornate bicollis uterus (they don’t seem to be sure and I’m not quite sure what either term means). But essentially they’ve said I have double of my uterus, cervix and vagina, and they said it’s like having a shitty version of the septum in your nose. (Great, sounds lovely, thanks doc). But anyway, I’ve always wanted to get an IUD, because I heard they can be better for you than the pill and help with bad period pain, etc. I’ve always had longer periods (like 7 days long) with really bad pain - ‘taking full doses of ibuprofen and Panadol and still needing a heat pack’ type pain - and changing between pill brands didn’t help at all. (Oh, and I bled even with tampons in, so I thought I was just really bad at. . . Putting them in, I guess?? I had very bad self-confidence). So I wanted to get the pain under control and knew the doc could possibly give me pain meds, or even better an IUD, which is part of the reason I went to see the doc in the first place. And, because. . . Well I had always known I was a bit different (I just had like, an extra path. I thought it was a pocket, I think? A surprise, like in a really cool dress?). I told the doc and she said ‘look, it’s extremely unlikely, you probably have endo’ and sent me for an ultrasound. My mum said ‘you’re an idiot, I’ll buy you a bloody car if you have two vaginas’. I haven’t reminded her about that yet. So anyway, I’ve been referred to see if I have both my kidneys (apparently sometimes people like me lose them?) and see a gynaecologist who will maybe know how the hell I deal with pregnancy if that ever happens. Or two pregnancies in two uteruses at once, if you’ve really done something to offend some fertility deity. So in the short term, I’m still in pain, and is there any chance I could get an UID before I try to think about the horror of childbirth(s)? Or do I need two IUD’s? Or will that make me bleed out and kill me or something? (Oh, and please tell me if you know of anyone like me. I would appreciate knowing they exist because at the moment it seems like they’re only in medical journals.)

gwkv4rz

gwlfcs1

One of the important parts of successful IUD placement is that the uterus be uterus-shaped. A listed contraindication for IUDs, like the Mirena, is "Congenital or acquired uterine anomaly including fibroids if they distort the uterine cavity." There are plenty of times when it's appropriate to go off-label, as long as the practitioner has good reason, client consent, and really knows their stuff. It sounds like two IUDs have been placed successfully in the context of uterus didelphys, but it might make sense to consider other effective options for bleeding management that aren't dependent on uterus shape (like implant, ring, shot, pill, patch). Any combined hormonal contraceptive (pill, patch, ring) will likely help with cramping and bleeding, plus provide more predictability regarding bleeding, more options to find the right one for you, and more control regarding how you use it than an IUD. The nice thing is there are lots of options out there and a good provider will work with you until you find a method that helps you and makes your life better.

Not a doctor but I have the same condition (and only one kidney). There's a good private Facebook group called "abnormalities of the uterus - uterine didelphys" which is very active and has lots of helpful ladies willing to answer questions and share experiences. If Nexplanon implants are available in your area, I'd recommend discussing that with your healthcare provider rather than an IUD. Feel free to PM me if you like :)

jzjtz9

askdocs_test

My body feels bruised but it isnt No injury. It's just tender to the touch basically everywhere. Getting dressed feels awful. This has been going on for months now. Theres no visible bruising. I dont have any diagnosed blood disorders, but I do occasionally wake up with unexplained bruises on my arms and legs and I used to bleed excessively (soaked through several towels and swallowed a LOT of blood when I got my lip pierced, cut while shaving and bled for 3 days, etc) 24f, 175 lbs, 5ft 4in I take methylphenidate, aimovig, Lamotrigine, vimpat I have migraines, epilepsy, bipolar disorder, adhd

gdc9y24

gdcdn2e

Not a doctor. I suggest a doctor. Sounds like some sort of inflammatory problem or fibromyalgia. Whatever it is I think you need to see an MD.

There are a few things here that raise the alarm. It could be a collagen disorder such as Ehlers-Danlos, but the bleeding is a priority and is quite concerning for me. Please see your primary doctor with some urgency and get it checked out - I would expect a good panel of blood tests to look for anything out of the ordinary

fh490h

askdocs_test

Coronavirus (COVID-19) questions? Start here! If you have general questions or are looking for information, coronavirus.gov is the CDC's website for information, and the WHO also has a site. We can't answer every question, especially those about whether you might or do have a case yourself. For general questions that we might be able to answer and that aren't explained in government and international websites, please ask here.

fk8wj8w

fk8wmui

If one has only one symptom, I for example am having a sore throat but so far nothing else, should one be wary or is it only when you have several symptoms? I've heard some people barely have any symptoms at all. I'm a little worried, since I live with several others.

I am honestly really surprised r/AskDocs is going to try and address covid-19. I have two questions. The first is your thoughts on reports coming out that covid-19 has been found in in cerebral/spinal fluid of diagnosed patients, entering the central nervous system, similar to HSV and EBV viruses. What are the real life implications of this? Does it make it likely that the infected could suffer lifelong nervous system consequences? Second question: if the emergency medical systems become overwhelmed and there is not enough medical equipment to keep people alive, (respirators, ICU beds, etc) how will decisions be made as to who's life gets saved? Will some be forced to suffer and die alone or will end of life comfort care be given?

of6h4t

askdocs_test

Hypersomnia. I sleep 16 hours a day. Its ruining my life. 31F / average BMI/cannabis socially/paxil 20mg Help! Im exhausted all the time. I sleep any and every chance i get. Including in my car on my lunch break. I feel like its almost unfightable, the urge to sleep. My doctor has run tests, scans and sleep studies but so far there is no medical reason for my fatigue. Im at the end of my rope with this, its effecting every part of my life negatively. I just want to feel normal and maybe make it through a work day with no nap. Please.. Any help or ideas would be welcome. My life is being ruined by this constant exhaustion. I have no free time because i am ALWAYS SLEEPING or fighting sleep.

h4c6yv3

h4d4aoi

I'm in a similar boat, actually I'm in the middle of an Actigraphy monitor test to be followed by a sleep study. I was put on modafinil (provigil) before my Actigraphy test started. It was a game changer. I'm chomping at the bit to get back on it. My doctor has otherwise talked about putting me on a stimulant to address my constant exhaustion, which we haven't tried yet. Until then I'm abusing caffeine. I had almost 700mg yesterday to get through my day. It's the only other thing that I know of that's easily accessible that works. I'm using the eMoods tracker to track caffeine intake and fatigue levels, and boy howdy the difference is GLARING between when I was on modafinil and not. (Not a doctor)

Considering all of ypur symptoms and that your doctor ruled out the obvious, my immediate thought is that the length of your symptoms and the elevated white count represent a viral infection. Ask your doctor about CMV, Flu, Mono testing. Normally these can last for 2-3 weeks but if your immune system is not working well it could last months. Did you get COVID in past?

yfunc4

askdocs_test

(38M)Maybe tested positive for Factor V Leidan but have to wait a year My mom died from a series of strokes and tested positive for Leidan about 2009. I just now took the initiative to get tested finally and I can see online where they have the test results back and I'm identified as a "carrier" and they've scheduled a follow up with a hematologist for November 2023. I tried to call and see if they had any times sooner than that and was told in no uncertain terms that there wasn't any additional time. My first question is whether or not waiting over a year is normal for seeing a hematologist? Should I try a different hospital? I feel like just reading the test results back to me shouldn't take that long. My second question is whether or not I should be doing anything different in response to the "carrier" status. I'm not sure what that means.

iu6fvmq

iu6n5sf

I have no idea about the wait time thing. Generally folks with FVL who’ve never had blood clots don’t need to do anything in particular. Probably best to avoid taking birth control pills with estrogen (which I assume you’re not doing anyways), and if you’re having any surgeries good to let them know. Otherwise no treatment is usually needed.

As a carrier (heterozygote -- you have one normal gene and one mutated gene), you are at somewhat increased risk for blood clots, and you also have a 50/50 chance at passing your mutated factor V gene to your kids. Your risk of having a clot is about 3-8x higher than the general population, but still low overall -- about 1 in 200 people who are Factor V Leiden carriers will have a clotting event in any given year. You're male (I assume cis male?) so I don't need to tell you about pregnancy and contraceptive risks. However, if you have daughters or sisters who've also inherited factor V Leiden, they may want to speak with their HCPs about this. You shouldn't smoke tobacco period, but smoking is also an independent clotting risk factor that won't mix well with your factor V Leiden status. I'm not aware of any medication you need to be on for your factor V Leiden status if you've never clotted. The risk of taking anticoagualant medications outweighs the benefits to you right now. More info: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1368/

dhh2yb

askdocs_test

My wife has been sick for the past few months and doctor s don't have any answers for us (long post) Please help us. (Long post ahead but totally desperate) Hi, I'm writing this on behalf of my wife, partly because I'm at my wit's end with what happened to her, she doesn't have Reddit.  Background- My wife is 27, female, white and was relatively healthy. Only a few problems with her back pain and migraines since she was young. About seven months ago my wife started to complain about chest pain. She also started having much more intense headaches. She has always suffered from migraines but these became so much worse. She was seen for the pain in her chest in March, they did a breast exam and said she looked fine. They told her to take a new RX when she felt a headache coming on. The medicine did absolutely nothing. The headaches continued to escalate. And the chest's pain got worse over the next few months. In June, while I was at work, My wife lost consciousness fell and hit her head and remembered nothing of what happened. She lost control of her bladder and threw up on herself. We rushed to the Urgent Care. They told her her heart and blood work looked fine. And sent her home. It happened again within 24 hrs. And it got to the point her she was 'blacking out' every hour. Finally it got so bad we took her to the emergency room. They did and MRI of her head and an EKG. The results were normal with no signs of seizures. A doctor came in the room at the hospital and told my wife, it was all in her head. And (this is a real quote) 'if she thinks happy thoughts and makes herself happy the problem will go away'. She was so traumatized by this experience that she refused to go see more doctors for the next three months. Even though her symptoms got so much worse. She was unable to keep up at work and was forced to step down (her boss is like a father to her and he was understanding but insisted). She continued to black out at least 4 times a day. She became so fatigued that she could barely leave the house without blacking out. She developed more severe chest pain and with it shortness in breath. Her headaches became so severe that she started to punch things, banging her head against the wall, scream and yell and kick. They last for about three hours at a time. We tried oxygen and it did help! But doctors refuse to give her an oxygen tank to keep on hand. Finally in September it had gotten so bad that she got a new primary care doctor. The doctor tested for a blood clot and did a CT scan of her chest. These came back normal,except for an elevated de dimer (I think this is how you spell it). She also wore a holt monitor and they said there was nothing unusual about her heart. This doctor wouldn't help with the headaches and sent her to a neurologist. It was going to take 16 weeks to get in. She decided to see a new neurologist that she hasn't seen before because she was seen by one she didn't feel was helpful. We still have nearly 5 weeks to wait for this appointment. (It was made the first week in September) She has only gotten worse since September. She now sleeps 12-15 hrs a day and can hardly do the things she needs to do even when she tries. She blacks out every single day at least 4 times. Today for example she blacked out 6 times before noon. Sometimes she will now be unconscious but able to walk around. Leaving our apartment and wandering and waking up with no memory of how she got there. She can and does hit her head, face, legs, arms and back as she falls. She has intermittent fevers that last for about half a day at a time. She loses vision in her left eye for hours at a time. She becomes delusional and will forget where she is, who she is talking to, things that have been said/ that haven't been said. Every day now she is in pain on some or all of her joints. Knees and and forearm in particular. Keeping her awake at night and from exercising. Also shortness of breath doesn't help. Her hair is falling out in chunks. (You should see the shower, it's gross.) She gets weird rashes all over her body. Especially the face. She is getting sores in her mouth, and now barely eats. And of course headaches. We have tried different vitamins recommended by the doctor. We have tried to go see other specialist (Endocrinologists, rheumatologist... etc) but her PCP refuses without hard evidence. She is not on any medication, except birth control. And when she needs it an anxiety medication, but she doesn't take it very much. I give her Tylenol for headaches and pain but it hardly works. She does take edibles (marijuana) for the pain now because it's the only thing that seems to help. I should  also mention that my wife has gone to therapy every two weeks since May, since they told her it was all in her head. She has put in the work and does and listens to her therapist. I can't leave her alone during the day for fear she will fall and hit her head again, or worse wander out into the street. I'm at a loss. And apparently the doctors are too. No one seems to care because she is normal looking and young. Is there something they are missing? What else can we try? Is there something we should demand of the doctors? Anything will help, I'm seriously desperate.

f3o8vb0

f3nyqa9

Has she been checked for lupus and other autoimmune stuff ? Not a dr

This is so sad. Hope you two find an answer soon.

ietndq

askdocs_test

Shattered femur 2 months ago in DUI crash. Doctor feels neglectful because of the circumstances. Here's the x-ray that was taken last week. The accident and surgery were on the 15th of June. https://imgur.com/a/dcZowlj Two months ago I crashed my car after passing out behind the wheel and not wearing a seat belt. I was going around 45 mph and slammed into a concrete electrical pole. This was a DUI crash and a huge wake-up call for me and the direction my life was going. It's really a case of I shouldn't be alive and I'm grateful to even be here making this post. It feels like because of my circumstances my doctor doesn't have as much compassion for me as his other patients (I've heard him talking to other patients in the room next to mine at my appointments and his demeanor seems to be much more caring for them.) The appointments have not been more than 5-10 minutes with the doc. My first appointment was 3 weeks after the surgery and his advice to me was "use crutches and don't fuck it up". His words not mine. His assistant had been talking to me earlier and said "you probably won't need physical therapy" and no mention about PT from the doc, just "don't fuck it up. Fast forward a month later to last week, the first thing the doctor and assistant ask is "how's therapy been". I didn't even know I was supposed to be going? I told them I hadn't gone but I showed him that I was able to walk and bear weight without crutches but my leg would collapse if I wasn't stiffening out my knee. He then checked my knee and ordered an MRI and said "yea with these types of injuries its common to injure the knee as well". I got my MRI done 2 days ago and will be back to see the doc next week with my MRI results. If this is so common, why didn't they check for this earlier? As far as the femur goes, he told me that it's just about looking healed. How is that possible? I still feel pain when I move my leg in certain ways, mostly in the inside of my thigh where the bone has split. It feels like the end of it is poking the inside of my leg. To me it doesn't look like it has healed much at all to me so that's why I'm here trying to get some second opinions. I wanted to ask all this with the doctor but he seemed to get visibly annoyed and already on his way out to the next patient. ​ Thank you in advance. I'm genuinely worried about my leg being messed up for the rest of my life and not being able to go back to the outdoor activities and sports I loved to do before this.

g2ji0e6

g2jn1ib

Unfortunately doctors are human too and it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s being biased. That said, you should totally get another opinion. Best of luck with healing your leg and I hope you don’t drink and drive ever again!! Edit: sorry I should’ve added Not a doctor, I’m just a humble nursing student. Thanks for the upvotes y’all!

Agree with other posters advising you to get a second opinion. However, I'd expect and get used to very little compassion from future caregivers around this issue. Your experience will likely be less negative if you accept this beforehand and lower your expectations. Orthopedic surgeons are often trauma surgeons, and have to deal a decent amount with the victims of drunk driving. Compassion fatigue is a real thing and it's extremely difficult to get emotionally invested the same for someone who was the victim of a DUI as someone who did a DUI who is only not in jail because they got morally lucky.

s5tt2v

askdocs_test

Nurse at pediatrician office scolded us for an ER visit. Were we wrong? This summer, we were traveling. Our daughter (age 2F), tripped and hit her head. A few hours later, she became lethargic and vomited 8 times in an hour. We were in an extremely rural area, and the only thing nearby was a critical access hospital. Concerned about concussion, we took her there to their emergency department. They confirmed concussion, did a CT scan (since the nearest children's hospital was 8 hours away, they wanted to scan for a bleed rather than watching and waiting), found no bleed and we were out of there in a few hours. The other day, they finally got around to sending the records to our pediatrician. The nurse that called to follow up gave us a lecture about misuse of emergency services and that we should have called them before taking her to an ER. They were over 1000 miles away? I don't want to misuse emergency services. I myself am a healthcare professional. But I'm confused on what I should have done. Was this not the right move?

hszvpnw

hszt0yu

The nurse that called you is out of his/her mind lol. You absolutely did the right thing.

You did the right move , don’t worry

tl38b7

askdocs_test

Is my dr annoyed at me? Extremely embarrassed Hello F30, antidepressants and Lexapro, no alcohol or smoking. Duration - 2 years, 5'5 145lbs, caucasian I recently was at the ER with a migraine, and after being discharged once it was under control (used 4 different medications and a steroid) the Dr said to follow up with my neurologist, sooner than my already scheduled July appt. The neuro office called and got me in the following week with my neurologist. I was just reading my notes and it reads, " Overall she requires a lot of support, with frequent messaging and urgent visits. She requires a lot of involvement from her multidisciplinary team, including mental health and primary care. At this point there remains no neurologic explanation for her symptoms." They are leaning towards it being a Functional Neuro Disorder, but had said to message them with any symptoms lasting longer than 24 hours, so when my unsteadiness led to multiple falls, I reached out this spring. I am absolutely devastated and ashamed that they seem to think that I'm a needy patient, or exaggerating. I am just trying to function and do what they asked... Is that the right interpretation? How can I keep my doctor's respect?

i1uesw2

i1u684w

I am not reading it as needy. More a message to your already established mdt and primary care physician that this is something that can be handled calmly, and outside of the ER, if they follow you tightly. Some patients require tighter follow up than other. This is the beautifull and challenging thing with medicine; every case is uniqe. You are not a bother or a nuicance. Especially when things are, in the end, found to be functional a lot of the treatment lays in the patients trust in their closest providers. Making you feel safe.

I can understand how you can take the wording of the notes to sound like you’re a needy patient. But I want you to know that it’s just the way to convey information to anyone else whose care you may be in and what is considered your normal. For example, if you were to start with a new doctor who didn’t get these notes and started to call for a problem often, they might take it as more emergent than it actually is and tell you to go to the ER instead of the office, wasting your money and time for something that is potentially already known (not to mention any mental anguish it may cause you to think that this is more serious than your usual cases). This, of course, is just an example and probably slightly exaggerated since I don’t know your case, but not uncommon. I wouldn’t worry too much about what the wording is. I can tell you, I’ve seen more than enough patients to not care enough to judge someone who may think they’re “needy”. The only patients I judge are the rude ones and I’ve had a wide variety of patients. I’m sure that’s true for most of us. Don’t take it to heart.

ia1mdx

askdocs_test

My wife is depressed and can't lose weight Hello medical professionals. I have a question about my wife, she doesnt use reddit, so I wanted to ask for her. My wife (29F) is about 5'7" and 165lbs. She's had 3 kids, the youngest being 2 and the oldest being 7. She has an incrediblely difficult time losing weight. She is by no means what I consider overweight, but she wants to lose weight, and there is weight to lose. We have a Peloton bike and she uses it about an hour every day along with strength trainings 3-4 times a week. She has been doing the OMAD (One Meal a Day) diet for over a month and she has not been able to lose any weight. She has been on various workout regimes and diets for a couple of years with no noticeable effects. Its tough for me to watch since she tries so so hard, adheres to very strick diets, works out like nobody else I've ever seen and she still can't lose any weight. I feel like if anyone else was doing what she does they'd be losing tons of weight. Whenever I do her diets and workouts I end up losing weight so fast. She also suffers from depression. She takes a low dose of FLUoxetine (10mg a day), and her struggles with losing weight usually put her in a bout of depression a few times a week. She also gets depressed easily about other things, but most of the time it is from her not losing weight. When she is depressed she has a hard time being motivated to do anything and she talks about how much she hates herself. I do feel like it is depression rather than just being bummed. She is also very sensitive to foods and sugar. If she eats something sugary on an empty stomach, she gets sick to her stomache. She can't drink soda because it makes her sick, and just overall has a very sensitive stomach. She had a really hard time with the OMAD diet when she started because she would would feel sick to her stomach if she hadn't eaten, but she says it's not bad anymore. We were sure she had hyperthyroidism since the symptoms seemed to fall in line with that. We went to our pcp and they did the tests for hyperthyroidism and she also tested her for diabetes. We got the test results tonight and they all came back in the normal range, so she doesnt have hyperthyroidism or diabetes. This put her in a depressed mood because she feels like she just isn't doing enough to lose weight and she was so sure this was the issue. I have a hard time believing that there isnt something wrong with her body and I just feel like there is an underlying issue. My wife doesn't want to go back to the pcp since she is so embarrassed by this. I wanted to get all of your thoughts and see if you have seen anything similar. I really just want my wife back, her depression has taken a big toll on me and I struggle seeing her so down on herself all the time and there is nothing I do or say that helps. Thanks everyone!

g1jp2g0

g1kucms

Focus on treating the depression first and the weight loss will come much easier. As someone who lost 130 pounds I can tell you that weighing a certain number or looking a certain way can make you feel some better, but it by no means will make your problems go away, and it absolutely will not cure depression. For me, the answer was finding freedom in the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ. Your wife might not feel it, but she has immeasurable value.

Not a doctor - Mom here who was struggling to lose weight too, vegan diet, exercise, the whole nine. My PCP sent me to an endocrinologist to make sure my hormone levels were normal and my pituitary/thyroid/adrenals were working! Turns out they weren’t. Keep digging, keep trying, keep reminding her to be gentle with herself - she’s so strong! Sending you all the love.

3qwi3v

askengineers_test

Elon Musk scoffs at the idea of mass hydrogen-based automotive infrastructure being practical. Honda doubles down on the technology. Who's wrong? Elon's rather mocking dismissal of the concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo&t=10m20s Wired mag on Honda's doubling down: http://www.wired.com/2015/10/honda-clarity-hydrogen-fuel-cell-sales/ So engineers who have enough experience to speak on this -- who do you think is wrong here? Elon? Honda? Both? Neither? Explain...

cwiy7dg

cwiz0lr

Elon Musk has every reason to say that HFC cars are not worth while. Remember, Musk is not any bit of an engineer any more. He is a sales man. The face of the company. And he will do everything he can to bolster the idea of the electric car. Honda is likely getting government grants from the Japanese gov. to keep development going, among other things. Neither is more right than the other. They are different technologies and they all have their pros and cons.

I have some experience with hydrogen fuel cells for residential use. I also currently work for a company that makes deisel and electric vehicles for use at airports. In my opinion, hydrogen fuel cells will not catch on. The infrastructure cost is too high, and without infrastructure you can't have vehicles. We already have a power grid, technically everyone has a charging station in their house. The idea of a hydrogen generator in your house is crazy. Unless the cars are free and you buy the generator people wont be able to afford to own one. Vs already having an electric car charger if i can just plug it into the wall. The advantage of hydrogen would be the fill up time and maybe the range. I don't think that will offset the extra complexity of a hydrogen fuel cell vs a battery.

syp0fg

askengineers_test

(Quality Engineers) How do you handle customers that are 100% wrong? Really, if you have any go-to phrases in your arsenal, I could surely use some, I feel like I've already used every phrase there is, every type of strategic communication that I am capable of coming up with. Over the last 7 months, I have had a roll of customer prioritization; I fix one issue and headache only to move on to the next. Normal, but it's been "This is now top priority" from one to the next. My most recent headache was just this morning, a customer being upset with a report regarding a product they tried to warranty. Long story short, it's not warranty. However, they emailed back within 24 hrs saying, paraphrasing here, that "I (my company) continuously blame the end-user and one of the products was not even placed in service." Keep in mind, like any product, it can be screwed by customers prior to use. Also, this is literally the first return of 2 units within a 6 month period and they also claim they've had so many issues within the last 6 months. Sometimes, I am literally gasping for air over the "shocked" people and insane customer claims over 1-5 products they fucked over and want my company to eat the cost. Curious to know how you all respond to customers like this.

hxz5n7l

hxz5muq

> Also, this is literally the first return of 2 units within a 6 month period and they also claim they've had so many issues within the last 6 months. Lean into it until they have to admit they are grossly exaggerating. As to the rest of it, it is not clear enough what your role or your companies services are to provide any advice. You are ranting. If you wanna respond in a collected manner, collect your thoughts appropriately first. "Hello customer, it is extremely concerning that you have had tons of issues, I am only aware of two, can you please provide more details so we can look into making our products work better for you?"

Are you the owner of the company or responsible for P&L? If not, relax on it, help the customer out to the best of your ability, and most importantly I find it's to call the customer and talk with them. No emails. Emails are great, for certain communications. Not so great for others.

a0kk51

askengineers_test

How do you answer to the "Why did you leave your last job" question? So, I was fired from my last job. I was not given a reason as to why but I am left to believe that it was not a performance based decision as they wrote a recommendation letter for me assessing my performance on this last job. Now I am being ask this question by recruiters and I really don't know how to answer in a way that puts me on top.

eaifssi

eaiarzm

"The company didn't achieve their goals and had layoffs." "The company was restructured and I was laid off." "My department was moved to India where they work for 10% of my then salary."

"my position was deemed unnecessary"

ugs5wz

askengineers_test

Are there any engineering unions in the USA? If not, why not?

i71kwi8

i71gl08

One thing to keep in mind is unions are primarily beneficial to workers who don't have much leverage to negotiate on their own (typically because they are relatively easy to replace). Engineers and other "professional" fields for that matter are much more difficult to replace because of the education/training requirements, so there is much less incentive to unionize since workers already have a degree of bargaining power. That said, there are unionized engineers in the US. IFPTE is the main "national" union. SPEEA is a union that represents engineers for Boeing Commercial and many of it's larger sub-contractors. UAW includes engineers. There are (federal) government engineers covered by AFGE and NFFE.

Boeing has speea

qvpexp

askengineers_test

Current or former Tesla employees.. Is Tesla really that bad for salaried employees? I am in the process of changing jobs and one of the options I was looking st was Tesla in Austin. But whenever I run across a post in reddit it'd always infested with negative comments. Can the real engineers working there share their experiences?

hkxz9lx

hkxxl4i

Important data point: What if the huge portion of your pay which is stock options suddenly lost most of its value?

My neighbor is a SWE for Tesla and he loves it. I enjoy talking with him about what he is working on. So that’s an alternative data point.

347d23

askengineers_test

How much aerodynamics work is done in the car industry? I am a current Aerospace Engineering, but this has always been a interest of mine. Either commercial or racing. What companies do this kind of stuff? Could anyone with knowledge of the industry help me out here? Thanks.

cqsf46s

cqsdrcb

To add to the other comments, car companies use CFD to optimize coolant flow, intake/cylinder/exhaust flow, fuel flow, lubrication, air-conditioning... essentially anything on the car that isn't solid.

On top of what some of the others have said, NVH is a huge part of aero in the automotive space. Not only do you need low drag and low lift, but also quiet aerodynamics under a wide variety of operating conditions.

f8kpi4

askengineers_test

Why do toothpaste caps have so many threads? For motor connectors, there are options like SpeedTech connectors. What is stopping tooth paste manufacturers from using a similar technique? Is there a broad patent on this technique or could it be applied to toothpaste as well? Do they simply not see enough of an issue/demand to change their product? Why am I turning my toothpaste cap 2-3 revolutions when I could be turning it less than one?

fim4cik

fim4bhl

As someone else said, there are some brands that just have a flip cap. But I imagine there might be variation among threaded brands as to how many threads are used, really for no good reason. You see the same thing in plastic water bottles - some bottles have a thin cap with only a couple threads, while others seem to think your little water bottle is going to be used in a hydraulic power circuit or something and thus needs quite a few more threads. The designer probably wasn't given any specification on how many threads are needed, so they just picked something and then that gets mass produced.

It's most likely cost for one thread type vs another. (Can't say thread vs flip top). The current threads most likely use a standard thread type/size for plastics. Cheap to make and easy to get manufacturing tools/suppliers. Anything non standard would require time and money, and likely nobody thinks it's worth it.

2qh9gf

askengineers_test

I am a fresh graduate with Electrical Engineering degree. I am scared of my first job that I will not be able to do good! I am a fresh graduate with Electrical Engineering degree. I just landed my first job. I feel that I lack technical knowledge and this makes me really nervous that I will be really bad and will not be able to do well. Even though this is the job I always wanted. I want to know from Engineers who have been working on tips and how to survive first few months. I still have 3 more weeks to start working, so can you Engineers out there can you please tell me what homework should I do before joining? Your help is really appreciated and thank you in advance.

cn67oiq

cn64s78

"Fresh outs" are not expected to know everything. Honestly they are assumed to know very very little. Do not be afraid to ask questions and show willingness to learn and adapt to your project. Your technical abilities will only be one dimension of your skill set. Documentation, presentation, and interpersonal skills are very important. If you are willing to learn and work with others you will be fine.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/wiki/faq#wiki_what_are_some_things_i_can_do_in_my_spare_time_to_make_myself_more_marketable_as_an_engineer.3F

x8xuf7

askengineers_test

What's the hardest technical problem you or your team ever faced? What made it so difficult?

inkxstb

inlmqvf

> What's the hardest technical problem you faced? How to increase my salary. > What made it so difficult? Companies don't want to pay much for MEs, at least in Europe. > What's the 2nd hardest technical problem you faced? Developing a low-nox atmospheric gas burner from idea to series B prototype within a 1yr timeframe. > What made it so difficult? 1yr is a very short time (irrealistic management expectations regarding time to market).

[REDACTED]

g0tvqj

askengineers_test

What would be required to build a average sized sedan powered by mechanical wind-up mechanism to go 300-400 miles? I know it is not realistic, but I just had a random thought I had while locked up at home playing with my kids. What if someone could build a wind-up powered car that could go a useful distance? How large of a mechanism would be required? What would it take to wind it up? What other obstacles would there be to engineering such a vehicle?

fnbsx0u

fnbpq4g

Spin up a disk made from a dense (heavy) element. 100k rpm in a vacuum sealed container. It will cut down on the size requirement

You would need a spring capable of storing that much energy. The size would just be a function of the mythical springs energy density.

c9mpyb

askengineers_test

Are there any resources to learn AutoCAD, Catia, Inventor, etc. Online? I already have experience in Solidworks and ANSYS CFD, and I'd like to increase my chances at getting a position as an EIT (I just graduated).

eszzel8

et04h4t

YouTube videos

Also I taught myself solidworks OTJ after being in an inventor shop for a few years. They are all close enough that as long as someone is proficient in one I don't care as a hiring manager. Personal opinion but picking up something like VBA scripting or python is more valuable than being proficient in multiple CAD packages.

y18w86

askengineers_test

Programming Language to Blend Programming w/ Manufacturing Currently working as an Industrial / Manufacturing Engineer at a small company. Thinking about changing my career path and picking up programming. I’m versed in VBA (excel) and have made a few userform data collection + analysis “programs” due to software restrictions in the mfg space. Ideally I want a new position in another company where I blend computer programming with my manufacturing knowledge; do jobs like this exist? What language would be best for a role like this? What other programming languages do manufacturing companies utilize?

irwf2tc

irw4w2b

Automation Engineers/Controls Engineers can work in most industries and can program control systems for single machines or entire plants. Usually they work side by side with electrical engineers (some are electrical engineers themselves by degree). This position can sometimes be seen as more of a technician role though, depending on the company and industry. Most commonly used programming languages from my experience is ladder logic which is a language used to program a PLC

Without any other considerations, the best language would be C, you can't go wrong learning it.

pt0vrk

askengineers_test

When there's a problem stuck in your head, how do you shut down the part of your brain that's working on it when you are trying to relax?

hdtivju

hdtee2r

The best trick I've found is write it out. Document all your current thinking and plans for next steps so you can confidently pick up your notes in the morning and you won't have missed anything. Once I've done this, my mind can finally let that thing go for the moment.

Get sucked into a different problem

5wefdc

askengineers_test

Could you teach a clever enough high school grad to do you job with on the job training or is what is learned during university a necessary prerequisite?

de9gtms

de9gghy

I am an engineer without a college degree. Anything can be learned on the job, or via other "unofficial" avenues. *Anything.* **However:** It is extremely easy to get incorrect information, bad advice, or simply overlook things entirely through sheer ignorance. If you intend to learn things on your own you need to be exceptionally proactive, and you need to be absolutely merciless when vetting the quality of your sources. You might also find that some of the more obscure information is held only by individuals in academia, and you must go to them whether or not it's through official channels. The advantage of a college degree is that the curriculum has been thoroughly vetted by thousands upon thousands of people over centuries to provide a good base on which to build your knowledge. If you're thinking about going it alone, I wholeheartedly recommend reconsidering and getting a degree.

A few guys I previously worked with received no college education, but they where machinists that worked their way up. It's possible, but from my guess it seemed it took them a long time to get where they were.

yd2dn5

askengineers_test

Why are pipelines bent for seemingly no reason? Hello, would be anyone able to explain why industrial pipelines are bent for seemingly no reason? What do I mean: https://www.industrytap.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/industry-2632179\_1280.jpg ​ Thanks!

itpwmyu

itpqa0i

thermal expansion. otherwise the pipes would bend like spaghetti when they got hot

Helps keep stress low during Thermal expansion. Expansion loops are common because the loops take all the stress away from the straight run pipe.

78r664

askengineers_test

Electrical Engineers of reddit. Street Lamp Question Always been meaning to ask this. At night when I walk by certain street lamps, why do they turn off?

dow0kvy

dow7x2w

Do they all turn off or just the one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-vapor_lamp#End_of_life

If the street light in question is a kind of golden/orange color, it's a high pressure sodium lighting system. One of the characteristics of this system is that as the lamp approaches the end of lamp life it will cycle on and off. It could be that you were in the right place at the right time.

i6c5cq

askengineers_test

I work at an “Engineering” company, but I’m beginning to question if what I’m doing is actually engineering I just completed my first year as an agricultural engineering student. At my school the program can be thought of as a blend of Civil and Mechanical engineering curriculum. I work at a company that has engineering in its name but no P.E.s work there. Out of the 6 “engineers” 3 graduated college in mechanical engineering, and the other 3, including the lead mechanical engineer, didn’t go to college for engineering. We develop packaging machinery, but most of it involves pumping out drawing modifications to pre existing designs, drafting. It obviously wouldn’t make sense to not reuse existing designs, but to be frank, there is absolutely no time for R&D for new machines. I am an absolute animal at Solidworks and AutoCAD, and I create a fair share of custom sheet metal parts and assemblies that involve some engineering so to speak. I know some of the engineers calculate static loads to make sure the machines do not place too much weight on any one leg/support. When it comes to selecting pumps, engines and gear boxes, everyone has been doing it for so long they know what horse power and torque specifications are needed, so no calculations are really involved there. I honestly thought going into this job it would involve more calculations, granted I am an intern, therefore I wouldn’t really be tasked with doing them, but even the mechanical engineers there that went to college say they employee their engineering knowledge about 5% of the time. Is this what I can expect from other companies or are practices like this few and far in between?

g0v3nb2

g0v0blk

What you've described is a mature company in a maintenance business model. They have a product line that doesn't need improvement, and will stay in business based off that line. They don't have product line growth on the horizon because it simply doesn't make business sense according to their current plan. There are other companies on the other end of the spectrum. Consultant, startup, contract design, positioned for aggressive growth, that will throw you into a more exciting subject matter. Those are the ones you want to work for. Being new to the company and new to engineering, you also won't get to do any of the real engineering stuff for quite awhile after starting. You need to be taught, because school doesn't teach you the most important stuff

My experience with engineering: Only less than 10% of graduates end up doing actual engineering, remaining graduates are there so that they can understand the terminology and how actual engineers made things so they can follow their orders or make small adjustments. And I think that's a good enough system. I just don't like people thinking if you have same engineering as someone then you are basically same as them.

2b06p0

askengineers_test

After graduating last spring I've finally landed myself a great job, this means I have to quit my internship of 15 months, I want to give them a gift but have no ideas? Hello all! I have recently completed a dual bachelor's in Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (my school is old school and hasn't started using the term "mechatronics" yet). I started an internship in April 2013 that was only supposed to last 6 months but they kept telling me they needed me and my "good work" and "good attitude" longer. I stuck around after graduation in May because there was a hint of a full time position opening for me but I guess with budgets the way they are they just can't bring anyone else on. I began my search for a job and landed two jobs, one good, the other great. I took the great option and have notified the people at my internship that I'll be resigning. --- * I want to buy a good gift for the engineering department to show my gratitude and appreciation, but don't know where to start. I thought about buying some plants but didn't want to dump the upkeep on them. Office supplies or anything related is out of the question, as this particular group gets whatever they want if they request it from the company. I don't really know where else to begin. --- If anyone has had a similar experience in the past where a parting member of the team did something nice or gave a gift upon leaving, please let me know. Ask any and all questions you might have, I welcome all ideas. Thanks!

cj0qn8i

cj0p4uo

Whatever you decide, give a short handwritten thank you note to everyone you worked with! It doesn't take a lot of time, shows you appreciate what they taught you, and it sets you apart.

Cake? I love it when someone brings cake into the office! Cake or a big jar of sweets.

cy41eb

askengineers_test

Advice from experienced engineers Engineers with 20 to 30 years experience - What is one piece of advice you would give to someone who has ~5 to 10 years experience being an engineer ?

eypyjs4

eypy4fj

I'm retired, and the one piece of advice I would give is never make an enemy when you could just be indifferent or walk away. Relationships in professional circles even in major metros are very tight-knit, and you never want to have to explain yourself years later when the person you chose to ridicule or disparage is sitting across from you at a conference. Don't be a petty person, and it will make your life much, much easier as you grow into the community.

Add public speaking to your skill set. This does not necessarily mean you have to speak in front of 100s like Tony Robbins. There will be many situations like presenting to a handful of investors or reviewing a project with your department that will involve a form of public speaking. Being able to properly convey these ideas is crucial in getting buy-in and understanding among the team. I took a public speaking class while in engineering school. My main motivation for the class was an easy A from a non-tech elective, however, that class was unbelievably valuable and I continue to use some of those tips as I am 18+ years into my career. Over the years I have started to present at conferences and having this skill has been a great boost for my career. With all of the engineers I mentor, I advise them to work on improving this skill as it really helps out in many areas. Best of luck, Sol PS I was actually interviewed on a website about this issue and its importance to engineers. I am not sharing the link to the YouTube video here so that I don't get accused of spamming. However, send me a PM and I'll forward the link.

rnev9v

askengineers_test

Taking vacation after not being given a raise? Here's the situation. I'm an engineer who inherited an upside project when the former leads left the company a year ago. I'm now doing work/using skills that are far above my pay grade (and have been for a while including working OT). I'm planning on asking for a significant raise at the start of the year to bring my pay up to what I feel like it should be at. I'm skeptical that the company is going to want to give me the raise. If they don't I'm planning on taking my 7 weeks of vacation that I have saved ( which means we will miss the contract dates ) so that I can apply for new jobs (I'm in a super in demand field and can pick up a new job in a month easy). Does anyone find this unethical?

hps2g7w

hpry2uh

Not to be Debbie Downer, but at the places I’ve worked, vacation requests are subject to supervisor approval. Generally, I haven’t seen a situation where a supervisor has approved a large block of vacation for someone during a time where a project has critical milestones coming due. My advice: get another job, provide notice, and get paid for the vacation days.

Why would it be unethical to take vacation that you earned? Go for it.

g3xezf

askhistorians_test

How do we know that ancient Greeks/Scandinavians/Egyptians/etc. believed in their gods, and that it wasn't just a collection of universally known fictional characters a la the Looney Tunes, with poems and theme parks dedicated to them?

fnuuosl

fnupbuh

How do we know what people in the ancient world believed? We read their literature, as well as we know how, and so far as it still exists. We excavate their cities and sanctuaries, and interpret them as carefully as we can. And then we try to shore the literary fragments against the ruins, and extrapolate a world. Can we know what individuals thought? Unless they were kind enough to write it down for us (and their jottings survived), no. But to the extent that the literature and the archaeological remains seem to agree, and to the extent that our cross-cultural models allow us to understand them, we can usually form a picture, however hazy, of practice and belief in an ancient society. As devoted readers of this sub, you know all this already. I just felt like pontificating. For a little more substance, let's turn, all too briefly, to the Greeks and Romans. Two blanket statements. First, virtually all Greeks and Romans believed in their gods. Second, belief in the gods did not necessarily translate to a literal understanding of the traditional myths about those gods. Greek religion and Roman religion - to use conventional shorthands for what were actually loose families of affiliated but distinctive local practices - were focused on practice, rather than belief. The gods, in other words, were assumed to be much more interested in what their worshipers did for them than in what their worshipers thought them. This meant, in effect, that the act of sacrifice was the ultimate statement of belief: gratifying the gods with burnt offerings (or libations, etc.) was at once a prudent insurance policy and an effective profession of faith. It might be tempting to imagine (by analogy with modern religious holidays) that traditional religious festivals in the classical world eventually became more or less formalities - a chance for everybody to kick back, watch a little drama, and enjoy a bit of barbecued ox. For some Greeks and Romans, they may well have become so. But the mere fact that sacrifices continued regularly, century after century, in so many ancient cities suggests that the great majority took them quite seriously: the gods were real, and had to be placated. To this can be added the vast body of evidence for personal devotion to the gods - family altars, ex voto offerings, dedications at shrines, etc., etc. And to that we may add the testimonials provided by our literary sources, which establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the great majority of Greeks and Romans assumed that the gods were very real. None of this means, of course, that they took the myths seriously. As early as the sixth century BC, Greek philosophers and public intellectuals began to criticize the myths. Some of the more radical thinkers of the Classical period theorized that the myths were actually dimly-remembered episodes from ancient history, and that the gods had originally been human kings and inventors. Others speculated that the gods and the myths had been deliberately invented in the distant past as a means of political control. Similar strands of criticism are visible in Stoic philosophy (which treated the myths as allegories), in Epicurean philosophy (which treated the myths as dangerous fables), and in the general intellectual milieu of the Roman imperial era (see, for example, the splendid satires of Lucian). It seems clear that most educated Greeks and Romans really did regard the myths as a matter of cultural literacy, not literal truth. But their disdain for the myths was motivated largely by a desire to disassociate them from the gods, in whom most of them still believed. The myths, it was thought, were unworthy of the gods, and the gods undeserving of the myths foisted upon them by tradition. I could cite various passages from ancient authors in support of all this; but frankly, I'm tired. The point, in any case, needs no belaboring. In certain contexts, many Greeks and Romans were perfectly comfortable mocking the gods of myth - take Dionysus in Aristophanes' Frogs, or Zeus in any of Lucian's dialogues. There were even "theme parks" of a sort, in the case of Ilium, a major tourist destination on what was thought to be the site of Homer's Troy (more on such tourism here). But for most Greeks and Romans (with the exception of those wretched atheistic Epicureans), the gods were real. Take the emperor Julian's heartfelt (if tedious) hymn to Cybele, or Apuleius' paean to Isis, or Aelius Aristides' praises of Ascelpius, or even - at the beginning of classical literature - Odysseus' relationship with Athena. The Greeks and Romans didn't always take their gods seriously. But they never - quite - reduced them to cartoon characters.

While there is always more to learn on this topic and we welcome new answers, in the meantime, you can check out this answer by u/DarthPositus, these answers by u/mythoplokos and u/Astrogator, and this answer by u/EdmundAgonistes, which addressed similar questions and may include useful information.

gntlr8

askhistorians_test

How did the late Romans just forget how to make concrete?! It’s baffling to me that a civilisation could just forget something so basic and useful, I mean, in an entire empire of millions of people, nobody had an old family recipe from their parents? Nobody had it written down?! Like, I understand it was a time of great upheaval, and people had bigger things to worry about, but still, it’s like if people nowadays forgot how to make plastic, it’s crazy

frc9cc9

frbx2e0

I've had the pleasure of talking about Roman concrete several times on AskHistorians. This is an edited and slightly expanded version of an older answer: Building techniques never die. They just become irrelevant... First, some background on Roman concrete. Concrete is best understood as a type of mortar. Mortar (the stuff that holds courses of bricks or blocks together) is typically composed of water, sand, and lime. There are variations - the Chinese, famously, made mortar by mixing lime with sticky rice - but in the Classical Mediterranean, the water, sand, and lime formula was always standard. Roman concrete differed from Roman mortar by virtue of its "secret ingredient" - the volcanic ash known as pozzolana, which was used in place of regular sand. This was really just a case of good geological luck on the Romans' part: Rome happened to be located near large deposits of pozzolana (later, even larger deposits would be discovered on the Bay of Naples). Roman masons quickly discovered that mortar made with pozzolana was much stronger that mortar made with regular sand. And so concrete was born. It should be noted here that not all Roman concrete was made with pozzolana. Most Italian concrete was, and pozzolana was occasionally shipped to (coastal) cities in other parts of the Empire (Herod the Great had a batch brought all the way to Caesarea in modern Israel). But there were deposits of volcanic ash with similar properties in the provinces (above all in the Greek islands). Roman builders eventually discovered, moreover, that a fairly good concrete could be made by using crushed terracotta in place of pozzolana. Contrary to what you might think, the Romans were seldom adventurous builders. Roman architects received no formal training, and had no way of mathematically modeling forces or stresses or other things likely to cause the collapse of buildings and careers. As a result, they tended to be very conservative in their use of building materials. At first, they only used concrete to save time when building thick walls: instead of making the wall of building four or five brick courses thick, they simply built brick facings and filled the interior of the wall with a mixture of rubble and concrete. Sometime in the first century BCE, the Romans discovered that concrete made with pozzolana could harden underwater - in fact, thanks to chemical reactions the Romans knew nothing about, saltwater actually strengthened the material, forming nearly unbreakable mineral bonds. So in the waning days of the Republic, Romans began to build "artificial harbors" like the famous example at Caesarea Maritima. But the great days of concrete architecture still lay ahead. Only in the mid-first century CE, under the stimulus of imperial funding and imperial demands, did concrete begin to be used to create the spectacular vaults and domes that are the greatest achievement of Roman architecture. The revolutionary moment came in the reign of Nero, when the architects Severus and Celer (about whom we know nothing) created an impressive series of concrete rooms for Nero's infamously decadent Golden House. These represented the culmination of nearly a century of experimenting with vaults, primarily in the large, imperially-sponsored bath buildings. Once Severus and Celer showed what concrete could do, the creative floodgates, for the first time in Roman architectural history, were truly open. The next century and a half witnessed the construction of the most famous Roman monuments: the Colosseum (supported by a colossal concrete foundation), the Pantheon (crowned by a spectacular concrete dome), the Baths of Caracalla (roofed by an awesome series of concrete vaults and domes), the Basilica of Maxentius in the Roman Forum (likewise vaulted) and so on. Concrete was also used in the provinces, but always on a much smaller scale. The basic reason was simple: the Roman emperors, by an incredible margin the wealthiest men in the Empire, seldom sponsored building projects outside Rome. In large provincial cities like Alexandria or Antioch or Ephesus, very impressive building projects were undertaken. But these were financed by the benefactions of wealthy citizens (often working in concert); and provincial notables, for all their wealth, could never create anything on the scale of the concrete-crowned projects in Rome. As a result, provincial concrete tended to be used more conservatively. This was not solely a matter of scale - in the Greek east, for example, a well-established tradition of fine masonry ensured that stone, not concrete, was often used in domes - but without imperially-sponsored scale or imperially-sponsored funding, the use of concrete had a fairly limited scope. Once the emperors stopped paying for large-scale construction projects, concrete largely reverted to what it had been before the Roman architectural revolution: a useful filler for thick walls. Roman concrete was not forgotten in the early middle ages, at least not in Byzantium: Procopius (*Buildings*, 1.11-18-20) mentions Justinian using Roman hydraulic concrete to build a new harbor in Constantinople. But after this, aside from a few mentions in Isidore of Seville's *Etymologies* (e.g. 15.8.1), concrete virtually vanishes from the literary record. The domes of Justinian's Haghia Sophia, the last great product of Roman engineering, were made of brick bedded in concrete. But after Justinian, the troubles that overtook the Eastern Empire (like those that had destroyed the imperial order in the west a century earlier) virtually ended monumental building for centuries. And in those centuries, concrete vaults and domes became, like so much else across the former Roman world, mementos of a vanished past. On the techniques of laying and modeling Roman concrete, I refer you to my video on the Pantheon.

There's a nice comprehensive answer from u/toldinstone to be found here.

fdilwf

askhistorians_test

Announcing the Best of February Award Winners! Another month is in the books, and the votes have been tallied. For the month of February, the '*Flairs Choice*' falls upon /u/coeurdelionne who wowed with their response to "Geoffrey of Monmouth first writes about King Arthur as an historical personage. To what extent did people during the middle ages think Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table were real historical figures? When did that perception begin to change?" The '*Users Choice*' in turn goes /u/textandtrowel, who sallied forth on "Is black vikings a thing?". For this month's *'Dark Horse'* award, which is given to the combined vote for best answer by a non-flaired user, goes to newcomer /u/huianxin, who towered over the competition responding to "Of the top 20 tallest statues in the world, 15 depict a Buddha or are Buddhist in nature. How did a religion typically associated with aeseticism and impermanence come to produce such ostentatious art?". The *'Greatest Question'* award, bestowed by the mods for a question we find to be unique, insightful, or highlighting a less trafficked topic this month saw the team drawn to "Can anyone tell me about African-American sailors on whaling ships in the early nineteenth century?", which was asked by /u/cnzmur, and wonderfully answered by /u/Stalking_Goat. Finally, our double-teamed *'Excellence in Flairdom'* award for February goes to /u/aquatermain and /u/Libertat! They have been a positive, prominent, and persistent presence in the panel population for a long time now. Whether or not you've read one of their answers directly, you've benefited from the overall atmosphere they help create. Thanks for being so terrific, Libertat and aquatermain! As always, congrats to our very worthy winners, and thank you to everyone else who has contributed here, whether with thought-provoking questions or fascinating answers. And if this month you want to flag some stand-out posts that you read here for potential nomination, don't forget to post them in our Sunday Digest! For a list of past winners, check them out here!

fjibp6y

fjhxezz

Wow, "Dark Horse" haha, thank you to everyone that read and enjoyed my writeup! Special thanks to the mods as well for all the work they put in and coordinating with me to help produce a better answer, and congratulations to all the other winners and writers. Cheers to all for making this an academically comprehensive, unique, interesting, and special sub!

Thank you so much for this honor. As always, being able to be part of such an amazing community is both a privilege and a pleasure, as is the case for every contribution I'm able to make. Bonus points for being featured with **the** /u/Libertat! I can't believe my luck. Congratulations to my fellow winners!

fdd6ia

askhistorians_test

In ww1, when a trench was hit with mustard gas, did that temporarily solve its lice and rat problems? I figured since everything that breathes and doesnt have a respirator suffocates when trenches are flooded with mustard gas or other chemical weapons, it might kill all the rats and lice in the trench. Was this the case?

fjhk3gh

fjhk4ho

Mustard gas, chlorine, and phosgene were three of the most common gases used. Note that while chlorine and phosgene do have the suffocation effect you mention, mustard gas is actually a blistering agent - and it's actually not even a gas, although inhaling the vapors could cause pulmonary edema in addition to first and second degree burns...the effects of mustard gas, in other words, were not suffocation per se. With regard to the effects of chemical warfare on the rats and lice in the trenches, there's some anecdotes among combat memoires that suggest an overall limited or unnoticeable effect on population (again - this is anecdotal). For example, in *With a Machine Gun to Cambrai* (I use this example in particular because coincidentally, Cambrai marked the first use of a mustard agent by the Allies), George Coppard, serving with the British across several major battles in France during 1916-1917, noted that "What happened to the rats under heavy shell-fire was a mystery, but their powers of survival kept place with each new weapon, including poison gas." It should be noted that the day in, day out dealing with rats could have an effect on the anecdotal observations of soldiers who may have simply not noticed a slight reduction in rat population after a gas attack. With regard to lice, one thing to bear in mind is that any protective equipment meant to entirely cover the body and clothing would have protected the lice as well. This situation applies to a mustard agent, which in part is designed to soak through clothing, blistering and burning the skin and ensuring the victim would inhale noxious vapor from the chemical soaked into his clothes. So...if you protect the clothing, skin and hair, you're protecting the home of the lice. I can speak to the rat issue more than lice, though. Realize that the purpose of mustard gas was not to kill, but incapacitate. Only 1% of exposure cases in WW1 were lethal. But mustard agent settles (heavier than air) and sticks around (for weeks), and continues to cause bad effects if one comes into contact with it after the initial attack. In fact, as the war progressed, higher and higher concentrations of mustard agent were used in combination with aerosols (since, again, mustard agent is not a gas) to cause soldiers to abandon certain areas of line - however, these would not be reoccupied by the attackers...this is an example of area denial. It's very likely that in the areas that were heavily attacked, whether or not the rat population was affected would be unnoticed by soldiers since they'd have evacuated that section of line, and rerouted accordingly. Their new space would look particularly inviting to the rats that evacuated with them. Okay, so what about rats that stuck around after an attack? With regard to a nominal amount of mustard gas in the environment, a 1975 study found that "No deaths attributable to sulfur mustard were noted in mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, or dogs exposed to 0.1 mg/m3 (0.015 ppm) of sulfur mustard vapor, 6.5 hours/day, 5 days/week, for up to 1 year (McNamara et al. 1975)." So simply being around the trenches after most of the chemical dissipated had likely no effect on the rat population. The same study found a small likelihood of chronic keratitis in that population, which would affect rat vision. This study also found some effects in birth rate and mutations, but this is essentially null considering the over all birth rate for rats in the trenches (producing upwards of 900 offspring per year per couple). Again, we're only talking about the impact of low levels of exposure over time. The oral LD50 for rats is 17 mg/kg (LD50 is the median lethal dose). That's what the concentration would need to be if, for example, a rat were to chomp down on a blown off decomposing hand in a trench. Acute exposure (environmental) to 2.5mg per day could take 10 days to death, though...so this should give a bit of a range in understanding how much a rat could take before dying. Also, up to 15.5mg could be applied to the skin according to a 1994 study with only moderate blistering. What does this mean? A rat can withstand a fair amount of environmental exposure that would not affect breeding, but direct ingestion would be more likely to cause death. I'm not going to go much further into the various effects, but here's a CDC source for further research: link. I've taken more of a deep dive into mustard agent, but note that phosgene was the primary killer (85%) of gases used in WWI. Chlorine killed much faster, but phosgene was used primarily. Both would have a severe effect on rats, would would not be able to withstand anywhere close to an LD50 for humans for either gas. In the German attacks on British troops at Hulluch in April 1916, using a mixture of both phosgene and chlorine, rats were seen fleeing German trenches prior to the attack - the assumption was that this was due to leaky cylinders (the Germans had stored nearly 7,500 cylinders along the line to produce two major gas cloud attacks). Bottom line - yes, rats could be affected by all three of the major gases (I'm excluding tear gas, which was used more frequently earlier in the war but is clearly not meant to kill or deny area access). However, the population would not likely be locally affected enough for a noticeable difference by soldiers. The one reason a soldier would notice an immediate dissipation of the local rat population would be during an aerial bombardment, in which rats always seemed to disappear. This is by no means anecdotal, and was observed on a widespread basis throughout the war.

Mustard gas is certainly lethal to rats, not to mention other small critters that inhabited the hellish landscape of the front. Plenty of data exists on *exactly* what mustard gas, not to mention just about any other hazardous chemical, will do to a rat as they of course are often the laboratory subjects for tests to determine exactly that, not to mention countless other unfortunate creatures like mice, pigs, dogs, horses, and so on. The super short summary though if we cut to the chase for the LD50 of mustard gas, as that was the one you mentioned (although I presume you are interested more in WWI chemical warfare than *mustard gas*, so will also speak more generally about the former's impact), it is as follows: Species | Route | LD50 (mg/kg) ---|---|--- Human | Oral | 0.7 Human | Dermal | 100 Rat | Oral | 17 Rat | Dermal | 5 Other gases too, of course, were tested on rats and other animals, both during and long after the war. In a report from 1917 by the British Chemical Warfare Medical Committee, we see several examples of this: >Field experiments have shown that a rat and rabbit placed about five yards from, and to leeward of, a bomb containing phosgene were found dead within eight minutes after its explosion. Control animals similarly situated to windward died after several hours. Other controls, in which shells filled with water instead of toxic substances were used, have shown that the concussion must not be regarded as a cause of death. >Similar results have been obtained in laboratory experiments at Cambridge and elsewhere. Mice exposed to a high concentration of phosgene in a small closed chamber may die during the third minute. The rats knew the danger the gas posed too. One of the warnings of an incoming attack for the soldiers in the trenches would be the fuzzy stampede as the rats which had been inhabiting No Mans Land fled in front of the oncoming clouds that drifted towards the trench, their squeaks of terror amplifying the official alarms. The aftermath would see the carcasses of rats strewn about, as well as other small mammals and avian life that had been eking out a survival there, or was forced into the trench of course, such as horses of dogs. A British study done in the wake of the war noted of one German attack carried out in early 1916, believed to be a mix of chlorine and phosgene: >Grass and other vegetation were turned yellow by the gas as far back as 1 ,200 yds. from the front line. Rats were killed in the trenches in large numbers. Eleven cows, twenty-three calves, one horse, one pig, and fifteen hens were killed in the fields behind the lines by gas, and a number of other cattle and pigs showed signs of being affected by the gas. Speaking of a different attack, a British officer described the image of the rats much more vividly when he wrote of what a gas attack did to them: >The trenches swarmed with rats, big rats, small rats, grey rats, tall rats in every stage of gas poisoning! Some were sucrrying along scarcely affected while others were slowly dragging themselves about trying to find a corner in which to die. A most horrid sight - but very good riddance. Good riddance indeed, as the rats were considered quite a scourge of the trench, and soldiers found that one of the few things that had *any* impact on their presence was the enemy, whether gas as above, or the explosions of artillery or grenades sending them scurrying away. It wasn't exactly a good trade-off, all in all though, since as made clear enough, even a gas attack could hardly be counted on to result in total lethality, and the ever common presence of heavenly conditions was sure to bring new rats in short order, likely a large contribution to literally millions of causalities in the war from the diseases they so easily spread. After the war, men who had gained experience in chemical warfare in the war likely remembered the devastation that their weaponry had wrought on the local fauna, and in the 1920s attempts were made to 'pacify' gas warfare and introduce it as the newest way to protect crops from vermin and pests. The US Chemical Warfare Service conducted several tests in conjunction with the government on the promise that it offered "the quickest and surest method in attacking crop destroying pests, whether ground squirrels, gopher, blackbird, crows, buzzard, rats, or grasshopper". Tests specifically aimed at rats were conducted in 1920 in the Gulf, in hopes of containing bubonic plague, and early reports claimed to be a rousing success with the use of a mixture of phosgene and chlorine gas. But testing in a contained 900 sq. foot area isn't the same as wide application, and the transition never was successfully made. Overall, such attempts to reapply chemical warfare to the civilian world showed that results were at best contained to the test conditions or short-lived, and in some cases quite counterproductive. One attempt at tent caterpillar extermination found that it was killing the plants too. Other gasses were found to be ineffective, and the ones that worked best were of course the ones that were worst for humans as well. And the most desired target, the boll weevil, proved to be impervious to whatever was thrown its way as it simply could survive without breathing. Nevertheless it did help lay the groundwork for research that would eventually lead to more successful pesticides, even if not from the Chemical Warfare Service. Now, as for lice, I would on the whole have to defer to someone else to note if there was any impact. I can make some guesses, but I wouldn't want to speculate. I would simply note that there is some very promising titled material in the National Archives which seem to be undigitized in the Records of the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, especially "*Report on Experiments Conducted on October 16, 1918, Testing the Effect of Certain Toxic Gases on Body Lice and Their Eggs*" in Record Group 7. **Sources** Brantz, Dorothee. "Environments of Death" in *War and the Environment: Military Destruction in the Modern Age*, edited by Charles E. Closmann. Texas A&M University Press, 2009. Cook, Tim. *No Place to Run: The Canadian Corps and Gas Warfare in the First World War*. UBC Press, 2011. Faith, Thomas. *Behind the Gas Mask: The U.S. Chemical Warfare Service in War and Peace*. University of Illinois Press, 2014. Gupta, Ramesh. *Veterinary Toxicology: Basic and Clinical Principles*. Elsevier, 2011. MacPherson, W.G., Herringham, W.P., Elliott, T.R., & Balfour, A. eds. *Medical Services: Diseases of the War, Vol. II*. His Majesty's Stationary Office, 1923. Medical Research Committee, *Reports of the Chemical Warfare Medical Committee of the Medical Research Committee: No. 1*, Physiology (War) Committee of the Royal Society. 1918. Russell, Edmund. *War and Nature: Fighting Humans and Insects with Chemicals from World War I to Silent Spring*. Cambridge University Press, 2001. “War on Rats with Poison Gas.” *Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering* 23, no. 11 (September 15, 1920): 543. Young, Leslie. "Observations on the Effects of Mustard Gas on the Rat". *Canadian Journal of Research*, 1947, 25e (3), 141-151 ETA: A few more quotations to add a bit more color. Also, don't miss /u/voidoid's piece here in the thread which is a nice complement.

mwi29m

askhistorians_test

A booby-trapped temple is a major set piece in "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark." Were such set-ups actually found in temples in South America or was that poetic license? If they did exist, I'd be curious if any unlucky archeologists, local residents, or explorers discovered one such setup or if they inferred their presence based on context clues.

gvinf2t

gviutmp

While you wait for newer answers you can check out previous discussions of this topic, such as those from this list of such threads compiled by /u/soulstealer1984.

/u/SecondTalon has previously found answers about booby traps in tombs by /u/kookingpot and /u/toldinstone, among others. EDIT: More answers remain to be written, this is a very popular topic.

rqau26

askhistorians_test

Why isn’t the genocide of Native American’s spoken of in the same vein as the Jewish Holocaust? As a subject, this wasn’t brought up at all in my experience at school, and in general it isn’t talked about even comparably as often as the Holocaust is when it comes to historical atrocities. I find this hard to explain given conservative estimates of the death toll of Native American is said to be roughly 12 million according to Russell Thornton, and vary significantly with a toll of 100 million documented by D.E Stannard, author of ‘The American Holocaust’, the reasonable conclusion seems to land at around 75 million lives lost between Columbus’ arrival in 1492-1900, which works out to be close to 90% of the entire Native American population, with 5 million remaining today. Could someone please explain why, with a conservative estimate of twice as many lives lost, it isn’t spoken of with the same condemnation as the Holocaust, or if you were educated on the subject differently to what I was.

hq9thyd

hqai7wy

As often happens, many of the removed comments are simply "what happened to the comments"? However, we've also removed a number of comments that reflect common misunderstandings around the genocide(s) of American Indians. This message is not intended to provide all the answers, but simply to address some of the basic facts, as well as genocide denialism in this regard, and provide a short list of introductory reading. Because this topic covers a large area of study, the actions of the United States will be highlighted. There is always more that can be said, but we hope this is a good starting point. ##What is Genocide? Since the conceptualization of the act of genocide, scholars have developed a variety of frameworks to evaluate instances that may be considered genocide. One of the more common frameworks is the definition and criteria implemented by the United Nations. The term "genocide," as coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1943, was defined by the U.N. in 1948. The use of this term was further elaborated by the genocide convention. Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide: 1. The mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and 2. The physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide." Article II: In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: * (a) Killing members of the group; * (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; * (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; * (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; * (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. ##American Indian Genocides – Did they happen? Since the arrival of Europeans to the Americas, typically signaled with the appearance of Columbus in 1492, Indigenous Peoples have experienced systematic oppression and extermination at the hands of colonial powers. These colonizing governments either organized or sponsored acts of genocide perpetrated by settlers, targeting Indigenous settlements for complete destruction; eliminating sources of food and access to life-sustaining resources; instituting child separation policies; and forcefully relocating Indigenous populations to often times inhospitable tracts of land, now known as “reservations.” All of these acts constitute what scholars now recognize as genocide. The horrendous acts that occurred in the Americas were even an example proposed by Lemkin himself, where it is noted from his writings: >Lemkin applied the term to a wide range of cases including many involving European colonial projects in Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and the Americas. A recent investigation of an unfinished manuscript for a global history of genocide Lemkin was writing in the late 1940s and early 1950s reveals an expansive view of what Lemkin termed a “Spanish colonial genocide.” He never began work on a projected chapter on “The Indians of North America,” though his notes indicate that he was researching Indian removal, treaties, the California gold rush, and the Plains wars. These actions took place over the entirety of the Americas, exacerbating the rapid depopulation of Indigenous Nations and communities. Exact figures of the population decline are inconclusive, giving us only estimates at best, with Pre-Columbian population numbers ranging anywhere from as low as 8 million to as high as ~100 million inhabitants across North, Central, and South America. What we do know is that in the United States, records indicate the American Indian population had dropped to approximately 250,000 by 1900. Despite any debate about population statistics, the historical records and narratives conclude that, at least according to the U.N. definition, genocide was committed. ##Mental Element: Establishing Intent In order for genocide to be committed, there must be reasonable evidence to establish an intent to commit what constitutes genocide. Through both word and action, we can see that colonial powers, such as the United States, did intend at times to exterminate American Indian populations, often with public support. Government officials, journalists, scholars, and public figures echoed societal sentiments regarding their desire to destroy Indians, either in reference to specific groups or the whole race. >”This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.” --Thomas Jefferson, 1813]( https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.047_0147_0150/?sp=3) >"That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct must be expected." [--California Governor Peter Burnett, 1851 >". . .these Indians will in the end be exterminated. They must soon be crushed - they will be exterminated before the onward march of the white man." --U.S. Senator John Weller, 1852, page 17, citation 92 ##Physical Element: Acting with Purpose **U.S. Army Policy of Killing Buffalo (Criterion C)** In this post, it is explained how it was the intention and policy of the U.S. Army to kill the buffalo of America off in an attempt to subdue, and even exterminate, the Plains Indians. **Sterilization (Criterion D)** The Indian Health Service (IHS) is a federally run service for American Indians and Alaska Natives. It is responsible for providing proper health care for American Indians as established via the treaties and trust relationship between tribes and the U.S. Government. However, on November 6, 1976, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released the results of an investigation that concluded that between 1973 and 1976, IHS performed 3,406 sterilizations on Native American women. Per capita, this figure would be equivalent to sterilizing 452,000 non-Native American women. Many of these sterilizations were conducted without the consent of the women being sterilized or under coercion. **Boarding Schools (Criterion E)** The systematic removal of Indian children from their parents and placement into boarding schools was a policy implemented by the United States meant to force American Indian children to assimilate into American culture,]( https://redd.it/8zgozt) thus “[killing] the Indian, [and saving] the man.” These schools were operated by various entities, including the federal government and church/missionary organizations. While constituting cultural genocide as well, American Indian children were beaten, neglected, and barred from practicing their cultures. Some children even died at these schools. ##But What About the Diseases? In the United States, a subtle state of denial exists regarding portions of this country's history. One of the biggest issues concerning the colonization of the Americas is whether or not this genocide was committed by the incoming colonists. And while the finer points of this subject are still being discussed, few academics would deny that acts of genocide were committed. However, there are those who vehemently attempt to refute conclusions made by experts and assert that no genocide occurred. These [“methods of denialism” are important to recognize to avoid being manipulated by those who would see the historical narratives change for the worse. One of the primary methods of denial is the over severity of diseases introduced into the Americas after the arrival of the colonizers, effectively turning these diseases into ethopoeic scapegoats responsible for the deaths of Indigenous Peoples. While it is true that disease was a huge component of the depopulation of the Americas, often resulting in up to a 95% mortality rate for many communities and meaning *some* communities endured more deaths from disease, these effects were greatly exacerbated by actions of colonization. ##Further Reading Though there is much information about this topic, this introductory list of books and resources provide ample evidence to attest the information presented here: * *Beyond Germs: Native Depopulation in North America* edited by Catherine Cameron, Paul Kelton, and Alan Swedlund * *American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492* by Russell Thornton * *Murder State: California's Native American Genocide, 1846-1873* by Brendan Lindsay * *Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur* by Ben Kiernan * *American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World* by David Stannard * *Myths of Conquest* by /u/anthropology_nerd * AskHistorians FAQ

Just to address this from a different perspective, ie why is the Holocaust considered unique, I will link to an answer by u/commiespaceinvader to the question "When people discuss the Holocaust, why do they focus mainly on the killing of the 6 million Jews?"]( https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/564gvm/comment/d8g92dz/). Specifically: >"In short the Western imagination of itself had experienced atrocities and horrors inflicted against political opponents, "deviants", and colonial subjects but it had never experienced that all it used to define itself as good and progressive – the modern state and its bureaucracy, industry, science, the police – was used to murder an entire group of European peoples." It's old but I will also link to a [comment by u/400-rabbits on Stannard, which adds a bit of complexity - there are multiple historic Holocausts and they are all unique, if interrelated. One thing I will add in addition to those answers is that when one is comparing the Holocaust to Indigenous peoples of the Americas, you're dealing with vastly different things in terms of time and scale - it's not just a numbers game. When we are talking about indigenous peoples of the Americas, we are discussing hundreds of different groups, who had very different experiences at the hands of different actors. Which is to say it makes it hard to talk about a singular "genocide" - the answer from u/EdHistory101 specifically focuses on the United States government in the 19th and 20th centuries, but that is part of a much larger history of conflict and dispossession of indigenous peoples lasting from the 1490s to literally this very moment, involving a vast array of actors. To be more comparable you'd probably need to compare the entire history of European anti-semitism from 1492 to the present. The Holocaust itself is historically a much more concentrated event, involving one government as a prime mover (the NSDAP regime in Germany), which intentionally targeted Jews in Europe for industrialized mass killing, most of which took place over a three year period during the war (ETA a 2019 study found 25% of Holocaust victims were actually murdered in a three month period). Not only was this genocide extremely intentional and organized and planned to an exceptional level of detail, but Germany made it an overriding policy objective, even in its relations with friendly/allied countries - there were even low-level discussions between German and Japanese officials about the possibility of murdering the 20,000 Jewish refugees in Shanghai (the Japanese refused). However, even with that said I should point out via this thread that there is an ongoing historic debate at the moment as to how much white settlement of the Americas directly inspired Nazi policies and goals in Eastern Europe.

1q0vi2

askhistorians_test

How did people wake up at set times before the modern day alarm clock?

cd83odk

cd83gnz

Hooray! this is something I can answer. Partially... In Europe, it was still clocks, belltower clocks. The reason that there were so many belltowers in cities hundreds of years ago was that you couldn't afford a clock and you still needed to be places at a certain time, work, meetings social arrangements, exact time was becoming an issue, so you had clocks with bells on them, directing the pace of the cities. At the more significant times, often more bells would ring. Bells would stay silent during general sleeping hours. Source: Boorstien's The Discoverers. The other big answer, when exact time was less important was sunlight. Leave your shutters, blinds, and curtains open. Check when you wake up. Blue spectrum shifted light occurs around sunrise and sunset, and wakes you up, this is why you may feel a bit drowsy at noon. This is still effective in blind individuals, but not in individuals that have lost their eyes. Source: I am a diagnosed insomniac, and have done a lot of research into this matter. It should be relatively easy to look up.

This is a very specific example that pertains only Muslims during Ramadan, but is an example of a professional acting as an alarm-clock for a whole neighborhood (and they still exist in some parts of the Islamic World today). During Ramadan, Muslims are required to fast from sunrise to sundown, or more specifically, from the prayer at sunrise to the prayer at sunset (I feel the need to clarify this because for many Muslim expats now, particularly in far-northern countries like Scotland, the dawn prayer can be standardized if Ramadan falls during a time that makes its schedule very, very different, especially in places where the sun never *really* sets) Sorry for that long-winded clarification. Anyway, to help Muslims get up before the morning prayer in time to eat the morning meal Suhuur (سحور) the Musaharati roughly meaning the Suhuur-announcer (but really just an active participle of the word Suhuur) would go through the streets of Muslim neighborhoods banging on a drum and yelling to the community various messages, during the first few days of Ramadan one such yell was "Awake, oh faster and praise Allah. Welcome to you Ramadan, month of forgiveness." The Musaharati has disappeared from some communities today unfortunately replaced by alarm-clocks, although apparently in Mecca his role has been taken over by a cannon, which I find quite cool. Though it does get to your Q OP of how people could get up without a modern alarm clock for something as vital as a pre-fast meal, if you missed it, no food till Iftar after sundown. And considering that Suhuur traditionally takes place at 2am, I find a man yelling out my name (though apparently this was only done for the boys/men in the community) would be very helpful. Some reading about Musaharati: http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=2009082848103 http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/misaharaty.htm Also, if this has you at all interested here is a clip from the Egyptian singer Sayed Mekawy who created a character of the Musaharati which was wildly popular at the time and can still be seen during Ramadan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8w_Awta-6M

x2vmwm

askhistorians_test

In the early 14th century, Mansa Musa recounted a story of his predecessor disappearing on an attempt to cross the Atlantic with thousands of ships. If such an expedition did happen, what would the Malian ships have looked like? I'm not so much asking about the veracity of the story here; I understand that we have virtually no records about it and aren't even sure of the identity of the mansa in question. However, I've had a hard time learning much about any West African ships of the time beyond river canoes that seem ill-suited to even think of going out in to open ocean (though that's "seem ill-suited" to my eye, which is very much an ignorant one on the matter of sailing). If any exploration of the Atlantic was conducted by Mali around this time, what would the ships be like?

imnm04r

imnks2c

The Mali Empire was primarily concentrated along the highlands of Mandeland (located in contemporary Republic of Guinea and southern Republic of Mali) and along the Niger River Valley, with its downstream border being somewhere between the cities of Kawkaw (modern Gao) and Kukiya (modern Bentiya). At its heyday, the Mali reached the distant lands of some saharan cities (like Walata, Essouk/Tadmakka and Takedda) all the way to the Atlantic Coast, between the Senegal and Gambia rivers. With that data in mind, we can proceed to investigate the watercourses the Malians would be familiar with and figure out the boats they used to navigate them. Namely, they were familiar with the slow waters of major rivers (Niger, Senegal and Gambia) and with the coast of modern day Senegambia. Sadly, we lack direct sources about what types of boats were available at that time (14th century) in that particular area (River valleys and Senegambian coast). However, we do have a lot of accounts from european traders from the 16th century onwards, and those are quite useful. European traders, sailing along the Senegambian coast, quickly found africans (wolofs, serers, mandinkas, bizagos and others) using canoes - some quite large, that could transport cattle - to navigate the ocean. Those canoes lacked sails and depended on the strength of rowers to get somewhere. The fact that the Cape Verde islands (about 600 kilometers from the coast) were uninhabited prior to the arrival of european sailors is strong evidence that the local african canoes didn't get very far into the open sea, prefering coastal areas. Those canoes were mostly made out a single tree and quite effective at their purpose (i.e. navigate around the coast and into river estuaries), but sometimes more diverse materials would be used. In the larger and calmer rivers inland, canoes were used as well, but also bigger boats made out of several pieces of wood, capable of carrying lots of people and animals. They, however, also lacked proper sails and relied on people (either rowing or pushing against the riverbed with paddles) or simply the gentle currents of the river. TL;DR: Basically canoes and boats that lacked sails and, despite their occasional large size, lacked the proper resistance to sustain damage caused by waves or fight sea currents. They wouldn't get far and, in the odd occasion that they did, the boats would be at the mercy of the ocean.

This has been asked multiple times, searching for 'mansa musa atlantic' yields for example this topic with a nice answer by /u/MansaMontezuma

5tsanz

askhistorians_test

Why are the former states of the Confederacy now some of the most fervently patriotic in the US, and when did that change? Anyone who's driven around the American South has seen the "Confederate flag" somewhere, often hanging or flying near an American flag. Much of Southern culture and identity seems to be focused around patriotism, even while people espouse "Lost Cause" ideology. How did this region go from insurrection to fervent patriotism, and how have those two ideas been reconciled so completely in many peoples' minds?

ddorxlc

ddp286m

This might be more of an /r/AskAnthropology question?

This is not an answer to your question as such but you may wish to examine closely the language you're using and determine if you mean "nationalism" or "patriotism" and what, if any, distinction exists between the two. I raise this question because the focus on the primacy of the state vs that of national culture and identity changes the nature of the conflict you're addressing. I'd also argue that this may not be the most suitable sub for this question as notions of patriotism and national identity are socially constructed and our modern viewpoint presupposes a modern definition of both, which necessarily falls within the 20 year blackout zone. That said, you're probably asking two questions - how the Lost Cause is compatible with American Patriotism and how southern culture came to be seen as more authentically American (regionally or nationally) than, say, Eastern or Western or Southwestern culture.

i4fpz9

askhistorians_test

Victorians were prude by today's standards, yet victorian painters always seemed able to find women willing to pose nude, whether they were in Europe, America, or overseas in Arab-dominated countries. How hard would it have been to find willing nude models? How frowned on was their work? John Singer Sargent found a girl willing to pose nude in Egypt, where one might imagine women were expected to be pretty buttoned up. In The Reading Girl, Théodore Roussel, a Frenchman living in England, painted a popular model from the era, Hetty\_Pettigrew, who apparently earned good money posing for many artists. Would her profession have been seen as highly immoral by the standards of the day?

g0i7d9s

g0iag6j

Here is a response to a similar question about prudeness in the Victorian era

> "in Arab-dominated countries" I can't say with certainty that this particular model was a prostitute, but it strikes me as the most likely way he would have found a nude model in Egypt in the 19th century. John Singer Sargent apparently was no stranger to brothels, as this page about the painting notes at the top. Prostitutes were basically the typical way that European men gained access to women in the Middle East in the 19th century, with sometimes preposterous results. So for example when Gustave Flaubert was traveling in Egypt he described the erotic "dance of the bee". It was erotic because the performer was a prostitute he had paid and then slept with. This and other descriptions by 19th century European observers writing about how their prostitutes danced for them created a fundamental misunderstanding of what Arab dance consisted of, among other things. There were some exceptions. Edward William Lane writing in the 1830s recruited his sister to report on the goings on in the harems, bath houses, and other women-only spaces that he could not be admitted to.

312inc

askhistorians_test

At Noon EDT (1600 UTC), further /r/AskFantasyHistorians submissions will start being removed. Existing threads are still open for posting. Hello everyone, In about ten minutes, we will be cutting any further submissions to /r/AskHistorians that don't conform to our non-April Fools requirements, as we want to start transitioning things back to normal. However, you may continue the festivities in existing threads posted before the deadline! Additionally, for those who have asked, we will be compiling a list of threads and make it available soon. We have been quite in awe of the turn out and enthusiasm for this, so thanks to everyone who has helped make it work, both by asking and answering questions!

cpxwp91

cpxww30

This has been a blast! We'll begin compiling soon. Please direct future inquiries/subscriptions to /r/AskScienceFiction! :)

I went to a date and time map and have discovered that it is midnight April 2 precisely nowhere in the world now--it is currently Thursday April 2 at 6:00 AM in New Zealand and Wednesday April 1 at 5:00 AM on Midway. However, I could not help but notice that I could not find any time zone listing for Illuminati underground bases. I'm just asking questions here. EDIT: Speaking of questions, I appear to have the official last posted fantasy thread, which is probably the proudest achievement of my life.

e01esa

askhistorians_test

Given that Pre-Islamic Arabia was a very women-friendly and sexually "liberal" society, what is the source of Islam's extremely puritanical culture? In Robert G. Holyland's Arabia and the Arabs, various historical sources are mentioned that tell us pre-Islamic Arabian culture was one in which women could marry multiple men, advertise for mercenary husbands when they wanted children, had the right to dismiss their husbands when they wanted, enjoyed significant financial independence, with Arab tribes sometimes having matrilinear lineages, female gods, and queens. The Qur'an partially mentions some of this (like the female gods, decrying them) and urges Muslim women not to emulate the women of the time of ignorance in their bedizenment, with the Tafsirs pointing out to pre-Islamic Arabian women dressing in a skimpy manner and without modesty. **How come that Islam, which developed against this backdrop, came to be such a puritanical religion in which any sexual or romantic affection before marriage is heavily frowned upon, and in which women have to cover themselves partially or fully almost all the time?**

f8cr3zo

f8cthsu

I think you're vastly overstating Pre-Islamic Arabia's "very" women-friendly and sexually liberal society. > In Robert G. Holyland's Arabia and the Arabs, various historical sources are mentioned that tell us pre-Islamic Arabian culture was one in which women could marry multiple men, advertise for mercenary husbands when they wanted children, had the right to dismiss their husbands when they wanted, enjoyed significant financial independence, with Arab tribes sometimes having matrilinear lineages, female gods, and queens. Looking back at Hoyland it seems these thing are weren't as ubiquitous as you make it seem. He mostly cites only one or two sources for each claim. How common or prevalent these things were remains unseen. The time period was long enough and pre-Islamic society diverse enough where we cannot take these things as representative. > women could marry multiple men Hoyland says; > Diversity in marriage customs is also evident in the degree to which monogamy, polygyny (one man many wives) and polyandry (one woman many husbands) all crop up in our sources. Hoyland then goes on to quote a source saying polyandry was practiced as fraternal polyandry and brothers would share a wife. > Arab tribes sometimes having matrilinear lineages Hoyland says; > While descent through the male line would seem to have been the norm in pre-Islamic Arabia, we are occasionally given hints of matrilineal arrangements. The problem with discussing pre-Islamic Arabia is that there just aren't that many sources let alone sources about women, to give insight on how most women lived. So it becomes difficult to make any kind of judgment about how "liberal" pre-Islamic society was. Even Hoyland's book only discusses women in society for six pages and mostly only discusses the things you mentioned here. Hoyland's book does not give a rigorous enough discussion to make any kind of judgement on the "liberalness" of pre-Islamic Arabia. The things discussed do not in and of themselves indicate a women-friendly or sexually liberal society. These things can still exist in a patriarchal and misogynist society. Hoyland also mentions that women were encountered "first and foremost as wives and mothers." Not to mention they may not have been as ubiquitous as the book suggests. One of the largest sources for information on pre-Islamic Arabia come from Islamic sources themselves. However Islamic sources are not charitable to the position of women in pre-Islamic Arabia and characterized the time as a time of ignorance and barbarism. For example sources mention things like bride kidnapping, forced marriage, marriage by inheritance, female infanticide, forced prostitution etc. Islamic sources saw Islam as elevating the position of position of women in Arabia and giving them rights like the right to divorce, the right to consent to marriage, right to a bride-price, etc. Early Muslims who had known both pre-Islamic and post-Islamic Arabia commented on the positive turn Islam had given women in terms of women's status in society. So we actually don't know very much what it was actually like for women in pre-Islamic Arabia and cannot make judgements about how "liberal" or "women-friendly" it actually was. There simply isn't enough historical information to make this kind of judgment.

Hey! So this has a couple of different parts that I hope to address. I can't give a super specific answer, but will try to touch on a number of facets you could ask follow-up questions about. I'm pulling some from previous answers that I have written, but much of this is also new. A great book on this topic is Leila Ahmed's book *Women and Gender in Islam*, which I will heavily use below. # Part 1 – Quick Note on Veiling Itself Because you specifically mentioned it, I wanted to start with a small section on veiling itself. Veiling was common practice in multiple pre-Islamic societies across the Middle East. In Assyrian culture wearing a veil separated between a 'respectable' woman and those who were 'up for grabs', so to say. Upper class women, concubines accompanying those women, and former "sacred prostitutes" all had to wear it whereas normal prostitutes and slaves were forbidden from veiling themselves, even so far as being under threat of flogging or having their ears cut off. Ahmed then writes that this practice spread throughout the upper-class Mediterranean world - from the Levant through to Persia - and also crossed religious lines appearing in Byzantine Christian societies. Here, Ahmed gives the example of a 10th century Byzantine patriarch who wrote that he only allowed his daughter to go out "veiled and suitable chaperoned". She also notes the reasoning, separating the respectable from the rabble, remains constant even in these other societies. However, that is not to say that veiling was necessarily widespread in Arabia itself. Women of the *jahilyya* pre-Islamic period did not normally don a veil. This of course varied from city to countryside, with cities being more likely to veil. Overall, nowhere was the veil common to the extent of places like neighboring Syria and Palestine. As you noted in your question, sexual relations in Arabia were more open than in those other societies, with both polygamy and polyandry being present. Through Muhammad's entire life, the only women who were regularly veiled or secluded were his wives. Through successful revelations received by Muhammad, the practice of veiling and seclusion took hold among them, getting to the point where the phrasing "she took the veil" became synonymous to "she became a wife of Muhammad". Various impetuses pushed Muhammad towards these rulings. For example, it was after he became annoyed with guests staying too long chatting with his wives after dinner that the Sura 33 was revealed, within which verse 54 details that one should only speak to Muhammad's wives from behind a curtain. The word he uses for curtain is *ḥijāb*. Most westerners associate the word *hijab* with some sort of head-wrap of veil, but it also literally can mean 'veil' in the sense of a curtain. Verse 59 then gives the commandment to women to "bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused." This is allegedly in response to the "hypocrites", mere nominal converts to Islam, harassing Muslim women and claiming to have thought they were slaves. Finally, I should note that the later second Caliph, Omar, was a proponent of seclusion of women and veiling and actively pushed Muhammad towards this position. # Part 2 – The evolution of the Woman’s place This is what I suspect to be the more interesting section – why did Islam develop the way it did, when women played such major roles in pre-Islamic and early Islamic times? In the *jahilyya*, and within early Islam, women contributed in a number of facets of life. Women were soothsayers and prophetesses such as Sajah, a Christian woman of the Banū Tamīm who led a force of over 4,000 along with Musaylimah, “The Liar”, in rebellion against the nascent Muslim state. Like the previous sentence indicates, they were also involved in warfare. They were not only poets, telling stories of the battles and engaging in ritualistic pre-battle exchanges of insults, but also warriors themselves. Umm ‘Umara fought at a number of battles alongside men, eventually losing her hand at the Battle of ‘Uqraba in 634. Women were heavily involved in early Islamic religious life, providing the many of the *hadith* that came to guide religious life. It was common for them to remarry, showing there to be a lack of stigma against non-virgins, and often they brought significant wealth to these relationships (Muhammad’s first wife, Khadija, was one such widow. 15 years his senior, she was rich enough to allow Muhammad to not have to work, allowing him to instead focus on his spiritual teachings). #**So why did this begin to change?** The changes actually started before the spread of Islam, as merchants in urban Arabian cities were increasingly exposed to the norms and cultures of lands with much more rigid gender roles. This can be seen as an explanation as to why it was the cities, not the countryside, that first adopted veiling. However, what brought the changes into hyperdrive was the rapid expansion of the early Islamic Empire. Not only did this bring increased contact with these foreign cultures, but it also brought an influx of slaves, diminishing the bargaining power of even Arab-born women. The conquests brought untold wealth to the Arabs. Even regular soldiers were able to afford slaves, houses, and concubines. Accordingly, women lost one of their original bargaining chips – the wealth they brought to marriages. Further, as a condition for surrendering and keeping their place, many Persian and Sassanian nobles converted to Islam. They kept, however, their original cultures. One of the features that developed around this time was the harem, with a multitude of women being walled off for rich and powerful men, guarded only by Eunuchs. With easy access to sex slaves, Ahmed argues that the line between “woman” and “object” started to blur. Men did not need to put up with the demands stipulated by Arab women’s wedding contracts when they had access to sex elsewhere. Women faced increasingly strict restrictions and were treated increasingly poorly. Some elite men even went so far as to lament the fact that they had to marry their daughters, as their standards of living would so dramatically fall. Ahmed included the following poem in her book, written from one noble man to another on the occasion of his daughter’s death. This did not come from a sense of general misogyny, that daughters were worthless, but rather from the degradations and humiliations their daughters were liable to face. > To Abu Hasan I offer condolences. > At times of disaster and catastrophe > God multiplies rewards for the patient. > To be patient in misery > Is equivalent to giving thanks for a gift. > Among the blessings of God undoubtedly > Is the preservation of sons > And the death of daughters. But cultural and economic changes are only a portion of the story. Also in play was the religious framework that marriage operated within. Islamic law works through a local judge, a *Qadi*, issuing a ruling on a specific case so that it is in line with religious teachings (we have to note that there was no separation between the illegal and the immoral, but rather they were the one and the same). However, while the Qur’an protected women’s rights in a number of areas, judges often interpreted these not as legally binding rules, but rather as binding only upon the individual’s conscience. So, a man would not be legally bound to treat his 4 wives fairly, even if that is a stipulation within the Qur’an itself. There was, in essence, the loss of many Qur’anic provisions that could protect women. The 11th century also brought the *Closing of the Gates of Ijtihad*. That is, Islamic jurisprudence reached a point where they (allegedly) decided that there had been sufficient rulings in the past that any questions which need an answer were answerable, and it is was longer necessary to use independent reasoning to come to new solutions (for more on this, see my answere [here]( https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7vynzv/when_and_why_did_muslim_countries_stop_using_the/dtwak37/)) This in essence froze many Islamic teachings. There are 4 main schools of Sunni Islamic thought, and at the point of the closing of the gates of Ijtihad, only the Maliki school allowed for women to obtain a divorce on the grounds of desertion or cruelty. Meanwhile, only the Hanafi school fully enforced marriage contracts that would bind a man to monogamy. While before the closing of these gates a judge could, theoretically, use his own reasoning to analogize and come to a new ruling, they were now largely bound to *taqlid*, imitation of the past. So, these doctrines, along with countless others controlling women’s lives, ceased to develop at the same speed as before. That is not to say that women were completely locked out, as one could effectively “shop” between the different schools of thought for the most favorable ruling. There is much, much more one could write on this topic, but I unfortunately have work that I have to do. I hope this can help begin to answer your question, and if you have follow-ups I’ll try to respond if possible.

lqn29w

askhistorians_test

Why did the US Government name its states after Native American tribes it was actively trying to wipe out? This has always seemed odd to me that US states (Illinois, Wyoming, Dakota, etc.) were named after the people the government was committing an act of genocide on. What is the reason for that?

gojmpvy

gokwxaa

Is it possible to get a list of all the boarding schools that took in Native Americans? Also is there any record of what they were taught to “assimilate/kill off” their Indian culture?

This is an interesting question, and I was really hoping to see someone answer it fully. Being a mod, I have the unfortunate privilege of being able to see the removed comments, and while there are attempts to explain 'This is the origin of X state's name', it is unfortunate that no one really made an attempt to engage with what is *being asked*, that is to say, not simply "*Why is Massachusetts called Massachusetts?*" (and for which there are thousands of answers out there for the various locales from state level on down in this country) but more specifically "*What does calling it Massachusetts say about the relationship between the white colonizers and the Massachusett people whose name is used?*" I was hesitant to provide any response, because I don't have a *direct* answer, and was hoping someone would be able to talk specifically about *place* names in the United States in such terms. Thus I didn't post anything yesterday since I didn't want to dissuade someone from giving a deeper answer specifically about the physical geography and the legacy of indigenous place names in the American lexicon. But being the next day and the question dropping off soon still unanswered, I can speak on the next level up about the connection between white American culture and "The Idea of the Indian", as it can be termed, which is in brief sum about how Americans adopted the symbolism of the original peoples and gave it its own meaning, often in a rather perverse way where it quite explicitly is found in ways that are intended to reflect a *white* nativist doctrine which of course entirely separates who is really reflected in those images from how they are being used. This is *not* an uncommon thing to find when looking at the culture of colonizers, something which I've written about before with New Zealand for instance, although of course it is a phenomenon which manifests itself in different ways in different places. In the United States specifically I've written about this a few times previously, which I'll link here and provide some brief annotation on. I would again note that I *don't* talk about place names, and for that I really hope someone is still able to weigh in. But in this first answer I talk extensively about how in colonial period and the early United States indigenous imagery was co-opted into symbols of American liberty. We can see this most famously in the Boston Tea Party, as well as reflected in American coinage which is a large focus of the answer. This trend elevated the *image* of the "Indian" into the heights of the American Idea, but entirely for white purposes. It leaned into certain, specific stereotypes about the native cultures while at the same time decrying them as savages and working to wipe them out. Importantly, and perhaps the best *direct* parallel to *this* question, is that while doing so, they used these concepts taken from the *actual* native peoples to craft a nativist identity for white Americans, an implicit absolving of their crimes to boot. It was now *their* symbols and *their* identity because *they* were "Native". I also pivot to the late 19th and early 20th centuries by which point the native peoples had been subjugated and forced into reservation life, and for most white Americans were an amorphous concept from the history books, or dime-store novels, resulting in a shifting 'Idea of the Indian' which reflected an idealized vision of masculinity, martial prowess, and rugged outdoorsmanship. I build off of that in this second answer which specifically focuses on how those values came to be reflected in white society through the lens of the Scouting movement, and how while there was a *veneer* of respect, it was one which was entirely on white terms, and a respect for a specific stereotype that was in many ways simply a construction of the white imagination, and which saw the ultimate achievement as being the white man who was more "Indian" than the "Indian", the highest pantheon being figures like Davey Crocket or Daniel Boone, who could take those skills and perform them even better due to their supposed superior whiteness. So again, I would caution that I've only offered a partial view here. It speaks to the place that the "Idea of the Indian" held within white American society, and hopefully goes a long way to helping you understand how that society was able to bridge the cognitive dissonance of using indigenous symbolism so extensively while at the same time practicing sustained campaigns of genocide against them for centuries, but there is absolutely more to this story which is beyond by ken, so I would leave it to others to build off that and *specifically* tie in discussion of that discourse with the physical geography itself.

8y4tl4

askhistorians_test

Back in Ancient Greece homosexuality was allowed. During the 17th century people had sex quite freely. Why is it that during the Victorian times, that suddenly changed and sex was deemed a very private affair? And why was homosexuality made illegal? Homosexuality was fine, then during the Victorian era it was considered worse than murder. During the 17th century people would have had sex in rooms with children present, whereas Victorians wouldn't even want to look at each other naked even when married. These days you're bigoted for being against homosexuality. What exactly is the reason for these changes? Why were the Victorians so different to previous time periods? Surely if they were told it was okay and natural, that would continue would it not?

e28qbjo

e28nz0f

**Part I: Morality and the Victorian Family** Someone else with expertise in that area will have to address the Ancient Greek side of things, but I can tackle the Victorians. Your question is based on a common misconception about the Victorian period, so I’m going to spend some time debunking that misconception and then try to explain why perfectly reasonable people believe it. The Victorian period did not represent a sudden rupture from the past with regards to sexuality. Same sex desire and homosexuality and sex outside of marriage were taboo to differing degrees in different times and places in Western culture for centuries. The Victorians did not just up and decide that sex was bad outside of nowhere. However, this is not to say that the Victorians didn’t differ from the generations immediately preceding them in some ways. One important development of the Victorian period was its heavy emphasis on domesticity. For the Victorians, the home and the family were paramount, the basis of the superior British civilization. The home was an oasis protected from the harsh outside world, a place of comfort where you can rest with your loved ones. Note that this ideal of the home and the family is not so different from how we as a culture think of homes and families today. However, for the Victorians, this idea of the home carried with it a hierarchy, with the husband and father as the head of house, the wife and mother as caretaker of the home (the "Angel in the House," as one famous poem called it), both working to bring up well-adjusted, successful children. Of course, people before the Victorians had homes and families and valued these things highly. The Victorians didn’t invent the family. What shifted was the importance of the family as a social category that needed to be protected and conceptions of public vs private life. On one hand, the nineteenth century saw, for respectable middle class people, the home was a private sphere, secluded from the world and with significantly more privacy within the home than had been available in previous centuries. Privacy has its own earlier history and development that other users can speak to better than me; for our purposes it’s enough to say that the domestic sphere was supposed to be private. I say this with the caveat that I’m describing middle class people here; the working classes often lived in very different conditions. This cult of domesticity was very much a phenomenon of the middle class, who set themselves up as the upright, respectable contrast to the stereotypical image of the profligate and licentious aristocrat that had been promoted in late eighteenth and early nineteenth century as the rake or the libertine. However, there is a contradiction in the Victorian family in that domesticity was also often the subject of public performance. We can argue that this phenomenon is reflected best at the top of society with Queen Victoria herself. Victoria navigated the contradiction of being a woman monarch. Women are supposed to be the Angel in the House, master of the private sphere, not involved in public life. To reconcile this, Victoria made a public performance of being the nation's exemplary mother—utterly devoted to her husband and many, many children. Victoria and Albert were a model of Victorian domestic life, but this model was also very publicly performed.

Hey there, If you've come to the thread and are wondering why there's no answer yet: we have found that it takes an average of 9 hours for a good answer to appear on a popular thread - properly researching and writing an answer takes time. Additionally, it's late at night on the East Coast of the US at the moment, which means that plenty of the historians interested in this topic might already be asleep. In other words, patience, good people. If you want to be reminded to look at this thread later, please see this really awesome Roundtable post for a list of ways. And if you're wondering why Reddit never shows you an AskHistorians thread with answers, consider sorting your Reddit home feed by 'Hot' rather than 'Best' - 'Best' seems to give precedence to newer posts (which are less likely to have an answer on this subreddit, of course) and threads you haven't already looked at (e.g., it'll show you something else next time you log in, even if this thread is still getting lots of upvotes because there's an actual answer now). If you're wondering what's in the 28 removed comments at the time of writing, the majority of it is people saying things like "I want to know the answer to this question or some other related question, in which case start a new thread!]", "what happened to all the removed comments?" or making a tossed off one sentence answer that doesn't meet our standards, like "CHRISTIANS!". None of this comes close to meeting the standards in [our subreddit rules. There are also three posts we've removed because they're more substantial than these, but largely or entirely focus on sexuality in Ancient Greece (and thus don't answer the question about the Victorian era that OP is clearly interested in). All of these comments get removed on /r/AskHistorians because the huge majority of our subscribers really do want accurate, comprehensive, in-depth historical answers based on good historical practice and high-quality sources. It's amazing how many downvotes and reports an obvious shitpost can attract on a popular thread on /r/AskHistorians within minutes, thanks to our readers (if you see it, report it!) On /r/AskHistorians, we want people answering questions to be able to explain not just what the basic facts are according to academic research, but why we know that these basic facts are right, and to put those basic facts into context. This is why we encourage the use of primary and secondary sources in answering questions, rather than tertiary sources like Wikipedia, podcasts and textbooks. In other words, on /r/AskHistorians, we'd rather have no answer than bad attempts at answers. By removing the short, quick, bad answers that would otherwise crowd them out, the well-researched in-depth answers (that take people time to research and write) are more likely to be seen (see this graph for more detail). The downside to this is that we have to remove a lot of shitposts and comments wondering what happened to the removed comments. The upside is that our contributors consistently post amazing stuff to /r/AskHistorians (which we collate the best of every week in our Sunday Digest), and daily on our Twitter. Alternatively, if you want to discuss history without these constraints, /r/history or /r/askhistory might be more appropriate subreddits for you than /r/AskHistorians.

4t854d

askhistorians_test

There are huge gaps between islands in the Pacific, what methods did the Polynesians/Islanders use to discover them and to stay on course in a trip between two islands they already knew existed? Do we know how many/what percentage were lost at sea?

d5fsrxg

d5g7oxx

This is a question that has always fascinated me and is close to my heart. According to the exhibits and guides at The National Museum of Vanuatu, voyages were guided by the stars, trade winds, clouds and sea life. The "maps" consisted of songs, poems and lore that gave mariners an idea of what stars and constellations to use, when to embark, animals that may serve as navigation aids and crucial food sources, architectural considerations for the vessel and cloud formations that may be relevant. The secrets of navigation in the South Pacific are deceptively simple. It's only when you examine the question in detail that you realize it isn't just songs, stars and islanders with a death wish. Ben Finney (author, historian and rebel) had built a traditional Polynesian sailing canoe christened the "Hokulea". He used it to travel from Hawaii to Tahiti in 1976 using only traditional methods. His exploits contributed to a large extent in elevating the traditional navigational methods of the South Pacific While I am a fan of Ben Finney and his work, I do want to point out that the islands of the South Pacific are not homogenous. Navigational methods and lore vary considerably between regions and islands. It's very easy to paint the South Pacific islands with a broad brush. In reality the cultures and methods exist in a colorful tapestry. If this is a topic that interests you, I recommend reading "Ben R. Finney; Sailing in the Wake of the Ancestors: Reviving Polynesian Voyaging". There are many other books that cover the topic but I feel that Ben's book is a good way of getting your feet wet. I visited Vanuatu in 2007 for my honeymoon, certainly the trip of a lifetime! During my voyage I spent time in New Caledonia and Fiji as well. Vanuatu in my opinion had done the best job preserving their cultural and religious practices. The National Museum of Vanuatu really highlights how much oral tradition and navigation varies from tribe to tribe, island to island and "nation to nation". This is my first substantial post to this sub, I can provide more references, details or photographs substantiate my response should they be required.

The Pacific Islands are wonderfully diverse and yet there is also a growing and unified cultural concept of what it means to be a Pacific Islander in the modern world and contexts, this identity being formed not only by modern political experiences and attitudes, but also by genetic links- between Micronesians and Polynesians- and certain shared histories, largely in the context of colonisation and independence, with the area the islands are spread across being so large as to leave it difficult to find simply a shared identity on the basis of geography, when some live in the highlands of Papua, and others on small atolls. Traditionally, the Pacific Islands have been divided into Micronesia (small), Polynesia (many) and Melanesia (black), however these boundaries are not so easily drawn, not just as a result of geography, but as a result of culture, ethnic and genetic heritage and even language. Even within the classical divisions of the Pacific Islands, there is conflict over identity, such as with the Bougainville independence movement. Many Islanders and academics now prefer to use geographical divisions, North, East, South, West, and being more specific by naming individual places, whether countries, atolls or islands, instead of identifying places by concepts which were driven and created by Western colonists, as a result of the growing movement within the Pacific Islander communities, to drive academic understandings and literature, although today, the vast majority of historians and archaeologists of the Pacific Islands are still not of indigenous Islander heritage. Although, as with every place, there is a long history of, well, learning and constructing history, across Islander societies and cultures, only recently have Islanders' constructions and narratives entered, or been allowed to enter, academia, and only recently have Islanders significantly been able to contribute to the academic understandings of Pacific history, to be the writers of their own history for non-Islanders, whereas even in the 20th century, they were often restricted to being the subjects, but not the authors, and in any writing of history, they were often equally restricted to being the one acted on, instead of being active in history themselves. Outside of academia, historically Islanders have seen the history of their ancestors or heritage, as part of a greater understanding of the world, with legend and history being deeply intertwined pre-European contact, in a similar way to the Romulus and Remus origins of Rome, Torres Strait Islanders- sometimes seen as Pacific Islanders- had the story of a woman making a tunnel from the sky in order to save her children from being killed. Oral traditions such as this are still central and important to many Islanders' politics and to many Pacific structures and communities, as well as to the faith of many Islanders, and their expressions of their identity, be it as someone from Hawai'i, from Polynesia, or from the Pacific Islands, as an example. Post-European contact, many Islanders' understanding of history changed, with histories being written down, or being expressed in the traditional forms of Western settlers and coloniser, or to include settler ideals and ideas of history. This means that there is no one genre of Pacific history, there is no one lens it has traditionally been looked at through. Across the islands, genealogy has been a important and central part of society, identity and culture, and this continues today, for example. How Islanders have viewed and understood history changed and developed pre-European contact, during colonisation and into the modern era, with no one singular idea of history or methods of interpretation or recording, although genealogy remains a central and important part of identity for many Islanders, as it was pre-European contact. It was only in the 1960s that Islanders' agency and viewpoints became a central part of Pacific history, and early reports by Europeans of technology which could reasonably be expected to have existed pre-European contact is therefore clouded by assumptions and by the contexts of the understanding of Islanders, of seafaring and also of record keeping, anthropology, society and history that they carried with them, and indigenous writers of Pacific history in Western academic tradition have only become common in the last few decades, notably from what is classically identified as Polynesia. With the large number of inhabited islands, and an even larger number of islands when including those, such as Caroline Island in Kiribati, which had previously been inhabited, it is to be expected that there will be vastly different relations to the ocean, allowing movement between the atolls and islands, which have been of central importance to Pacific Islanders throughout history, excluding parts of what is now New Zealand, West Papua and Papua New Guinea. With some islanders living in closely linked island chains, such as in the Marshall Islands, and others living thousands of miles from the nearest small settlement, the technology and techniques allowing for exploration, colonisation and general transport have vastly differed, and changed throughout history, including pre-European contact. Evidence for the earliest seafaring technology in the Pacific Islands is sparse, and even for later history, oral tradition is an important part of understanding Pacific Islanders' oceanic history and heritage. The extent of archaeological evidence that remains from the earliest centuries or even millennia of settlement in multiple islands, is small, with, for example, no Lapita boats existing, and the only Lapita material culture found having little or no relation to the ocean, instead, any oceanic exploration and travel by the Lapita must be worked out far more indirectly, through genetic heritage of existing populations, material culture unrelated to transport, such as pottery, and even language. We know parts of New Guinea were settled some 30-40,000 years ago, through radiocarbon dating of a rock shelter, and although outside of the Pacific Islands, in Australia, there is evidence of settlement across Australia, down to Tasmania, from a similar period, or some very uncertain evidence of settlement dating back over 50,000 years, when it was, at the time, still connected to what is now Papua New Guinea. We don't know, however, if a rising ocean swallowed earlier evidence elsewhere, whether there are island settlements submerged showing earlier settlement, or at least exploration. The ever changing shape of the Pacific Ocean has created the ever changing shapes of the Pacific Islands, with evidence obscured and uncovered with changing ocean currents and sea levels, any older settlements may never be found, and therefore it is possible that humanity came to the Pacific Islands past 40,000 years ago. The dates are important because land bridges have since disappeared as connections between islands and settlements, and therefore our concepts of the process of settlement will also be affected. Settlers undoubtedly came from South East Asia, where similar dates of settlement, 30-40,000 years ago, are shown, including areas of Indonesia, although early *homo* settlement in SE Asia, dating perhaps a million years or older, is found in Java, relatively close to parts of what is classically defined as Melanesia. To reach New Guinea, water would indeed have to have been crossed, even if there were some disappearing land bridges which allowed travel from what continues to be mainland SE Asia to much of Malaysia and even much of Indonesia. Settlement would have reached the Solomon Islands just under 30,000 years ago, and again, ocean had to have been travelled. The craft used, and any losses when attempting to find inhabitable land, are unknown. The later settlers of the Pacific Islands saw multiple different paths of heritage and development for their seafaring technology, oral traditions not appearing to relate to these settlers or at least not their crafts, and even those who are not Pacific Islanders, who trace descent back to these Pleistocene settlers and who saw little or no impact from further waves of settlement, for example, by the Lapita, namely Australian Aborigines, have craft which are either frankly unable to make any sea crossings or do not appear to have developed from thousands of years old technology, or have developed so far away as to be of little use to tracing these Pleistocene vessels, as a result of thousands of years of change, refinement and transforming needs, cultures and societies.

6l6jjr

askhistorians_test

Announcing Best of June Awards The votes are in! For the third month in a row, we again have a unanimous vote from both flairs and users. This month the top spot goes to /u/bloodswan for answering "What is the origin and development of the footnote(1)?". The combined votes of flairs and users for second place then goes to /u/ancienthistory for "When looking for pulp publications on the Nazis, almost all magazines make a point about being "for men" – does that mean they were merely pornographic or is there a deeper significance (in genre e.g.) behind that?". And finally, the Dark Horse Award, for the highest voted contribution from a non-flair had a clear edge to /u/kayelar, for "Why has Country Music remained so white? What cultural and industry forces kept the genre that so willingly borrowed from blues, gospel, norteño, and mariachi so completely dominated by white artists and tied to white identity?". So as always, a big congratulations to the winners, and a big thanks to everyone who contributed to the subreddit in the past month! Also a reminder, if you want to nominate answers for the monthly awards, the best way to do so is to submit your favorite posts every week to the Sunday Digest! For a list of past winners, check out this Wiki page!

djrqh5a

djrufr0

Congrats! I liked all of those answers, especially the footnote one by /u/bloodswan .

Wow, thank you all so much! Was pretty surprised to see this notification this morning. And congratulations to the other winners and nominees. There were some very impressive answers this past month.

h8lntp

askhistorians_test

I'm a tailor in Regency London and Sir Richard Dastardly, a rakish baronet, is ignoring my bills. How would I as a small business owner deal with this? I've taught a reasonable amount of Victorian and some Regency literature and have casually read a decent amount of non academic history of the Victorian and Regency eras. A common trope I've seen is of a rakish character or a spendthrift couple running up huge debts with various vendors (especially tailors) and basically just not paying. Sometimes the character is shown as dying in penury but at other times they just seem to carry on in the same style as always, just ignoring or stringing along the vendors who provide their goods and services. What's more this seems to be seen as if not typical at least not unusual. Was this sort of casual attitude toward payment for goods and services on the part of the upper classes an actual thing?

fut2x9n

fusyko6

As a small business owner, you would have recourse for dealing with deadbeat customers. A guy like Pip or Rawdon Crawley wouldn't be allowed to fleece you forever, unless you let them--and if Sir Richard Dastardly was rich enough, sometimes you would just let it slide for a little bit. If they "paid you in exposure" and sent their (possibly more solvent) friends to you to buy suits or dresses, you might let it slide for a little while, just to be neighborly and keep the peace. But if you were doing House of Worth work for pawnshop pay, you'd eventually get fed up. You'd start sending duns/debt collectors to knock on their door, hoping the annoyance and potential shame would convince them to pony up. At this point, he might contract with a moneylender for a promissory note; the lender would pay you and charge Dastardly interest, and Dastardly would be out of your hair. If your debtor doesn't find a way to pay you, your next step is prosecution. You want Sir Richard to actually show up for the trial, so you bring legal action against him and pay a shilling for an arrest warrant. A sheriff's officer serves the warrant and will take Sir Richard Dastardly to a sponging house. There, you have some time to settle or you'll end up on trial/in jail. If it gets to trial, and Dastardly is found to be a debtor, they stick him in jail. You can't just take his stuff, however, not yet -- he still has to decide to pay you, by selling his own stuff or borrowing money from family and friends. Rawdon Crawley never gets to this point, but a number of Dickens characters did. Usually, if you ended up in debtor's prison, you were already poor--not a Sir Richard Dastardly. Typically, a person with a title would have resources: they could sell land, a horse, beg Auntie for cash, or marry some wealthy heiress. If you were poor and in debtor's prison, you did have some light at the end of the tunnel: you could still ply certain trades from within prison, and you could eventually hope to get out. But it was miserable and difficult to drag oneself out of that debt hole. (Imprisonment for debt was abolished in 1869.) Now, as to your question, "Did they care?" I think they cared about as much as we do. Victorians were a little more moralistic than we are now in that they were generally more likely to judge their neighbors as "bad" than put the circumstance ahead of their judgment -- but a lot of their attitudes are similar to today's. Being a serial debtor was more personal to the Victorians than it is to us, because there were, with the possible exception of the East India Company, no giant faceless monolithic companies to which you would owe money. You'd owe money to Bob the tailor and Joe the greengrocer, guys who lived probably within a few miles' radius of your own house, not to MasterCard. No one goes hungry if you don't pay MasterCard, but a Victorian person refusing to make good on his debts was literally taking money away from his neighbors, which was a bad look. Tongues would start wagging when the debt collectors came knocking, and a Sir Richard type might find himself not invited to as many parties as before. If he had romantic prospects, they could dry up: the father of a young lady isn't going to want his daughter hooking up with a spendthrift who'll end up in prison and will be unable or unwilling to provide for his family. If he's part of a gentleman's club, depending on how bad his money woes are (and whether or not all the other men in his club have similar attitudes towards money), he could find himself kicked out. There were jerks, con men, liars, and people who had "f-you" amounts of money where they could gleefully skip town on Bob the Tailor and not care. There were no credit scores in the time period, but all you had was your name. If you developed a reputation as a sketchball, tailors wouldn't want to do work for you on credit anymore--no matter who you were. Tailors for the most part couldn't afford to give their work away for free. You'd have to pay cash. If you had cash, this wouldn't actually be a big deal, which is why a lot of wealthier people might only care about their debts insofar as their reputation could be affected. If Bob didn't want to play ball anymore, they'd just pay Bob the cash and get credit from some other poor slob. If you didn't have cash, this would be a serious issue for you. Some "wealthy" people didn't actually have "ready money," only large fixed assets like land or houses, which they would then have to mortgage or sell if they'd tanked their reputation/credit, or who were known to be out of money even if they'd never had a debt problem. Like today, a lot of "rich people" were cash-poor, and kept an appearance of wealth by leveraging what they did have to get more. (Sources I looked at to write this: "What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew," by Daniel Pool; "The Victorian City" by Judith Flanders; "Vanity Fair" by William Makepeace Thackeray.) EDIT: I corrected the naming. While “Sir Dastardly” sounded like a very interesting person to me, and is more descriptive of his character, the commenter below is right—it’s Sir Richard (Sir Dick if ya nasty).

I answered a similar question (from the debtor's point of view) a while back, which you might find useful: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7hau5e/in\_poldark\_18th\_century\_lenders\_are\_able\_to\_call/dqrq0iw?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x

33myml

askhistorians_test

Why did Tolkien's work become so influential for the fantasy genre at the time that it did? I know he's influential. I know generally how he influenced the genre, thanks to this thread. But I guess I'm interested in the timing of it. Why *then*, at that very moment? What was the historical climate that enabled him to become so influential? Also, if anyone can suggest rigorous and synthetic academic articles/books to me on the history/development of fantasy literature in the past century (whether around Tolkien or otherwise), I'd very much appreciate it. I've been searching, but everything I've seen either lacks rigor or scale. Thanks in advance!

cqmtz08

cqmzqn6

If you don't get an answer, try /r/AskLiteraryStudies

Tolkien's works were borderline transgressive when they were released. I don't have the time to dig into a lot of the details at the moment, but consider a few things: First, the reasons for popularity. They're good stories with interesting characters, many complex themes, and interesting settings and events. There's a lot of the classic "hero's journey" elements and mythological elements, those stories have always been popular. Tolkien studied the Norse sagas and epics so a lot of those materials and that form of story telling ended up in his books. Second, the romanticism. Tolkien's works harken back to the 19th century romantic period, with a clear favoritism shown for nature and peacefulness over industry and violence. This was out of fashion by the mid 20th century, and even looked down upon. Romantics were viewed as empty headed and fantasy fiction was viewed as escapism. Remember that the society into which Tolkien's works were released was the same one that the counter culture movement rebelled against. In Tolkien's world you have people such as the Hobbits who are not especially industrious and in fact could be regarded as lazy. As Tolkien put it they "valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold", and he lauded them for it fairly explicitly in his books. That very much ran counter to the prevailing zeitgeist in the developed world of the time. But it resonated strongly with the counter culture movement which included elements such as "hippyism" which shared that sentiment. Third, the religious aspects. The mid-20th century in the US and even in Europe was still an era where religion had a supremely powerful place in culture and society. On its face, Tolkien's works are strictly blasphemous against Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They describe a world where there is no God of the bible, a world with a different god, a different creation mythos, a different people, and so on. This is more transgressive than it may seem because it's not just a rejection of, say, Christian orthodoxy along the lines of "hey, here's this world and it doesn't even have God in it, and it's not a big deal that it doesn't". More than that, because it rests on its own creation mythos, its own deep historical narrative (which religions had traditionally taken on as one of their "core competencies"), its own world, its own laws of nature, it serves as a tool for intellectually deconstructing established religions. One can look at the toy mythology of The Lord of the Rings and easily make comparisons to, say, Christianity, and in so doing come to the realization that Christian mythos could just as easily be the work of man rather than divine revealed truth. Again, the counter culture movement of the '60s and '70s were also on the track of deconstructing institutions that relied heavily on dogma and orthodoxy, especially religions, so these ideas resonated strongly with them. Embracing Tolkien's works became not just about the quality of the story, it became a political statement. A rejection of the insistence of "the man" to buckle down, get a boring job, put away toys and escapism, and become a cog in the great socio-economic machine of the times. And a rejection of the power structures that supported (or were perceived to support) petty warfare, inequality, greed, industrialization at the cost of nature, religious doctrine, and so on. During the '60s and '70s graffiti or personal paraphernalia (such as buttons) proclaiming "Frodo Lives!" served as one of many shibboleths for the hippie/counter culture movement. Those simple words were seen as a stirring rejection of establishment ideals and power. And fourth, the detail. Tolkien's world had a depth and complexity that was far beyond the average story. Part of the lure of the stories is their setting, a fully fleshed out world with its own mythos and thousands of years of civilizational history. Tolkien created a deep backstory which creates a palpable richness around every element of the tale. Gandalf's sword, for example, is not just any sword, it's a sword with a name and a six millenia history stretching back to the war against Morgoth (who used to be Sauron's master) when it was wielded by a legendary Elven king. Similarly, Frodo's Phial given to him by Galadriel was filled with water from a fountain that held the light of Earendil's star, a story of incredible depth and complexity which Frodo and Sam allude to in various comments from time to time. And that sort of depth is indicative of the story as a whole. Everything and everyone everywhere has a history, it makes the world feel more interesting and more real, providing a degree of verisimilitude to the characters, peoples, and places. That depth and breadth enabled an entire realm of conversation about Tolkien's works beyond merely the story and its meaning. One could discuss the various races or peoples of the books and delve into the details or minutiae of them. One thing that sets apart great literature from merely good literature is that great literature is typically not just one story tied up in a tidy package, it's a whole gamut of ideas, concepts, events, and creations which serve as the kernel of potentially very open ended discussions and thoughts. In Tolkien's works there were a great many such kernels. As such, it inspired a great many people to tell their own stories using similar themes, elements, or settings. Dungeons & Dragons, for example, was set firmly in a Tolkien-inspired world. A world populated by dragons, elves, dwarves, wizards, hobbits (later renamed halflings), and so on. A world where a typical adventure involves a story line that very closely mirrors either The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings (a diverse band of adventurers goes on a grand trip, crawls through ancient caverns and dungeons, fights goblins, trolls, dragons, and evil wizards, and so on). Tolkien's world, characters, story, and themes resonated with a group of people in a way that other contemporary literature did not. And the depth of detail made it a suitable kernel for a great many derivative works as well as helped maintain a momentum of enthusiasm in the work. It also served as a calling card for the counter-culture movement which helped to increase its profile and popularity.

bxi6a9

askhistorians_test

How did Joan of Arc -- an illiterate 16 year old woman -- convince an army to follow her?

eq77j97

eq7woes

This reply by /u/sunagainstgold is a start while we wait for an answer.

With much thanks to /u/Pytheastic (go upvote!), I'd like to write an answer more focused on this specific question. :) The simple answer is that Joan had the support of the king, but that's pretty much running a shell company on my part. If I had to sum things up, I would say "religion and prophecy," but that also is not very interesting in and of itself. **Joan as Holy Woman** From Joan's own testimony at her trial, it is easily apparent that she was deeply immersed in the religious culture of her time. The saints most important to her are the most popular ones, she's right with the new trend in angels, she's sold on the rising importance of devotion to the Holy Name of Jesus. This is important because Joan fits firmly in the context of the early 15th century as a holy woman and prophet. Her visions and auditions anchor her in a tradition going back to the mid-12th century of women who used the message that they spoke and acted based on direct revelation from God. In Joan's time, *some* people are starting to question the validity of holy women's claims. The initial questions themselves, though in some ways the culmination of a longer trend, are highly political as a result of the Avignon papacy and (especially) the Great Schism (ca1378-1415). In other words, they are very much tied to ecclesiastical politics. On the ground level, what we find is much more ongoing confidence in women's revelations. 14th century saints and visionaries Catherine of Siena and especially Birgitta of Sweden are *all the rage*. People even start attributing to Birgitta texts that she didn't write; she's that famous and popular even among the literate classes. Birgitta (and Pseudo-Birgitta) becomes especially well-known for two things that transcend the literacy barrier: prophecy and a set of prayers. Not everyone, but a whole lot of people, took Joan absolutely seriously as conveying divine messages directly. In very particular, Charles VII was raised in an environment where his parents firmly believed in the prophetic powers of holy women. Charles VI had given audience to Jeanne-Marie de Maillé; and Isabeau, to Marie Robine (a peasant, by the way). And this was, of course, the key issue at her initial and nullification (rehabilitation) trials: were Joan's fake or real; demonic or divine...according to the political beliefs of the judge or witness. For a demonstration, turn to no less a contemporary authority than French "theologian &c" Jean Gerson (uh...he was Really Important; roll with it), who is infamously on the record as opposing the legitimacy of holy women...but wrote dramatically in support of Joan. **Joan and Wonders** Kelly DeVries, who is basically *the* authority on Joan as a soldier and commander, stresses the importance of religion in the accounts of Joan's contemporary supporters as well as her own (*Joan of Arc: A Military Leader*, but especially "A Woman as a Leader of Men" in *Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc*, which is, well, about this question's precise topic). He's right, although his account is based on Joan's full career, including her victories. Which, again, is a liiiittle bit of a cop-out. I want to go back to the 15th century mindset again, to look at the overall supernatural cosmology of the era. Well into the early modern era, there's no real divide between what we would call "religion" and "magic." (Indeed, "religion" doesn't even have our meaning until the 15th century.) As with belief in revelations from God, people live in a world of wonders and miracles and saints and supernatural creatures. But as seen with growing concern with witchcraft and questions about holy women's sincerity, the boundaries are just starting to be sketched out by some people. This is especially apparent in Joan's case. The wonders associated with her don't really have a division in what she relates about other people's support of her. They *do* have a divide in the mindset of her interrogators--and, because Joan is frakking *awesome*, she knows exactly what they're doing and keeps pace. (Seriously, read Dan Hobbins' translation *The Trial of Joan of Arc*. She's great.) A big one is Joan's knowledge of and then the discovery of "her sword" in a church dedicated to one of France's most important saints. The finding of a blessed object has major precursors in the Middle Ages, especially associated with the Crusades. In the 15th century, that was more important than ever. The *physical reality* of objects was critical to how people saw the world and religion in a way it wasn't earlier. Second, the cult of relics and saints was, you guessed it, critical in a way it hadn't been earlier. (Think of Mark Twain's remark about there being more shards of the Holy Cross in the world--in the 19th century still!--than there could have been in the actual cross.) According to Joan herself, people also told stories about a prophecy they associated with her and a tree/forest near her home in Domremy. But in her own words, what people said to her about this was just linked to her performing wonders. This probably included a miraculous power to heal, which was also heavily tied to holy women/living saints in late Middle Ages. (There are stories about men, women, and children all trying to touch Joan, which seems suspiciously, I don't know, *biblical*. And yes, at a time when there was much more preaching of the Bible directly.) The tree was associated with fairies and local children performed May Crowning-type playing/ritual activities around it, although Joan insists she never believed any of it and never engaged in a lot of the behaviors her judges asked her about. Of course, they lie WILDLY when they write up the articles of condemnation. On one hand, they say Joan admitted to various things when she categorically had not. On the other, though, they exaggerate the various behaviors and beliefs they had asked her about earlier. And, unsurprisingly, they exaggerate according to particular patterns that align with the question of fake or real, demonic or divine. So people associated Joan with the general performance of miracles and wonders. **Hans Böhm** Okay, obviously a man, obviously German, and not obviously a few decades after Joan. However, Böhm is a crucial parallel for a few reasons. Even venturing further into the very slowly increasing fear of witches, Böhm--a shepherd from Baden-Württemberg--essentially launched an entire revolt against unjust conditions based on his own prophecies and visions of Mary. People were ready to heed prophecy that called to them--and did. **Conclusion** Joan was awesome; she promoted her awesomeness; she did so in a way that grew out of the religious culture in which she lived and believed.

2e3dwt

askhistorians_test

suppose I live in Boston in 1717. How far would have to travel to find a Native American tribe who have had no direct contact with white people in living memory?

cjvt2uh

cjw33wi

This is an interesting question, and I'd like to tack on a follow-up question. How likely would it be to find native peoples living in Boston at the time? Would there be any? If there were, would they be discriminated against?

I'll assume living memory to be a nice round number like 60, so we are looking for the closest Native American nation that did not have direct contact with Europeans between 1657 and 1717. I'll also assume that not all members of the group interacted with Europeans, just that somewhat regular contact/influence existed some time between 1657 and 1717. The closest nations to Boston, the Wampanoag, Nipmuck, Narragansett and Nashaway, were swept up in the hostilities with King Phillip's War from 1675-1678. Any Native American belligerents not killed in the conflict and not professing Christians were sold into slavery in Bermuda. Praying Indians settled in towns like Natick, Grafton and Marlborough, and refugees fled inland to join other nations. Expanding out of the direct Boston/Providence Plantation area, we have the nations in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. Coastal populations in Maine would have regular trading contact with white merchants and fisherman, so those nations are out. Further inland many nations possibly contacted a European during King William's War (look, a map] during the 1680s and 1690s. I am not as familiar with the small nations of northern Maine, but I assume the constant tension between the French and English colonial enterprises, and the Maine Amerindians strategic importance as allies, meant they were courted extensively during the period. Further north into Canada the Wendat/Huron were strongly allied with the French, and during the diaspora caused by the Beaver Wars (to be explained shortly) fled west to the Great Lakes. Looking west, here is a generalized map so we can keep our bearings. The Mahican and the Delaware definitely encountered Europeans in the period of interest. First contact along the Mohawk River occurred in 1609 and these groups were intimately involved in the game of colonial expansion with New York/New England/New France. 1657-1717 is a very interesting time for the Haudenosaunee/Iroquois. Hostilities related to the fur trade and disease mortality brought about a series of mourning wars that increased the Haudenosaunee territory, and wrought destruction over a huge swath of the U.S. Midwest. The Beaver Wars turned the Great Lakes into a war zone. Iroquois raids depopulated much of the U.S. Midwest and sent refugees fleeing to the lands bordering the Great Plains. French missionaries fled west with their Huron flock, establishing missions on Lake Michigan by 1652 and the western tip of Lake Superior by 1661. As they moved west, the Huron diaspora opened up the fur trade to nations previously beyond the frontier outposts. Heading directly west of Boston we are basically on the Great Plains before we consider a nation without European contact. Next, lets dive south. English colonial enterprises in Pennsylvania contacted the Erie, Shawnee and previously mentioned Iroquois. Jamestown was established in 1607, and English influence continued to grow among the Algonquian nations living in the tidewater. To the west of the tidewater we start to run into the area of Iroquois expansion during the Beaver Wars so I will dive further south. Between 1657 and 1717, traders operating out of Virginia and Carolina colonies united the greater U.S. Southeast based on the trade of Indian slaves and deerskins. Though actual "white guy presence" was limited, the repercussions of the Indian slave trade destabilized the south. Pressure from the French and English spurred the rise of confederacies like the Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw and Choctaw to deal with the encroachment of the French to the west (operating from Louisiana and the Mississippi River) and the English (with their native, slave-raiding allies) to the east. As an aside, from 1696-1700 a devastating smallpox epidemic spread through the southeast causing tremendous mortality in the region. Epidemics, combined with refugees fleeing the Yamasee War from 1715-1717, shattered the existing lifeways in the south. The interior southeastern nations, as well as the petite nations along the Gulf Coast, all felt the repercussions of contact with Europeans between 1657 and 1717. So, we are at the Mississippi and we have yet to encounter a Native American nation without contact with/significant influence from Europeans between 1657 and 1717. Obviously, the nations of New Mexico and Texas near Spanish missions are out of consideration. In New Mexico the Spanish presence along the Rio Grande ensures the Pueblos, Apaches, Utes, Dine, Comanche and many smaller Southwestern nations could contact a white guy. The first mission in Spanish Texas, San Francisco de los Tejas, was established in 1690. The Spanish presence in Texas was not influential, long-lived, or particularly productive during our time period, but it does mean we need to look north of the Red River for a nation that fits our criteria (Edit: The first mission founded in the geographic region that we know as Texas was San Angelo, founded in 1632. Thanks to /u/_choupette for clarifying.) Where does this leave us? In 1717 you would need to be on the Great Plains, likely north of the Red River, and west of French influence along the Mississippi River/Great Lakes to encounter a Native American nation that had yet to contact a white person. Even then, contact was imminent. For example, the first European encounter with the Mandan occurred with the arrival of a French Canadian trader, Sieur de la Verendrye, in 1738. **Sources** Calloway *Once Vast Winter Count: The Native American West Before Lewis and Clark* Kelton *Epidemics and Enslavement: Biological Catastrophe in the Native Southeast 1492-1715* Gallay *The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South, 1670-1717* Bragdon *Native Peoples of Southern New England, 1650-1775* Trigger *The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660* Weber *The Spanish Frontier in North America*

bs4ehw

askhr_test

Fired during approved, unpaid leave? About 1 week before 8 weeks of unpaid leave was due to expire (leave was granted as reasonable accommodation under ADA), termination letter received indicating "reorganization and elimination of position." This also happened to be the final business day before 12 month work anniversary. Thoughts? Location: FL

eoitqcl

eoitcbp

If they are really doing a reorganization and eliminating the position, it's allowed - being on ADA-protected leave doesn't protect you from changing business conditions. But I don't know the whole story; it could be suspicious. If no other positions are impacted, then it's definitely suspicious. Your recourse is through the EEOC.

Alot of factors could be at play. If the company is large I would assume that there is more to the story and they did this with thinking things out. If small, I would assume they possibly jumped the gun. Either way you can file a claim and get a right to sue letter and then go that route.

5wpgdw

askhr_test

Boss made snide comments about my income. I'm angry, but am I overreacting? Hi AskHR, I have two jobs, one full-time days and one part-time nights. I took a hefty pay cut (department budget reorganization, not a demotion or reprimand) from my full-time job and the second job is necessary. Recently my boss from Job#1 heard I had Job#2 and made several comments like, "I thought this job was good enough for you", "You should just live somewhere cheaper and commute longer", "You can afford to just buy a $250k house, there are programs" . I am incredibly offended. I want to say *something* to *somebody*, but I think I may just be overreacting and that this is one of those things to let pass. Did he cross a line or am I just taking it far too personally? Thanks for reading.

dec22fg

debvn9d

I somewhat disagree with the other posters that says this is not an HR issue to deal with, BUT it depends on the company culture. Where I previously worked, respect was one of the core values and it was expected that managers modeled the behavior. If they didn't respect their subordinates, that became a performance management issue for their manager to deal with (and HR by extension). The comments are definitely inappropriate, but how you deal with it will depend on the company itself.

A personal line, a decorum line, yes. But no HR/ethical/legal line was crossed. This is one I'd let slide, unless you have a direct enough relationship with him that you can let him know that you work very hard and found his comments offensive?

w5b5r6

askhr_test

[TX] Recruiter asked for salary expectations during the phone interview. They gave me a range and now want my salary expectations before setting up the panel interview. What do I do? Hi people, The title says it all. I had a great conversation with my recruiter and they expressed they were interested in moving me forward. They gave me a range (100k - 140k). They were super transparent and said they imagine this role would be a promotion for me. Not 100% true. I know I’d kill it in this role and have tons of global experience, and come from a similarly sized company and annual company revenue. I don’t want to shoot too high and be rude before I even get a chance to sit for an interview. Given market research I would land myself around the upper portion of the band, 130k. They do seem to be aggressively hiring at the moment. The bonus structure seems pretty good and it’s a flexible work environment. I wonder if I should just say, “the salary range you provided aligns well…” and continue to be vague? I don’t want to play games since they were so transparent. Any advice welcome.

ih7b9vs

ih7cs3f

Be transparent at $130 since you know it's in their range. It is a bit high but if you expect you can walk in and do the job with little to no training (due to your experience) then I'd state that number.

Tell them you would want to be at least at $130k. That leaves room should you find out during the interview that this is more than you bargained for or otherwise want to push to $140

fl99wh

askhr_test

Can an employer require a person to be on call after a lay off? My husband is an HVAC tech who got laid off because of what's going on with the pandemic, however his company is still requiring him to go on call on the weeks that it's his turn? He'll be collecting unemployment, so can they do that? We are located in Vermont.

fkx8ta0

fkx9tl3

If he's already collecting unemployment, and is past his separation date, then he no longer works for that employer. He is not required to be on call for a company he does not work for. Personally, I would tell them he can, and then not answer the phone.

This is some next level scummy business practice. You can either have someone working or not. Laying someone off means they are no longer your employee. They lose all benefits so you do as well. Also if they’re a small company they’re just trying to abuse your hubby. I’d assume they still have salaried employees on staff and those people will be the only workers that can field calls. Otherwise your husband isn’t covered under workers comp insurance if he is injured. And in HVAC that can happen anytime between heavy objects to high voltage electrical. I know he wants to get his job back after this is all over but I’d say fuck you straight to their face. My job cut us back to 16 hrs a week so we can still have some pay and benefits. We’ve also created teams so that only teams work together and if one of us gets Covid-19 they remove all of us from the property.

jch7iw

askhr_test

[CA]Boss sold company truck and wants me to drive my truck so it can be used to pick up supplies I work for a company in California. There's no local HR and it's handled at corporate in a different state. Ok so we had a work truck that the company owned that we'd use to pick up supplies like once or twice a month. It would also be used if anyone needed to make any sort of trip for the company's reasons on company time. Well this week my boss sold it. I'm going to speculate a bit and I can't prove it at all, but I'm like 80% sure he sold it to a friend or family member for cheap. It was a great truck that even I drove a couple times and it didn't have any issues with it so I don't know why he felt like selling it. Anyway so today we needed to pick up supplies. I'm the only one here that has a truck. Boss walked into my office and told me that if I'm not busy I need to take my truck to pick up supplies or give my keys to my coworker so he can go. I point to the coat rack I have in my office that has my motorcycle jacket and helmet hanging on it and say "I rode my bike today" he looked annoyed and just says "that's going to be a problem" and walks out of my office. When the weather is good I like to ride my bike and the weather has been amazing here the past couple weeks. Anyway my boss came back into my office several minutes later telling me to go with my coworker in his car to my house to get my truck so we can go get the supplies. I lied and told him my wife took the truck to her sister's place like 1.5 hours away. He put his hands on his hips and shook his head visibly getting more annoyed. Told me I need to bring my truck in on Monday and he'll let me know ahead of time the next time that we're running low so I can make sure that I bring my truck in. So I'm really annoyed myself right now. If we needed the company truck why the hell did he sell it? Anyway I don't want my personal truck to be used as a company truck and I don't like being told what I can and can't drive into work. So my question is can I do anything about this?? Can my boss really tell me to drive my truck to work and force me to pick up supplies in it? I'm now intentionally not going to drive my truck into work, especially if I know we're running low.

g91n16g

g91fgjh

Ask for insurance and mileage reimbursement. No of course they can’t make you do anything, but that doesn’t mean they won’t fire you, that’s just the reality of the situation.

Was the availability & use of your truck part of your employment agreement?

jta84c

askhr_test

[AK] Boss is chronically absent. Should I talk to him about it or go to his boss? So, my boss has had an ongoing problem for the three years I've worked for this company: he is never around. Some times have been better than others, but regardless he is constantly away for one excuse or another. COVID has been a perfect excuse for him to be around even less. All of my work needs his approval for next steps so I'm unable to get anything done because everything stops with him. A few months ago, it got to the point where he was coming in for 1-2 hours a week, while still claiming his $120K salary no problem. Since we were all working remotely, his boss didn't notice as he had his own work to handle. My coworker complained to the boss's boss and said this is a huge problem. Our boss is not around, doesn't respond to emails, and we can't get anything done. Big boss then spoke with our boss. The good thing is the our boss actually started working! Not his 40 hours a week, but a whole lot better than the max 10 he was putting in before. The bad thing is he sent this super unprofessional email to his staff saying basically "I did nothing wrong, and you should have spoken with me before speaking to my boss." We were all pretty annoyed, but were happy that our boss was at least working a bit more. A few weeks ago, our boss's boss left to a new job and our boss was left without a supervisor. We might get an interim big boss soon, but for the moment my boss is at the top. Since the big boss left, my boss went back to his under 10 hours a week schedule. Every single thing I've been working on for the past 1-2 years is now with him and I am sitting here waiting, despite quite a few matters being extremely time sensitive. So I ask, what do I do? How do you go to your boss, the person who controls the reviews you get and what work you do, and say "Hey man, you're literally never here. I can't do my job when you're away. I don't think it's okay." Should I wait until we get a new big boss and go to them? Should I go to HR? Please, please help.

gc4iz9s

gc5i6um

Go to HR. And document everything.

How does it go over when you tell your boss you need him to review the things with upcoming deadlines/time sensitivity?

lq4tly

askhr_test

[CAN] Lowering title at previous job on resume I had a VP title at small company (80 empl) where titles came like candy. I did have a senior role with a staff of 12, but the VP title was a bit much. I'm now trying to find work that is likely more in the Snr. Manager possibly Director role - I'd even be happy with some autonomy and just doing my own thing within a dept. I feel like my VP title is making me seem a like a bad fit for some roles that I would love to have. Is it a bad idea if I were to lower my title from VP to something like Director? Even though I'm going down in title it certainly is not 100% above board so I'm pretty iffy on it. I'm not worried once I have an interview being able to talk about the situation, but I'm afraid my resume is being passed over before I even get that chance. Am I over thinking this?

goew0za

goevfvb

Internal titles don't always correlate with external titles because you are changing between companies, this is especially true if you are changing industries or roles. "Majiggy fidgeter" might be completely appropriate in your company, but you might have to translate it to something like "technical operator" so outsiders can understand. In this case people would understand your previous title, but for worse they would understand it wrong, because VP has different meanings across companies. So there's even more reasons to translate your title to something more appropriate.

Staff of 12 sounds like at least Director... at a lot of companies that'd be VP. But I understand the feeling.

oxd262

askhr_test

[SC] is this sexual harassment? Discrimination? In South carolina... My boss told me I'm no longer allowed to sit next to coworkers of the opposite sex while at work because people tell my boss I'm sleeping with everyone, but I'm not sleeping with anyone. I get along very well with members of the opposite sex, but I work well with all the other employees no matter their sex. Is this sexual harassment? Discrimination? Can anything be done?

h7mi5ii

h7mjoc9

Harassment, and you should say to the boss why are you moving ME instead of dealing with the harassers?

https://schac.sc.gov/employment-discrimination/prohibited-practices-discrimination-types Specifically, under Terms and Conditions of Employment " It also means an employer may not discriminate, for example, when granting breaks, approving leave, **assigning work stations**, or setting any other term or condition of employment" Honestly, I'm not 100% sure if your boss violated this provision because the rule is about discriminating based on protected classes (ie: you can't set terms of employment based on race, sex, age etc.) and he said he was doing it because of the rumors but he's definitely playing jumprope with the line and I'm kind of amazed that anyone who made it into even lower management would think this was appropriate. You mention in your comments that the conversation happened verbally. Personally, I'd get him to put it in writing. I'd send him an email to clarify details or something along those lines "Boss, Just wanted to touch base following our conversation. Based on what you told me, as a result of unfounded rumors you have heard, I'm no longer allowed to sit next to anyone of the opposite sex while working. Is there a specific desk you would like me to use? Are there other restrictions I should be aware of?" At this point one of four things will happen: 1. He will see what you're doing, realize he screwed up and you can sit wherever you want again 2. He will respond with some correction along the lines of "it was because of disruption in the office" or something similar 3. He will acknowledge and confirm what's in your email. If he does this, take that email straight to HR. 4. He won't answer. There's a chance that he'll get the email and try to come have another in person conversation(no paper trail). I'd head this off by sending the email a few minutes before I clock out for the day, especially if he works later than me or if he's out of the office and mention that I want to make sure I know what the new rules are before my next shift. If he called me after I clocked out, I'd let it go to voicemail. He can leave a voicemail or text me with his answer.

x1tr9x

askhr_test

[MA] Girlfriend requested PTO this Friday and afterwards her work announced everyone will be given a half day. They're still making her use 8 hours of PTO instead of 4 hours. Basically the title. - It feels unfair that she is having to use 4 hours of PTO on the second half of a day when no one will be there. Is this normal / legal? Any advice for her?

imfodfk

imfyigk

Half day off is reward for coming in.

I’ll give the AAM answer. Using PTO for the whole day is the cost of your gf getting the benefit of having the entire day off planned. Everyone else got a surprise but she was able to make plans for the whole day ahead of time.

vqs1eg

askhr_test

[CA]Accepted Formal Written Job offer with specific salary range. Now HR said they made a mistake regarding the pay. What should I do? Recently received and accepted a formal offer of employment via email from HR. This position has four pay scale ranges A,B,C,D. Based on my qualifications the HR department placed me in range C which was stated in the official offer. While attempting to negotiate where in range C my pay would actually land, the HR rep stated that upon further review of my application I actually am to be placed in Range B now but that I would be eligible for range C after 5 months. She apologized for the mistake. However, I have the formal offer saying range C and that is what I originally accepted. Im not sure what to do. Do they have to honor their original offer? Also , lets say I do accept range B now, is an email enough proof for "getting it in writing" from the employer that in 5 months I will be move up to range C?

ieqxsd3

ier2rf7

No. Pay can be altered going forward, but not for work that has been done. Unless the letter is signed by an Officer, I struggle to see anything contractually binding.

If you haven’t already resigned from your most recent job, I would just decline this offer and keep looking. This stinks of bad faith.

wg7eqz

askhr_test

[CA] I feel pressured to work during my 30 min unpaid lunch break Posted this on another sub yesterday but wanted to get some feedback before I decide to take it further. To add to the story, I haven’t received my review in writing but plan to ask on Monday. Im also going to email a response to the review on Monday as well. Not sure how to move forward if I cant prove what was said. Im also debating whether or not I should speak to Amy’s boss when they come on Monday and how shes creating issues at work. I am an hourly employee in CA and recently I had to set boundaries with my coworkers regarding my breaks and lunches. I don’t want to give too much info in fear of being identified but my job is basically a glorified secretary. I acknowledge my mistakes of being a people pleaser and doing the most to help people, but I am doing a lot better at respecting my boundaries. I am pretty friendly with a lot of people there, including the mail clerk “Amy”. Last week I was eating lunch in the office (which I rarely do due to never being able to eat in peace) when Amy comes in to tell me the vendor needed a signature. I was surprised she did this because I have lamented to Amy about people constantly bugging me on my lunches in the past. The first time she interrupted me, I let her know to let a supervisor or someone else in the office to sign for it. She came in a second time to ask about the vendor again, this time I had to be firm and remind her I am at lunch. She walked away embarrassed and I did feel bad but I was not disrespectful and did not raise my voice. Yesterday I had a review and despite my good marks, I only get docked for not being “empathetic” to my peers and was given the interaction with Amy as an example. According to my director, Amy said that I yelled at her that I was on my lunch and refused to help or give direction. Which was just not true and a twisted version of events. I explained to my director my side and they were shocked at how different the two stories were. I defended myself by telling her that I was just enforcing my boundaries and gave a few examples of my own of situations where people just walked all over me. Again they were shocked and I could tell embarrassed from not knowing the full story and being so quick to judge. So now I feel like Im seen as a jerk at work for just wanting to take my 30 min uninterrupted lunch according to CA law. I want to reiterate that I was professional when speaking to Amy and don’t feel its just to penalize me for maintaining a reasonable boundary.

iiy0gpu

iiyb6p0

>I explained to my director my side and they were shocked at how different the two stories were. I defended myself by telling her that I was just enforcing my boundaries and gave a few examples of my own of situations where people just walked all over me. Again they were shocked and I could tell embarrassed from not knowing the full story and being so quick to judge. If your director responded favorably to your explanation, why do you still feel pressured?

I would ask for a meeting with your director and Amy to discuss your lunch breaks and who to talk to about vendors, etc. so this can stop happening. Maybe your director's presence will make a difference?

vpu2y1

askhr_test

[WA] My Microsoft interview went really amazing. After the interview, I honestly told my recruiter that I have a deadline of tomorrow for another offer, and a few minutes later he said they can't offer me this time. What could be the reason for rejection?

iel50pq

iel5wsi

You played chicken and lost.

You're expecting a very large company to make a snap decision about a position where you're likely one of several candidates. If you have a deadline they can't meet, it's easier for them to walk away than to speed up their process.

q8eupf

askhr_test

[TX] Question about bathroom breaks? I loathe having to ask this, it feels like the most petty situation on the planet, but it’s becoming a major point of contention among my staff, and as a manager I don’t know how to handle it. Background: Small non-profit, 10 person staff. Of those 10 staff 9 are females and we share a women’s restroom. It’s a private one toilet with a door restroom. We have a newer staff member who will go into the restroom for 15-20 minutes at a time 3+ times a day. To the point every time someone else tries to use the restroom she is in there. At first we though, maybe it’s a temporary thing, not feeling well, etc. However it has not improved, if anything it’s more frequent/longer times. Other staff members have come to me complaining and more recently started gossiping and complaining to each other about it. Every time we go to look for her to ask her to start a different task she’s in the restroom, and she’ll be in there for extended periods while others need to use it. They could use the men’s, they’re essentially unisex bathrooms, but they don’t want to use it after our male employee(understandably). It’s turning into a major issue with staff and there is growing animosity. Today the employee in question and I were the only ones in office and I had to manage our front deskthat’s within eyeshot of the bathroom, so I started a log. She spent 1:27 minutes of her 8hr shift in the restroom today. It’s certainly at the top of my list that this could/likely be a medical problem. The LAST thing I want to do is manage someone’s restroom breaks. We’re grown adults, go when you need to, blow it up (and clean it) if you need to. I have bigger fish to fry, but we’re past the point of being able to ignore it. Please, please help me out here. I’ve no professional training on the human side of my job (manage an animal shelter), so I don’t even know where to start with this. It’s driving me insane.

hgoy18f

hgoxn4o

1. Make both your bathrooms unisex. It is not understandable that your female employees won’t use the same restroom as a male. Don’t become part of the problem by gossiping with the other employees. Create the solution and help the other employee maintain dignity. 2. I have had this exact situation. It’s not a comfortable topic but when it’s taking that much of their time, it has to be addressed. I would log the time spent for a week at least. Then tell them your observation and ask if they what’s going on. For my employee, they said it was an anxiety issue, but refused to see a doctor for the medical documentation and the breaks reduced to normal times once we had that initial conversation and they realized that they weren’t hiding anymore.

I know this will sound flippant, but I mean it genuinely: just put up gender-neutral restroom signs. Seriously.

wq31n1

askhr_test

Termination during resignation period [AZ] Hello all! I have a question. The company I have been working for appears to be crumbling. We were supposed to FDA approval on a medical device in June that did not come through and they are being hush - hush regarding the deficiencies and plans moving forward. The company seems to be struggling financially and have been terminating long time (higher paid) employees without warning, or explanation. I have seen this coming so I secured a position with another company. I do travel for work and my schedule was booked through August so I was gracious enough to give six weeks notice as to not leave the company or my teammates in a bind. After 3 weeks, they gave me a termination notice citing that is their right to exercise in an "at will" employment state. I live in Az, company based out of Tennessee.) It is apparent they did this in order to not pay out my 60 hours of PTO I have stored in my account. The employee handbook says that if you do not give adequate notice or are terminated, that you do not get stored PTO. I do not find this practice fair or ethical, as I worked 3 weeks after my resignation as a favor to the employer. Is there any recourse? What should I do? Can they continue to get away with this? Thank you, in advance, for your help.

ikk7ya3

ikka1c2

Fair is a place you go in the summer for rides and junk food. Ethical is debatable because you may have different ethics than me. You can try strongly wording your request for payment but there's nothing that will force their hand. Yes, they can keep doing this. It's not illegal to terminate you in your notice period. They could've done so the day you handed in notice.

You more than likely do not have any recourse, as you set up a vulnerability that as soon as you put your notice in, they could terminate you. I appreciate that you gave them 6 weeks, but custom is 2, and this is one of the reasons why.

mo3x3s

askhr_test

I [MA] am leaving a job I’ve been at for about 60 days because I strongly dislike the company culture. Having been there such a short time, is two weeks notice still expected? I feel like people are already going to be annoyed with me, the bridges will metaphorically be burned, I’m leaving the place because it makes me miserable, and those 2 weeks would be very uncomfortable. What’s the reason other than it’s “the right thing?” Clearly I don’t want to stay for those 2 weeks, but I’m checking to make sure I’m not forgetting to consider something important. FYI I’m in operations at a tech startup, I have a next job lined up, and I won’t need references from them.

gu1fhk1

gu1d59l

2 weeks is just a courtesy. You can leave with no notice period, just like they can fire you with no notice period. If you’re miserable, resign and let them know your last day will be 2-3 days later.

Well consider it’s a small world, but if you can’t then you can’t.

ddd2o8

askhr_test

Fired for bereavement leave Pennsylvania USA I was told I am being let go today due to exceeding the bereavement policy. When my wife passed 3 weeks ago I was told take as much time as you need from my boss. She had cancer i expected it soon but still I was in no shape to return sooner. I had looked into the bereavement policy earlier and it said managers discretion. My hr is claiming the bereavement time uses your vacation time. And if you run out of vacation time you may be terminated. I did not know that , no where does it say that. And they knew due to needing to take multiple days off to take care of my with I only had 2 days of vacation left. I am devastated this is insult to injury. Any recourse here? Can I fight for more severance?

f2fzk5i

f2fx8fw

This is beyond ridiculous, but unless there is a law specific to PA I'm not seeing anything illegal. *Maybe* discrimination for association with a disabled person, but that's quite a stretch to be honest. (https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/association_ada.html) [Edit: Or *maybe* FMLA as per other commentors.] This sounds like a dumb bureaucratic move by some unthinking drone incapable of recognizing spirit vs. letter of the law. Were I in your shoes I would reach out to others in this order until someone with the power to fix this actually fixes it: (1) your boss, (2) the head of your work location/site/department, (3) the head of HR, (4) the president of the company, (5) local news media. If those don't work, at least be content that you've got a slam dunk case for unemployment. Good luck. Edit: Oh, and if you don't get your job back make sure you leave a Glass Door and/or Indeed review warning others away from an employer that craptastic.

Sorry for your loss bro

nj7dk3

askhr_test

[AU] Manager wants me out of role. Continues to isolate. I don't know how to manager the situation. Do i quit and sue? Do i go to HR? What should i do? I'm in Sydney Australia. I posted a month ago, that my manager told me he wanted me out of my role, which i have successfully performed for several years, no disciplinary actions, etc. Said its for my benefit and his own philosophy that you should not be in a role for more than x years. That he would help me look for new opportunities and that if i did not take another role within next 4 months, it would be different conversation, with the end result I would no longer have a role in the company. I replied that, while I am happy to look for new opportunities, I was happy performing my current role until then. I also expect to be able to continue in my role without being undermined. Manager raised his eyebrows and said "of course". Since then, Manager has done everything he can to isolate me. He has tasked someone out of my department to run large project, that sits with the scope of my role. He refuses to talk to me or acknowledge me outside of meeting where others attend and mostly not even then. In 1:1 discussions, I have to sit while he tells me how he is doing this tfor my benefit. In our last 1:1, I was upset and he demanded to know why. When I said I was not comfortable discussing why I was upset with him (6 times), he kept demanding to know - i then found out a manager at his level called out how upset I was and wanted to know what my manager was doing to support me. I asked my manager, why he was asking, as its the first time he has ever asked how i am, do i need support; that he told me he wanted me out of my role, and offered no support HR Or any of the company support programs. I said that in the last year, he has not once reached out while I was working from home (due to covid) or since, to ask how i am, etc, and when i have reached out, has said I dont want to deal with (me). Managers reply (literally), I'll take that feedback on the chin. Since then he has not spoken to me once, not online, not in meetings, not in corridor. Not even when another team member recognised me in a team meeting for excellent work. I have started to document this behaviour, how isolated he has made me in the team, etc. I am not a confrontational person, I genuinely dont know how to reply to what feels like a personal attack about me personally and professionally. I also have a witness who has directly observed managers behaviours and the behaviours of his leadership team towards me, who has said he will go to HR if I need to. It feels like constructive dismissal and bullying, but i dont know, I've not been in this position before. I always figured, work hard in my job, perform well, and as long as the company is not restructuring, you get to keep your job you know? At this point, I feel so isolated, depressed and physically sick every day, that I have thought about going on long term stress leave, or just quitting and hiring an employment lawyer and suing the company. I am getting medical attention for the stress. I need to know if i should be reporting this to my companies HR? And how to I phrase this conversation, as i've previously been told going to HR i may as well leave the company as they are just going to support my manager?

gz5xxxh

gz5wgp4

How many employees does your company have? You should've spoken to HR the first time he said "I want to get rid of you because I don't think employees should be in a role for longer than X years" and asked HR if this is company policy. I suspect it's not. It's also poor management and opens the company to all kinds of risk.

I’m sorry this is happening to you. I’ve worked for a horribly toxic manager before too, so I feel your pain. I’m not familiar with AU law, so I can’t comment on that. But I do think it would be in your best interest to let someone know what’s going on, whether that be HR or someone higher up your leadership chain that you trust. Your manager isn’t being a good leader. Sometimes HR can help, with leadership training and some course correction for this person. But unless a company policy or law is being broken, they tend to stay out of it. Depends on your company culture. In the meantime, please be looking for another role. IME in the US, if your manager wants you gone, you’ll be gone.

tvgv72

askhr_test

[CAN] Ex Interviewing At My Firm I found out my ex is interviewing at my firm. Would it be prudent to alert HR? I work in investments at a medium size company,150 employees as a risk and compliance analyst. My ex is interviewing for a job as investment staff, which is about 35 individuals which I do interact with in my role. Our HR manual states that relationships need to be disclosed but does not state past relationships. On a personal dimension I am torn between wanting to see my ex happy (this would be her dream job) and not interfering, while also realizing it may make work very uncomfortable, at least initially. Thanks for the guidance.

i3a24bc

i3a1lrq

It is safe to suggest that anyone saying yes in this thread is not in HR.

If you were to interfere in any way, you would give her a nice foundation for a lawsuit.

sgg1y6

askhr_test

[MD] Conflicted about firing someone at the end of a PIP I manage a team of close to a dozen IT analysts at a large organization. A few months ago, I had to put one of my employees -- let's call them Francis -- on a PIP after repeated attempts to help them improve their job skills were fruitless. I tried coaching Francis intensively for months to no avail and it had gotten to a point where their lack of technical aptitude, inability to follow procedures, poor grasp of professional boundaries/workplace etiquette, and abysmal communication skills were taking a serious toll on team morale and my own mental health. I should have taken action much earlier, but I had never dealt with a PIP before and stupidly hoped my coaching and frequent, specific feedback would suffice. It did not, so at the end of their negative annual review I told Francis I was initiating a 90 day PIP. I have been meeting with them for an hour or more every week since then, and while they have made some small improvements here and there, they have been minimal and inconsistent, and only after extreme hand-holding by coworkers or me. Multiple team members have expressed their frustration at having to pick up Francis's slack; they were all eager to help them at first, but everyone has eventually given up on teaching them anything because nothing sticks. I know they have been trying, but I've suspected for a while that they have some kind of cognitive impairment based on their behavior, lack of listening or reading comprehension, work output, and poor judgement. When they divulged some medical history that could possibly be pertinent (without prompting), I tried encouraging them to pursue reasonable accommodations, but they declined. And yet several times during PIP check-ins, Francis cited their medical history as an explanation for poor performance. I've been as clear and candid as possible with them throughout the PIP about how they still haven't demonstrated an ability to meet expectations for the position and that they need to show much more significant improvement on a consistent basis to succeed in the PIP, but they don't appear to understand what that means. I've tried everything I can think of to get through to them, but it just feels like talking to a wall, and I have concluded that they simply are not capable of doing this job. About 60 days into the PIP, Francis had a unexpected medical emergency resulting in a month long absence, so I had to extend the PIP period. To be honest, prior to this I'd been counting down the days to the end of the PIP because I couldn't handle the intense frustration of managing them anymore. My job is extremely stressful even without Francis, and I've been struggling with burnout for the last year, so I felt resentful about having to prolong this misery even further. But I also felt really sorry for them and the idea of firing someone right after they returned to work from a serious medical crisis just felt gross, so I tried to give them a fair chance. So now we are approaching the end of the extended PIP and Francis still hasn't proven they can meet the basic requirements of this job. I have no doubt I'm justified in terminating them and I have tons of documentation to back me up. Here's the problem: based on what they have disclosed about their current medical condition, it's pretty dire. They haven't shared a diagnosis (and I would never ask) but recently they have mentioned several details in passing that indicate a grim prognosis. They have also disclosed in past conversations that they have some mental health issues in addition to this condition, and I've gotten the sense (from their chronic, intractable oversharing) that they don't have much going for them outside of this job. From a professional standpoint, I know letting them go is the right call for my team, and personally, it would do wonders for my own stress level to have Francis out of my life. But morally, I feel sick about terminating someone in their position, especially knowing that they almost definitely have astronomical medical bills (with more in the future), even with insurance. Does anyone have any advice on how to handle the conclusion of the PIP? Has anyone ever been in a similar situation? If so, how did it work out? I would appreciate any words of wisdom.

huw4bdi

huw94ps

You've shared it with HR, but it's Frances who has to make a claim for disability accommodation. And provide proof. Accommodation doesn't mean that you keep a job that you'll never be able to do. It means that you can do the entire job with some relatively minor modifications. It's a hard lesson to learn, but as someone who was fired more than once before succeeding, I learned from it and straightened up. In Frances's case, there's probably a job out there they're better suited for and that won't exacerbate their physical and mental symptoms.

I work in a professional office. We had a "Francis" for 1.5 years. Covering her position and meeting the complex needs of my clients at the same has given me full blown resentment for my firm and my work, at large. It'll be a year in June that she's been gone and I still haven't recovered from the mental torment that was Debbie. Do this for yourself and your team and don't ever regret it, no looking back.

y1o3x2

askhr_test

[MS] Can I get reprimanded for not meeting the standards of a job I didn’t want nor qualified for? During my interview with my current job, they told me what some of my duties would be which included user testing and technical writing. They already had my resume and I gave them examples of my web design work and more. The minimum qualifications didn’t require any programming, coding, etc. During the first week, I wasn’t really told about my duties but soon realized they placed me in a web development position; front-end to be specific. I spoke to my supervisor and she was confused with my placement too since she wasn’t included in the interview process to ask any technical questions. Basically, they confused web design with web development even though they planned on placing me in a technical writing position but when they heard web design, they decided I’d be best in the production area even though my skills were listed on my resume. When they realized what happened, they offered me a vacancy in a different division doing something I wasn’t interested in nor could physically do so then they told me they’d book classes for me to learn programming. A few weeks later, they said the classes weren’t in the budget so I tried learning from Google, YouTube, and other free resources. I just received my 6mo performance review and failed. Everything I was given that I could do wasn’t up to par due to lack of instructions and details even though I asked multiple times in person, email, and Teams. I did what I could with what I had. My supervisor said to get used to it because that’s how they unfortunately operate there. I added comments in my PR to make sure it was documented that this wasn’t the position I applied for and was not qualified for the position I was placed in. I’ve been applying for new jobs but I also don’t want to get fired or written up for insubordination for not grasping JavaScript because of someone else’s mistake. Advice?

irygskf

iryl8io

Jesus.

Find another job, quickly. The bad news is that what they've done is shittily incompetent, but legal.

4bumto

askphilosophy_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Existentialism vs Nihilism vs Absurdism Just read a bit of The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus and it has led me down a rabbit hole. I would like a bit of clarification between the three theories and for someone to explain to me how possible it is that we are living in a meaningless life. I'm beginning to believe we sort of are and that we should ignore that feeling and just do what makes us happy

d1crznd

d1cq16w

Existentialism and absurdism can be understood as two different but very similar responses to nihilism. Nihilism, more specifically existential nihilism, argues that life has no intrinsic meaning, purpose, or value. Both existentialism and absurdism accept this but respond in different ways. Existentialism in its broadest sense refers to a tradition of European philosophers who begin with individual human existence and authenticity. In the narrow sense, which is to say from Sartre, existentialism's response to nihilism is that we as radically free subjects thrown into a meaningless universe are solely responsible for the meaning we give it. Absurdism, a philosophy most attributed to Albert Camus, takes as central the absurd desire for humans to seek inherent value despite the meaninglessness of the world (nihilism). Absurdism further argues that all attempts to find meaning, either inherent or from one's self (existentialism), will ultimately fail but we should embrace the Absurd (the contradictory co-existence of the value-seeking human mind and the valueless world) and defiantly seek meaning anyway. The search itself is meaningful.

Existentialism: You're free to create your own meaning (it is also considered a general movement or period, like modernism in art). Absurdism: (Only relates to the meaning of life, existence) It is impossible, therefore irrelevant, for man to know or understand the meaning of life. Nihilism: (Can relate to multiple areas in philosophy; ethics, metaphysics, epistemology) There is no (nihil) inherent meaning in the world.

us7qdh

askphilosophy_test

About African Philosophy This might be a reach, but does anyone know anything about African continental philosophy? Like what kinds of fields did/ does ancient/ medieval era philosophy did African philosophy cover? I'm thinking more about sub Saharan, seeing how northern Africa was basically part of the Western world and influenced by Jewish, Christian, and Islamic philosophy. Also, by chance, would anyone know any good introduction or anthology of sub Saharan philosophies. Thank! I'm asking mostly out of curiosity.

i91ttee

i91teyj

I got my undergrad and honours at an African university and have tutored undergrads there for nearly 6 years. Especially in the last 4 years or so we’ve been pushing to include more philosophy from Africa in the syllabus. Though we don’t yet have any course dedicated to a complete historical overview of African philosophy, we’ve been including more and more in other courses. In our ethics course we talk about the Ubuntu moral theory, in our intros and metaphysics courses we talk about African conceptions of personhood, also in our intros courses we talk about decolonising knowledge and it’s effects on epistemology. While I’m certainly no expert in these fields I’ve read them and taught them a couple of times so if any of that sounds interesting let me know what you’d like to hear about and I’ll try and respond when I have time in between marking papers.

As a general source, you could refer to Peter Adamson's (of The History of Philosophy without any Gaps) podcast, History of Africana Philosophy. It's a fun and informative way to get going, and they have a couple dozen episodes on pre-colonial African Philosophy. Hope this helps!

ay0kmv

askphilosophy_test

Is a PhD worth doing if you're not brilliant? I'm a first year student, and since high school, I've been really interested in analytic philosophy, specifically philosophy of math and science. I've been trying to discern whether I want to switch to becoming a philosophy major (I'm computer science right now) and pursuing academic philosophy as a career. Putting practicality aside (e.g. bad job market, the prestige race, fighting for tenure), I've read Michael Huemer's blog about professional philosophy, and I've spoken with a number of graduate students at my university, and the feeling I'm getting is that unless you're absolutely brilliant or groundbreaking in some way, my career will be largely unfulfilling. Academic philosophy definitely does not seem to be one of those jobs where people can just skate by; it seems like you either produce excellent work, or you're better off not getting involved in the field at all. Is this true? Is academic philosophy ever worth it to anyone who isn't gifted?

ehxb2wa

ehxbafg

>Is this true? No. >Is academic philosophy ever worth it to anyone who isn't gifted? Yes.

You don't get a job (or even keep one) for being brilliant. You get a job (and keep one) for doing various kinds of work - getting research published and developing and teaching classes, etc.

p9hlpj

askphilosophy_test

What is a "favorite color"? Title. What does it mean to have a "favorite color"? How does the preference relate to qualia, precisely speaking? What meaningful information do I gain from knowing that someone "likes color x more than color y"? Is it even possible to reduce to a single favorite color, with no index to context? I've never heard anyone question this notion before. I've always just taken its meaning for granted, as have other people, from what I gather. Everyone I've ever asked has been able to label a color or a couple of colors as their "favorites". I've always been able to do the same. But upon reflection, I find it difficult to pinpoint exactly what information I gained from their answers. Other questions relating to preferences provide answers with much clearer and easily tracable meaning. "What is your favorite dish?", though ostensibly similar to the question of color seems to me to give me a far more meaningful insight into one's mental state. Perhaps an analogous question for the gustatory sense would be "what is your favorite taste?". But this question seems much more silly for some reason, which I can only ascribe to the greater intensity, and by extension clarity in communication, of visual over gustatory stimuli. Is this concept of one's "favorite color" specific to western culture? I ask because upon reflection, I don't even know how I would begin to find out what my favorite color is, were the concept not cemented inside my brain as a child. I can easily describe what colors I think I look good in, or what colors I prefer my bathroom's walls to be. But even the answers to these questions differ from one another. So how can I know what my favorite color is "overall"? Tl;dr: (1) What meaning (if any) does one's "favorite color" convey about their mind and experience? (2) Why doesn't an analogous concept appear to exist for any other senses (gustatory, auditory, etc.)? (3) To what extent is the idea of a "favorite color" cultural?

h9xssb1

h9yitm4

A very interesting question you asked there. It brings on the question of what words actually mean and if they have some kind of true meaning hiding in itself. Schopenhauer wrote about the difficulties one might have when translating or explaining words to someone else as they can mean totally different things to different people. I think his point was that things like translations of poems for example where useless as the meaning of the words in one language can not be translated to another one. He argued that some words might not have a meaning to some people at all which might explain why there is no apparent meaning or information to some words to some people as they all perceive them individually. Another interesting grasp on the meaning of words is the science of Ethymologie which Plato also wrote about. You might find more answers there I don’t now mich about that.

What a wonderfully interesting question. Never heard this discussed before. I'll take a stab at your second question. >(2) Why doesn't an analogous concept appear to exist for any other senses (gustatory, auditory, etc.)? I think they do exist for those people who have stronger senses of smell and taste, at least. I consider myself to have a really robust sense of smell and taste. And I realize this is anecdotal but I have intense memories of certain smells and tastes to the point that I can vividly recall them at will. I suspect this catalog of smells allows me to rank them and have intuitions on my favorites kinds, analogous to also having a favorite color. For example, I think my favorite smell might be Hibiscus concentrate. And I really love Fruity and floral smells in general. The smell of a just ripened enough banana is heaven to me. I wonder if some of the problem of it seeming if people in general have no favorite smell but having a favorite color might stem from: (1) lacking the language for naming types of smells; (2) some people have really weak senses of taste and smell; and (3) no one ever seems to ask you time and time again what's your favorite smell like they do with what's your favorite color throughout nearly your entire life. Try it yourself and see if by looking through ten major types of smells you are then better able to rank them, if not outright pick a favorite(s). **Note:** this is not a perfectly scientific list but it should have the desired effect regardless of its astuteness. **Olfactory Space** * Fragrant (e.g. florals and perfumes) * Fruity (all non-citrus fruits) * Citrus (e.g. lemon, lime, orange) * Woody and resinous (e.g. pine or fresh cut grass) * Chemical (e.g. ammonia, bleach) * Sweet (e.g. chocolate, vanilla, caramel) * Minty and peppermint (e.g. eucalyptus and camphor) * Toasted and nutty (e.g popcorn, peanut butter, almonds) * Pungent (e.g. blue cheese, cigar smoke) * Decayed (e.g. rotting meat, sour milk)

2qub6i

askphilosophy_test

Are there any problems that used to be philosophic but were solved and recategorized (e.g. as science)? Can we use those recategorizations to assume something about current philosophical problems? Usually I would do the research myself but I'm coming up short on thinking of old philosophy problems that were subsequently solved by advances in scientific fields. The only examples I can think of are from ancient metaphysics where the premises turned out to be invalid. I don't think that type of 'solved' problems will help for the question in question. I need a problem that had valid premises but due to lack of knowledge we could not conclude the correct answer. Are those types of problems perhaps not even philosophic - and that's why I'm having troubles thinking of one?

cna1ah0

cna235g

I mean, there's always zeno's paradox and also just about everything Plato/Aristotle talked about outside of ethics and metaphysics

Well, almost everything you know of in science, was considered part of natural philosophy a century ago. Anything philosophical about the human mind and how it works. We have better ways of thinking about logic, that can avoid existential import.

inlj3e

askphilosophy_test

How do I get started with learning Philosophy? I really like Crash Course Philosophy, but I've read on this subreddit that it's not a great source. Does there exist a book or video/lecture series that covers various aspects of philosophy broadly (without going into too much debpth) so that I can figure out which bits of this vast subject I'm interesting in learning about further?

g489hh2

g486k3z

Same place for me, I am working my way through these https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/romp-through-philosophy-complete-beginners

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/comments/4ifqi3/im_interested_in_philosophy_where_should_i_start/

ognfl8

askphilosophy_test

Are there any good books on how the scientific revolution of the 16th century brought about that "science" and "philosophy" started to mean different things?

h4kvy23

h4kf0zd

A History of Truth in the West by Mauricio Nieto sounds like a good place to start. It's focused on the development of modern science, specially the belief that it is possible to reach universal truths, and goes from Greece to the Enlightenment and Colonialism. It also is very critical of the idea of a scientific revolution and the mostly artificial divide between science, philosophy, magic and arts that is proyected in hindsight towards times like the renaissance, so I think it just might be what you're looking for.

I think this was touched upon, but not heavily, in 'The Age of Wonders'

5md6l3

askphilosophy_test

What are some good YouTube videos on philosophy? I recently finished CrashCourses philosophy segment and I feel like I learned a lot. I know they got a few facts wrong and were too brief but overall I feel like they did a good job. I really enjoyed how easily digestible the videos were and I am wondering if there are any other channels or videos like CC

dc2nbuv

dc2pb38

https://www.youtube.com/user/flame0430

I second "Wireless Philosophy." Also, check out "8-Bit Philosophy."

oj2zf0

askphilosophy_test

good books to read to start getting into philosophy ‘properly’? so far i’ve only read bits and pieces of different philosophers books-as i’m waiting for a couple to arrive-and mini thesis’/ essays on different philosophies. i’m pretty young so i know that it’s gonna be pretty difficult for me to understand the majority of the wording (already finding the first paragraphs of aristotle’s ‘the complete works’ slightly difficult lol) but i want to give it a shot. at the moment, i only have: -*exploring philosophy: faking nature* - the open university -*Aristotle; the complete works* - aristotle (obviously lol) -*an introduction to philosophy* - George stuart fullerton -*philosophy: the nature of persons* - the open university -*between psychology and philosophy, palgrave studies in comparative east-west philosophy* - michael slote these are ones my mum previously had, i didn’t actively go out and looks for these so i’m not sure on what philosophy a lot of these look into. are any of these good reads? i’m aiming to at least try read all of these as much as i can anyways, but i think having a priority list would be beneficial. i know there’s not a way to properly be into philosophy but i am genuinely interested and want to try find a way to best figure things out. for reference, the books ordered are the myth of sisyphus, the stranger and i’m planning on getting sartre’s work, nietzsche’s work, some things on metaphysics, and i’m not too sure what else. it’s possible i’m getting ahead of myself, but who knows? but yeah, any recommendations or advice?

h4zo83b

h4zspfh

how to be a philosopher by gary cox is a good introduction because it walks you through the main areas of philosophy. once you've finished that (or really, ANY pop-philosophy book), take u/Philosopher013's advice and follow up on what was most interesting in that book.

“The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them.” Alfred North Whitehead Start with Plato’s Dialogues and branch off from there. Then, when you find the search for meaning waning, read the Tao Te Ching (Dao De Jing) and follow the Eastern branches of philosophy. This is a semi-autobiographical response. That’s what helped me through my philosophical journey and I found the contrast between East and West the most fruitful. In the West, the idea is that truth is out there somewhere and we must find it, isolate it, capture it. In the East, the idea is that you already possess the truth and must search within. An obvious oversimplification

zhtg60

askphilosophy_test

As a philosophy undergrad interested in philosophy of science what 'science' should I know and how should I learn about it? I am a philosophy undergrad, and am getting more and more interested in the philosophy of science (together with philosophy of mathematics and technology), but a lot of the more technical texts, which I would like to understand, rely on knowledge the sciences, especially physics. Could those more familiar with the philosophy of science help me in which scientific theories are crucial, how it might be best to learn them as a philosophy student, and maybe mediums(lectures, podcasts books) that are especially suitable for this? Maybe there have been some particular books on science for philosophy? I have a background in mathematical statistics, so recommendations relying on a strong mathematics background are also welcome. Thank you in advance for taking the time to answer!

iznw5pp

izntcjr

Is there any chance you could take some physics classes, maybe even minor in it or something? If you have a background in mathematical statistics you wouldn't have too rough a time, and I think it's really important to at least get to introductory quantum mechanics to get a sense of the metaphysics, worldview, and mathematical machinery presented in by-the-book quantum stuff, as well as familiarity with some of the really important experiment designs and findings. For self-study, I'd recommend *The Road to Reality* by Roger Penrose, a very highly regarded mathematical physicist. It's over 1,000 pages and intended for people with a background in mathematics so there's probably quite a bit of mathematics in there you'll have to learn on your own in order to be able to follow, but it really is quite a beautiful serious introduction to the main ideas in modern physics, especially theoretical physics. Good luck, and happy learning! Edit: Oh, and I wouldn't recommend any pop-science string-theory stuff. Some of them are quite good as far as reading for enjoyment (I liked Brian Greene's *The Elegant Universe*) but the topic is sooo complex that you'll really get virtually zero sense of *WHY* string theorists believe the stuff they believe, since the mathematics is far too complicated for the lay audience. In other words, it's not particularly helpful from a philosophical point of view. If you have absolutely no knowledge of relativity, Hawking's *A Brief History of Time* is a good really basic intro.

best book I've ever read in this zone is String Theory and the Scientific Method by Richard Dawid; separately imo string theory is most exciting intersection b/c string theorists were persona non grata in physics for so long due to its supposed non-scientific, poetic, even 'cancerous' nature (nobel prize winning physicist called it a cancer and led failed campaign to bar string theorists from an ivy league physics department, i forget which school but easy to google). nevertheless string theory is dominant (majority if not total consensus) in physics today

nnkt85

askphilosophy_test

What books would you recommend to someone trying to get into philosophy? What’s a good place to start?

gzv6zfp

gzv3dxb

On of my professors highly recommended to read Platos dialogues to get started in philosophy. Three reasons this may be a good approach: 1. Plato is pretty much the most influential thinker in western philosophy (I'll spare you the Whitehead quote), thus getting acquainted with him is a good start and important to understand many later positions. 2. Plato's works are accessible and easy to read (for philosophy standards, that is). The way they are written is also often genuinely entertaining, which can't be said for everything that has been written in philosophy. 3. Plato discusses a lot of the topics that are still central fields of inquiry in contemporary philosophy. Reading Plato thus serves as a great introduction into the topics of philosophy and - given that most philosophy today is written in papers which are either direct or indirect responses to other papers - in a way also into its methodology, as Plato wrote his works as dialogues (although, of course, there isn't a fixed set of methods in philosophy, I believe that goes without saying). The Republic, Phaidon or Menon would be good places to start.

Have a look at this.

mrf8bw

askphilosophy_test

Should we interfere with nature in order to prevent suffering? Nature is brutal. Male tigers will kill cubs that aren’t their own. Cats hunt for sport. In some species of hares only 1/10 are expected to reach adulthood. Some animals like house cats will kill for sport and chimps come up with some pretty gruesome ways of killing lesser primates (like ripping out their hearts while they’re still alive). So, if we take a utilitarian view that we ought to maximize happiness, should we not interfere with nature? Sure, you could make the argument that nature itself brings happiness to humans, so therefore we should preserve it (if we also take the view that human happiness is more important than animal happiness). But at the same time, although I love nature myself, I still find the case for interfering to be compelling. Lots of animals are born just to suffer. Is it not selfish, in a way, to allow these creatures to exist simply because we see some sort of intrinsic value in them? In a way, you could say that we preserve nature to make *us* happy, not the creatures living in i, sort of like a zoo. We only allow nature to exist because we attach value to it, not because we care for the wellbeing of its inhabitants (yes, I’m aware that polluting the planet causes a lot more suffering short-term as we destroy animals natural habitats, but even if we didn’t the animals would still kill and devour each other, leading to suffering). If we really wanted to minimize suffering, we would exterminate rabbits or ensure that if they do live they live a good life. Rabbits have no concept of wanting to preserve their species or whatever, so you can’t say that we’re doing them a disfavor. If you wanna go to extreme lengths, you could say that we actually ought to exterminate all beings which we cannot guarantee prosperity for (exterminating a bunch of species has other implications obviously, like screwing things up for ourselves as well, but let’s put that aside). In summary, 1. Should we interfere with nature to prevent suffering? 2. A rabbit is born into this world with a 1/10 chance of survival and does not hold any beliefs about preserving its specie, etc. Is it not selfish to allow suffering in nature simply because we as humans attach intrinsic value to it? 3. If we had the sci-fi tech to survive without any need for nature, would the right thing to do not to simply exterminate (or sterilize) all creatures that we cannot guarantee happiness for?

gum4il8

gumtt3h

Point of note: >Lots of animals are born just to suffer. You can't apply a _telos_ in hindsight by looking at statistics.

There's a significant amount of newish literature on this subject. One place to get an overview and one take on it is in Korsgaard's *Fellow Creatures* -- there are two chapters at the end of the book on this issue.

ha1au8

askphilosophy_test

How to balance consumption of information with action? I have been finding that I spend hours consuming information (news, books, articles, podcasts, etc.), but then feel drained since I’m not *doing anything* with the knowledge I’m taking in. It almost feels like information is potential energy that needs to be expended, but in my current life situation I don’t know what to do with it. What I do know is that I love learning and I don’t want to just stop consuming information. Does anyone have suggestions for me, from philosophy or otherwise, on how to handle this dilemma? Can anyone relate to this?

fv05r6j

fv0emlr

Taking action really depends on your goals (if you have some yet). For example let's say you wanted to own a fitness business in the future. If so, a good balance would be to read about fitness, exercise, nutrition but also take actionable steps such as do your PT course, set up a website etc. All whilst setting mini-goals such as an hour a day, fulfill 2 or 3 mini tasks that gets you closer to finishing that course or website - while still reading your books/watching your videos. If you don't really have a goal with what you're learning, just do it for the fun of it, if learning is your passion! If you enjoy history, go read or watch those videos without thinking you need to take action on what you have learned! Just read.

Honestly ask yourself what you want out of learning and gaining knowledge. If the answer is that you do if for its own sake, there is nothing wrong with that. It can be its own passion and that has its own rewards. If you truly want to take action, then take action. It is your choice and neither choice is wrong.

n3q60t

askphilosophy_test

Doesn't the existence of mental illness, anesthetics and psychedelics make a good argument for materialism? Hopefully not too ignorant of a question, I'm pretty new to reading about theories of consciousness. Maybe I'm missing something? I understand materialism as consciousness being based on matter, some kind of result of physical reactions to inputs. Someone with a mental illness like schizophrenia, which might be related to dopamine problems in the brain, means that there's physical difference that effects their conscious experience. Similar for drugs, a new chemical is introduced and the conscious experience of the person receiving the drug changes significantly. With anesthetics consciousness seems to go away completely and psychedelics alter it. It seems like the fact that when chemicals in the brain are modified, conscious experience changes would be a strong piece of evidence for materialism? I'm asking because I haven't read about these scenarios in anything I read so far, I'm wondering if I'm off somewhere in my misunderstanding or if I"m not good at searching and if i could get some ideas to track down or anything good to read.

gwrcng6

gwrl4yl

Good question but it may not be a simple relationship between consciousness and brain activity. We know chemical changes in the brain cause neurological changes in how the brain operates. If this includes changes in the perceptual system, then the information our consciousness is receiving and processing is different. On that basis maybe consciousness has remained the same, it is simply working with different input. Like switching from reading a serious book to watching a comedy tv show. Same consciousness, different content. We also know different people can experience the same things very differently. So, we can show some correlation between consciousness and brain operations. But that correlation can vary even when everything else remains the same. But we cannot show brain function is the cause of consciousness, and certainly not show that it is the sole cause of consciousness. The best we can say is the brain is necessary for consciousness. We cannot say it is sufficient. And none of this proves materialism, or disproves it. We're just talking about conscious experience.To prove materialism, you would have to also show it is impossible for any physical thing to have any non-physical properties. Not just that they don't, but that they cannot. This is not my area, but I think the most profitable approach to that is through logic, not observation. Such as trying to show the idea of non-physical is logically incoherent, or self-contradictory.

It is true that some materialists point to this sort of phenomenon to justify their materialism. For instance, Lucretius does this. But it is too hasty. Every dualist has something to say about this. Sometimes their explanations are lacklustre. For example, Descartes in his correspondences happily accepts that there is a connection between mind and body such that this sort of thing makes perfect sense. But he also believes that it is not within the scope of philosophy to explain how this sort of everyday occurrence happens. Philosophy discovers that the mind and body are distinct from each other, but it is left to other things to discover how they act on each other and interact. (Perhaps Descartes is right but I think that his concession that philosophy simply can’t explain this turns some people off.) But other dualists gave a much more systematic explanation. Check out Plato’s *Timaeus* for an example, especially the last ten or fifteen pages. That part of the dialogue is a careful analysis of bodily and mental illnesses, understand as interactions between the soul and the body’s chemicals.

x8h1sz

askphilosophy_test

What exactly is the issue with Utilitarianism? It seems pretty logically sensible Given that I’m presented with a certain situation (say like a trolley problem), is it not morally correct to choose the action that maximizes the number of lives saved? If I absolutely *had* to choose between killing two groups of people, is not better to kill off the group with the lesser number, since that leads to more people living in the end? Yet I’ve seen people reject utilitarianism even though, at least at first glance, it seems to be the moral position that makes the most sense. What exactly is wrong with it?

ini8q64

ini82m3

Here is a comment I've made before. The below is meant to just highlight some areas that different objections can be pursued; it's not meant to be some standalone "final word" on the matter. I put this disclaimer at the beginning because I am not interested in "debating" responses to the below (as some people *really* want to when they read the below, though I'm happy to try and clarify things); I'm merely highlighting different avenues that have been pursued. So: Much of this will certainly depend on exactly how utilitarianism is cashed out. So, first, let's get a general statement of utilitarianism on the board. How about this: "an act is right if and only if it maximizes happiness in the world." Now, we could get more precise, but we can use that as a working understanding. As you note, things might change if we move to preference-utilitarianism, or rule utilitarianism Here are some of the issues that the utilitarian has to contend with: 1. Utilitarianism looks to make the notion of "rights" obsolete. For instance, tossing Christians to the lions in ancient Rome is bad for the Christian, but good for the Colosseum of Romans who are in ecstasy at the spectacle. If you have enough ecstatic Romans, then it looks like it's good, given utilitarianism, to toss the Christian to the lions. 2. Utilitarianism is too demanding. It seems to demand that that we always are to maximize happiness, in every action, at all times. And that's very, very, hard-- and hard in a way that seem to be too much of a cost for a moral theory. 3. Utilitarianism tries to put a single metric on value, and that's incoherent. Can we really compare the sort of value you assign to the life of your wife, with the value you assign to eating a Twinkie, with the value you assign to relieving yourself, with the value you assign to living the life of monk? For many people, it does not seem that all things that we value in life can be compared. e.g. I value twinkies. I also value my wife. How many twinkies is my wife worth to me? Utilitarianism asks questions like that all the time; for many people the question is ridiculous as a comparison is impossible. Some things differ in kind, not just in quantity. The point to be made is that the utilitarian assigns a single metric to all value, and that seem incoherent. The utilitarian says that the type of value got from scratching an itch is commensurable with the value of my wife. So, there will exist a relationship, such that some number times the value of itching a scratch equals the value of my wife. But, we might say, any equation looks wrong here. As Kant says, life has a dignity, and not just a price. The sorts of value involved here are incommensurable, if comparable. 4. Utilitarianism is under-specified, and when it is specified, those specifications are largely arbitrary. For instance, do we maximize aggregate happiness, or average happiness? Who is included? People, animals, future generations? How do we weigh "high probability of little pleasure" vs "low probability of high pleasure"? Here's another problem: assuming we can calculate the relevant utils, how do we deal with time? Do we look a second ahead, a year ahead or a century ahead? But why stop at a century? Why not 101 years, or 500 years or 865.324 years, or the second before all sentient beings are extinct? The normative prescription provided by utilitarianism can change from instant to instant. So what do you make of a theory that tells you that a certain action will produce a net +10 utils at time t, a net -5 utils at t+1, a net +100 utils at t+2, a net -1000 utils at t+3, etc, etc? If net utility can change from instant to instant (and it obviously can), then utilitarianism is of no service to moral agents in deciding how to act or how to value an action. 5. Utilitarianism seems to be a self-effacing theory in that there seem to be situations where making utilitarianism the publicly accepted moral system would actually produce less utility. So, utilitarianism might very well be a theory that works best if no one is thinking about it....very odd. 6. Related to 5. Utilitarianism tells us that an act is right if and only if it is optimific in regard to pleasure and pain. But you can't embody this reason in your motive for acting, and still have friends, loved-ones, etc. Under utilitarianism, you don't value your friends as *friends*, you value them as sources of pleasure; they are replaceable -- anything with the same effects on us will suffice. So, when you try to embody utilitarianism in your motives, you find that the person you supposedly love engages your thought not for him/her but as a source of pleasure. To embody in one's motives the values of utilitarianism is to treat people externally and to preclude love, affection, community. To get *these* goods while holding utilitarianism requires a schizophrenia between reason and motive. To the extent that you live utilitarianism, you will fail to achieve goods like friendship, love, inquiry -- and these are goods that the utilitarian himself recognizes as good. The objection is that you cannot embody your reason in your motives, as a utilitarian. The utilitarian says that friends, and love are goods. But you can't achieve these goods, while simultaneously embodying your reason in your motive. Compare to the egoist: egoists take their own pleasure as the sole justification. From this, they should recognize the love, etc as among personal pleasures; so they have good reason on their own grounds to enter such relations. But when they act on their motive of pleasure-for-self they can't get those pleasures; to achieve these pleasures they have to abandon their egoistical motive; the egoist can't get the pleasures of love and friendship. For it is essential to the very concept of love that one care for the beloved, and be prepared to act for the sake of the beloved as a final goal. But to the extent that my consideration for you comes from my desire to lead a life that is personally pleasing, I do not act for your sake. So their motive and reasons pull apart. So, to get these goods they have to lead a sort of schizophrenic life. Here's sort of how Susan Wolf understands the point: the utilitarian values these things only because of and insofar as they are a part of the general happiness. He values them under the description, “a contribution to the general happiness.” In contrast, real people might love, say, literature, because of the insights into human nature, or, growing roses because they are beautiful. Sure this may contribute to happiness, but this isn't the point to the non-utilitarian. For if one values these activities in more direct ways, one may not be willing to exchange them for others that produce an equal, or even greater amount of happiness. From that point of view, it is not because they produce happiness that these activities are valuable; it is because these activities are valuable in more direct and specific ways that they produce happiness. So, the utilitarian can't value things in the right way. So, those are some basic problems. I should note, though, that utilitarians are smart people, and can give responses-- indeed, utilitarians have given responses, but the above is just supposed to be the basic sorts of issues that lead to needed refinement/argument. One of the big responses you'll see is that "utilitarianism is not a decision procedure!" By this, the utilitarian means that you should take the theory as reporting when actions are "good" and when they are "bad." So, on this reading, we shouldn't use the theory of utilitarianism to decide how to act on particular occasions. (Indeed, many utilitarians grant that, in deciding how to act, it is counterproductive to consult the theory of utilitarianism). Moreover, just because it's difficult to determine what action maximizes happiness isn't a mark against the theory -- it just shows we are limited in our knowledge. Moreover, utilitarians will be utilitarian about how they assign praise and blame. So, for instance, say I jump in the water and, unbeknownst to me, save Hitler Jr., who goes to murder a bunch of people. Well, utilitarians might still praise my act as the right one (since, they want to promote saving drowning folk), even though my action was actually "bad" (since it led to a decrease in utility). Another way to see the same point: just because I do a bad action, doesn't mean I should be blamed for it, since whether or not I'm to be blamed is something we have to think about along utilitarian lines. Some of the more spelled out versions of utilitarianism are interesting and deep. But, the sort of utilitarianism you sometimes see in economics, law, public policy, may be "too quick." It may have a certain air of "spurious rigour," where we mistake quantification and calculation for cogency of thought. It might be a great moral theory for omniscient beings (though even this is in question). But for those of us who lack that quality, utilitarianism may be seen as just a device to cloak moral bias with the guise of mathematical certainty. There's definitely more to be said, but I'll end there for now.

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*

ilgw68

askphilosophy_test

I just started taking a required English course, and the professor is making us read Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense". I literally don't understand a single word of what this dude's trying to say. Could someone please summarize this essay for me as if you were talking to a child? Hello. English and philosophy are my worst subjects. I'm a very easily confused person, so trying to read this is actual hell for me. This is an online course with no scheduled meetings or lectures. The professor linked us to a brief guide for this text, but it's only confusing me even more. Like I am actually getting angry trying to read this essay. Scheduling a meeting with my professor is going to take a bit, so please help me Reddit. Explain this to me like I am in elementary school.

g3t8tu2

g3t3dyy

Do not feel bad, OP. There is no good reason for an educator to throw this essay at students in an online class. I'll use this version for reference. There are a couple big chunks you need to understand. Nietzsche's project in this essay, in the most general and reductive sense, it to shit on language. To do that he needs to establish a few things. > What men avoid by excluding the liar is not so much being defrauded as it is being harmed by means of fraud. Thus, even at this stage, what they hate is basically not deception itself, but rather the unpleasant, hated consequences of certain sorts of deception. Humans do not like truth for its own sake, and dislike dishonesty for its own sake. Humans like pleasure and dislike pain. When someone says "I dislike liars" they mean "I dislike the harmful, painful effects of lies." Nietzsche needs to establish this to undermine language. If what humans care about above all is *truth*, then Nietzsche is wrong. If what humans care about above all is *avoiding pain*, then Nietzsche can say that language and concepts and the like are fundamentally a system to try and avoid pain, rather than a system to try and convey genuine reality. Analogy/Example: When you're on a date, you are not employing language to scientifically accurately mirror reality. You employ language to try and get laid. All language, for Nietzsche, is like that. We're trying to use language to achieve pleasure and avoid pain, rather than trying to use language to accurately articulate complete correct reality. > It is this way with all of us concerning language; we believe that we know something about the things themselves when we speak of trees, colors, snow, and flowers; and yet we possess nothing but metaphors for things—metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities. For the sake of example, let's say you have a bird named Beatrice you really like. The word "Beatrice", the words you use to describe the bird, will never fully wholly encompass what Beatrice is. Your history with Beatrice, her colors, the tricks she knows, all of that experience is only kinda vaguely pointed to with the word "Beatrice", and the words you use to describe Beatrice. You're never going to capture the whole experience of interacting with "Beatrice" with words. That's how all words work. They are vague approximations of reality. > We know nothing whatsoever about an essential quality called "honesty"; but we do know of countless individualized and consequently unequal actions which we equate by omitting the aspects in which they are unequal and which we now designate as "honest" actions. When you say "I love my bird Beatrice" and your friend says "I love my dog Hank", you each say "love", but the particular feelings you have, the memories your friend has, the emotional attachment you each individually feel for your individual pets is different. And yet you use the same word, "love". Nietzsche thinks that is weird. The bundle of felt emotions you have, and the bundle of felt emotions your friend has, are terrifically different, compel different actions, are directed at different things. And yet we use the same words. Now go back to that first paragraph. If what we wanted was TRUTH. Then your friend and you could not use the word "love" to mean those two different groups of feelings and histories and etc. Your particular feelings would need a word specific to it, and your friends would need a different particular word. To sort of get through life, we go with the sloppier, functional system wherein you both say "love" and it works ok. > What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. All that stuff we've gone over? All the flaws and shortcomings of language, and our motivation for having that? Nietzsche thinks we forget those nuances. So, in life, your friend and you think that "love" really *is* the same thing, for both of you, since you use the same word. Analogy/Example: Lots of times marriages / relationships fall apart because, despite using the same words, folks *mean* different things. Tom says "I want to get married" and Sue says "I want to married", so they get married, because they agree, right? But then a month into the relationship, turns out Tom thinks that marriage entails a joint bank account and Sue thinks marriage entails separate bank accounts and also she gets a cake every Thursday. So they're pissed off because they *meant* different things by "marriage". That's kinda what Nietzsche is on about. We forget that "marriage" means very different things to every person, because everyone using the same word, "marriage". How could Tom and Sue have such a conflict about what they thought "marriage" entailed if they used the same word?? If we used the Truth language Nietzsche discussed in that first quote, the conflict would have been avoided because Tom would have said he wanted marriage-bankaccounts and Sue would have said she wanted marriage-cakes. Two different expressions, so two different things, so they oughtn't get married. > Only by forgetting this primitive world of metaphor can one live with any repose, security, and consistency ... But in any case it seems to me that "the correct perception"—which would mean "the adequate expression of an object in the subject"—is a contradictory impossibility. The only way to avoid that "marriage" problem above, that results from the Beatrice problem above, which results from the "we just want to not be hurt" problem above, would be to have that perfect, scientific, atomistic language where every person says "I want marriage-jointbankaccounts-twokids-apetbird-etc." to fully articulate every nuance of everything they experience and express. But we can't do that. Because, fundamentally, language cannot do that. Concepts cannot do that. There is always a shortcoming. > But man has an invincible inclination to allow himself to be deceived and is, as it were, enchanted with happiness when the rhapsodist tells him epic fables as if they were true Despite all the problems, we keep using the system where we say "marriage". Because that is easier, and we think next time it will work, and we forget why it was a problem in the first place. Tom and Sue blame each other, rather than the words and metaphors and basic structures of reality. Blaming those things would be *scarier* than just blaming each other. This is way longer than I intended so I will stop. Did some of that make sense?

Hey, here's a reading report on this text I wrote last year. Hope it helps! Frederich Nietzsche believes that, if man should be admired for something, it shouldn’t be for his understanding of the world, but rather for the complex conceptual structures he develops by means of which he’s able to *interpret* the world and his place in it. In his manuscript *On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense*, he argues that the so-called *truths* that are obtained from such structures are only designations of things that people agree on. As a consequence, these truths will invariably lack objectivity―their validity (and the falsity of lies) hinges almost exclusively on the fluctuating principles of human mental laws. Language is a key part of the problem. According to Nietzsche, the employment of words to describe phenomena will only produce a system of classification and generalizations, rather than serving the purpose of capturing the inherent essence of things: “One designates only the relations of things to man, and to express them one calls on the boldest metaphors.” (Nietzsche, 1873). We explain nature in terms of its effects with other laws of nature, not in terms of what it is in itself. Concepts such as *time* and *space* are conceived because of their practicality in human activities, and can be similarly understood by virtually everybody, for virtually everybody perceives nature the same way. Nietzsche suggests that, if that wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t be talking about a regularity of nature, rather, it “would be grasped only as a creation which is subjective in the highest degree” (Nietzsche, 1873). Since our conceptual framework is inherently faulty, the author argues that the theoretical edifices (including those of science, politics, anthropology, and philosophy) created upon it must be faulty as well. It follows that such is our primary understanding of the world. This defective truth-seeking practice, Nietzsche concludes, is deeply ingrained in humans’ very nature, and therefore inevitable. He gracefully expresses this when he says that “the drive toward the formation of metaphors is the fundamental human drive, which one cannot for a single instant dispense with in thought, for one would thereby dispense with man himself” (Nietzsche, 1873).

4i0zhl

askphilosophy_test

How to approach Phenomenology? I've been interested in Phenomenology since I briefly discussed with with my professor last semester, and I want to try getting into it this summer. How should I approach the field? My issue is that I am not very well read yet. I've read Plato, Aristotle in depth, with a little Augustine, some Camus and De Beauvoir. Where should I begin? I would appreciate some recommendations for a reading list / order or any secondary sources that would help me.

d2u426d

d2u7kym

The Crisis of the Sciences by Husserl is claimed to be an introduction to transcendental phenomenology. It's fairly accessible if you know the basics of the early modern thinkers up to Kant. Take a look and see what you think. I can send you the PDF if you'd like.

Read Descartes' Meditations first. When Husserl starts referring back to it you'll better understand why Phenomenology is a thing.

r10awt

askphilosophy_test

Is Kant a compatibilist in terms of the problem of free will? I was reading Alenka Zupancic's "Ethics of the real: Kant, Lacan" in which she writes that Kant is adamant upon his stand that each and every action of ours is determined through causality but still the subject remains free since it is upon the subject to freely choose his categorical imperative, since there is no Cause of the causal chains other than subject itself, i.e. in Lacanian terms, there is no Other of the Other but the subject of freedom, since though the subject is the effect of the other but because the other is inconsistent the cause of the subject doesn't exist in the other, and the subject of freedom is the effect of the absence of this cause, i.e. a lack in the other. Do other philosophers agree with her interpretation of Kant as a compatibilist?

hlwy0yu

hlwfjwv

The way it's sometimes put -- I believe this paper by Allen Wood is responsible for this formulation -- is that Kant was a compatibilist about compatibilism and incompatibilism.

I’m not sure Zupabcic thinks Kant is a compatibilist, at least from what you’ve said here! Whether you think Kant is a compatibilist, libertarian, or something else entirely is going to dependent on how you interpret Kant on this matter, and Kant is, well, difficult to interpret. I’m not a Kant scholar, but the (very rough) interpretation that I accept is that according to Kant we necessary perceived and conceive of events, including our own actions as being a part of the causal series of events, and determined by their causes. But, we cannot know why events occur in themselves, independently of how we perceive and conceive them. So, with respect to the world as we experience it, Kant is a determinist. But, Kant thinks that it’s possible that our actions in themselves, independent of how we perceive and conceive them, are not determined, and so, libertarian free will is at least possible — we can hope we have it, but we can’t actually know. I said I think Kant is a determinist about the world insofar as we perceive and conceive it. But is he a compatibilist? Well, he calls the account of free will according to which you act freely when your action is the result of your choice as opposed to external coercion a “wretched subterfuge”. So he clearly rejects at least one version of compatibilism. Whether he might accept a more sophisticated version (at least for the world as we perceive and conceive it) is probably impossible to say before, since we don’t know how Kant would have responded to developments in philosophy after he died.

fg2txv

askphilosophy_test

Are there philosophers who address the inaccessibility of language in philosophy? Hey folks! I'm in a philosophy course right now, and have a very open-ended assignment to write on any topic I want, as long as I integrate Sartre in some way. The topic I want to write about is how academic language, particularly in philosophy, is inaccessible and this serves to divide the working class from those who have the time to dedicate learning to read this language. I am currently planning on using Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason as support but I'm going to critique it from this viewpoint because Sartre essentially invents a new language in each of his philosophical works. I'm also planning on using Marx and maybe Engels. However, Sartre only briefly mentions that language can divide more than it unifies, he doesn't go in depth on this topic. So, with that excessive explanation, does anyone know of a philosopher who addresses this specifically? Or even someone who kind of alludes to this idea? I'm okay with having to connect the dots to form this arguments, I'm just not sure which works to select for this topic.

fk3arhd

fk2lv19

Ludwig Wittgenstein. Apart from Derrida he is my favorite on the subject.

LACAN

bedk32

askphilosophy_test

Foucault: "I don't say the things I say because they are what I think, I say them as a way to make sure they no longer are what I think" — Interpretations? Here in this interview, Foucault says and he stresses on it — > I don't say the things I say because they are what I think, I say them as a way to make sure they no longer are what I think. What do you think he wanted to mean by this? I have some possible explanations — - He wants to dissociate his personal self from his ideas. This would connect back his tendency towards keeping his private life away from the public, and also his theory of history of ideas where he claims that individuals who are _discovering_ ideas are not important when we compare them to the ideas themselves, and the episteme in the background. This is the most possible interpretation. - He could be using his audience as a sounding board for his ideas, which are more like criticisms than concrete theories in themselves. That's why the things he says are not what he thinks, they're rather the things he does not think. I'm interested in hearing what you all have to say about his statement. Also, I am just a amateur who just reads philosophy once in a while as a hobby, I have no academic background, so apologies if my question // ideas were half-baked.

el51jtt

el5bfli

I take it as a simple statement on, as we say in at least the American idiom, getting something off one's chest. He says things that he has been thinking, in the kind of habitual rumination that can plague a philosopher, and *saying* it is a kind of release by "getting it out there," out of one's head, etc.

"I don't say the things because I think them, I say the things so as to no longer think them." The translation sucks.