Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 May 22

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 22

Nicest of four beers

side discussions inserted out of order
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Medeis can win this one. I have lost the energy to fight against the snide remarks. --Jayron32 01:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC) (UNHATTED: There have been some perfectly good, non-opinion answers - proving that such things are possible, even for questions that seem to be asking for opinion.) SteveBaker (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Since when do admins insert their editorials before OP's questions? μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If I buy four tins of beer on a sunny day and drink them, which will be the nicest? Is it the first which is the most refreshing, or the second which is enjoyable at leisure without the rush of the first, or the third which I can savour after enjoying the taste of two previously, or the last one, which I will treasure until the final sip, as after that there is no more? Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

We endeavour not to give subjective opinions. Yet if you want my personal opinion – why not a tumbler-full of nice iced tea (with a little lemon etc.)? The first glass remains as good as the last. Enough said?--Aspro (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is not for asking opinions. If you have a factual question that can be substantiated with sources you're welcome to ask it, but asking random people on the interwebs their opinions is not allowed here. Sorry Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, what I mean is, is there any scientific research that has gone into whether the first beer on a sunny afternoon is the most enjoyable to the person drinking it, or is it the second. Or the third. Etc. I'm not just asking you for your personal opinion. Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There are people who love hot beer, there are people that enjoy the first beer always better than the last, there are people that would see drinking 4 beers as horrible since they don't like beer, please re-read Dodger67's comment. Perhaps you are asking this wrong, why one person loves drinking 4 beers and another won't touch the stuff let alone which one is perceived to be better and why doesn't lend itself to logic. Your question is one of personal opinion. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To answer your 2nd question I know of no scientific research, and doubt there would be anything unbiased or non-proprietary, and even then it is still one of personal opinions just on a larger "trend" scale. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Your statement that my statement is one of personal opinion is one of personal opinion. Are you saying there has never been any scientific research about the enjoyment of subsequent beverages? Horatio Snickers (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure who you are referring to but I get the feeling you're not reading my response closely now either. addendum: Also, "question is one of personal opinion" is a "personal opinion" question since I've never had 4 beers in a sitting thus a fact & not "one of personal opinion" in a statement reply to your question, not statement. Its cool just be available for the answers you are asking for ;-). ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 23:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

We're allowed to give personal opinions but you're not allowed to ask for them. Funny that.  :)

A key that opens many locks is a valuable key, but a lock that opens for many keys is a useless lock . . . does that mean this question is valuable and we are useless or does this mean that we are valuable and . . . did I just begin asking for opinions? :-D ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 23:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If you really wanted scientific research, we have a Science Reference Desk where such a question could have been asked. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Tests have been done on this concept, not perhaps with beer specifically, but with other pleasurable activities, and most of the research indicates that for any repeated pleasurable activity, the first is always the best. I'm looking now for actual references (because my last psych class was well over 15 years ago, so I forget the exact terms), but basically people become "tolerant" or "acclimated" to the pleasurable activity. This can happen in two ways: first, the brain becomes acclimated to elevated levels of pleasure-inducing neurotransmitters like Endorphins: When you first experience pleasure, you get a rush of endorphins (broadly speaking, the sensation of pleasure is endorphins), but elevated levels of endorphins cause your brain to "get used" to the elevated levels, so more endorphins are needed to experience the same level of pleasure. Secondly, repeated iterations of the pleasurable activity release successively less endorphins each time. That means that a) it takes more and more of the activity over time to produce the same level of pleasure and b) eventually, you stop getting pleasure from the activity. I'll do some poking for some outside-of-Wikipedia references, but basically this is psych-101 type stuff. --Jayron32 22:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  A bit more: Some searches online (no really good sources, so I won't bog it down with message board crap), suggest that Synaptic fatigue may have a lot to do with this: repeated exposure to endorphins causes the endorphin receptors to develop a short-term fatigue: that is, they just stop responding, so despite the endorphins, you stop feeling as much pleasure. That could be why the first beer is best. Still looking for better refs on the general concept, which I'm fairly sure is basic, sound psychology. --Jayron32 22:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  Though the Wikipedia article is about an economic concept, psychology texts refer to this concept as the Diminishing returns. See this Dictionary of Psychology at Google Books. --Jayron32 22:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  Somehow there's 247 billion U.S. reasons (imagine what the global figures are) that the law of diminishing returns & synaptic fatigue would be highly doubtful when applying to 4 beers or in some cases 6 beers in one sitting since we are speaking about an addictive substance, not to mention the seeming epidemic of Binge drinking which somehow rewards the synapses on the 5th, 6th or 7th can equivalent. The problem with the question is not that there aren't intelligent replies but 6+ billion intelligent replies & much like the tobacco industry decades ago, brewers are loathe to release their own proprietary studies on any opinion patterns/trends of a substance that has been designed to make you want more of it with every sip. So that leaves groups like MADD & government agencies that either need beer tax revenue or have holdovers from prohibition, best of luck navigating those, most of which make you seriously wonder why you'd even drink beer. No need to be disheartened just understand its a field where all those conducting research have billions of reasons/biases to hide research, beer opinions ruled in the 1910s and now a hundred years later. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 23:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  Diminishing returns applies in the very short term as well as over the long haul. That is, the concept is used to explain why the first bite of a good meal tastes better than the last, why the first kiss with a new person is so exciting, etc. etc. It really isn't about addiction, per se, which is why I said it was unrelated to beer. --Jayron32 00:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  This psychology textbook uses the term and directly correlates it to "the second piece of dessert satisfying you less than the first" Again, nothing to do with addiction or whatever the rant above was related to. --Jayron32 00:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  Still more, after much digging, I found an actual Wikipedia article called Sensory-specific satiety, which states "the declining satisfaction generated by the consumption of a certain type of food", which seems to be another related concept that adds more evidence to the "first is the most pleasurable" concept. --Jayron32 00:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those resources, however beers & dessert ("apples & oranges"?) aren't classified under the same addictive categories & is the text comparing pieces as in bites since that would equate to sips not cans? What studies have been released publicly would probably be by groups that recognize such things as Binge drinking, HED etc. as fueled by beers' addictive properties. Same for the wiki S-SS article, given that "four meals that included sausages, bread and butter, chocolate desert, and bananas. They then fed the participants four courses of one of these foods" but somehow no beer or other addictive items, concluding: "The results revealed a 44% increase (so that would mean Mitt Romney is President?) in overall food consumption when exposed to the meals with a variety of foods". Which circles us back why Binge drinking, HED, and other habits exist if there is any sort of half strong scientific reason they should not. I was hoping the text would explain it further rather than seeming to use it as a "ranting" example to prove an economic theory, I realize you are having a parallel discussion with another editor but we are better than to dismiss the OP's requested answered as "rants", although I see this as Quixotic it is still mentally stimulating and enjoyable & may answer the question is the 4th reply more satisfactory than the 1st at the very least. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• We're still not talking about addiction here, but why the first taste of something is generally more pleasurable than later tastes, i.e. habituation rather than addiction. No one is arguing that addiction is a good thing. I did find This interesting article in Psychology Today, which itself cites a study in Science that notes that habituation (the decrease in positive response from repeated exposure) can occur merely by imagining one is consuming the item. That is, if you spend time imagining consuming something, and then consume it, you get less pleasure than when you consume it without previously thinking about it. That is, you can become habituated to it by just imagining it; or the act of imagining acts as the "first taste" which is why later tastes are less pleasurable. --Jayron32 01:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Addiction is the first thing that occurred to me, too. Then mental illness. Luckfully we don't give either legal or medical advice, just occasionally random uncited opinions, with links to make it look good. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No intent to imply you were taking a side on addiction Jayron32, just saying addiction (as μηδείς points out) would have an effect on the OP's quest for research. Just as I am hoping we don't get stuck on addiction, the whole food study thing is also not applying to the effects of beer on the human body. The O-0-1-3 experience was interesting on why despite Jayron32's excellent and interesting references on food and general psychology don't apply to the beer question. To quote the wikiarticle: "The three drink cap has contributed the most to its (anti-binging campaign) massive unpopularity among the brigade," Again thou the references have enlightened me on some matters beer has a very different impact on us all. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No, beer has a very different impact on some people. For many people, beer is a food no different than any other. For some people, like any alcoholic beverage, it can lead to devastating addiction. For others, it simply doesn't do that. People also have devastating addictions to other foods, leading to problems with obesity and other health issues. It isn't that all people react to beer as a dangerous and addictive substance, it's that some people do. For everyone else, there's no reason that it shouldn't be treated as food. After all, overconsumption of any food is not healthy. --Jayron32 01:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Either this is about the OP's personal taste in beer, in which case no source exists, or it's bout his personal desire and tolerance for alcohol, in which case no source exists, and we shouldn't come near that advice with a ten foot pole. This has got to be the most obvious case of a hattable ref desk question I have seen besides a BLP violation, and regardless of the fun people who know better seem to be having,someone, anyone, should close it now. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Jayron32, you're right about "some people", just furthers my sentiments at the top that this question is one of personal opinion, its all very interesting & I've learned a few things but it hasn't changed the answer--or lack thereof. I see some value in the discussion but I don't pretend its open and shut or even resolvable in a traditional sense. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If one is in the frame of mind to fully appreciate beer, then the first beer will be best. But with a frame of mind unable to fully appreciate beer, the last beer will be best. It doesn't take great connoisseurship to appreciate beer if one is inclined to do so. But if one is initially not inclined to appreciate that first beer, one will likely develop appreciation for beer in the course of drinking the four beers. Bus stop (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we stop this ridiculous parade of opinions? There may be very situational studies to answer the question...but most of this discussion is simply opinions. --Onorem (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Going part of the way to actually answering the OP's question here. The soporific effect of hops is well known and has been for centuries, and so this would have an effect on the drinker's perception of the beer - presuming, of course, that there is enough hop volatiles in the beer being consumed.

• Closing per comments of Onorem, Aspro, Roger, Jack, et. al. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

drugs

MY TEACHER HAS GIVEN ME TO WRITE THE INFORMATION ON DRUGS . I HAVE SEARCHED IT ON WIKIPEDIA . BUT I COULD NOT GET THE CORRECT ANSWERS . I WANT TO KNOW WHAT POINTS SHOULD I WRITE ON THE TITLE . AND I NEED THE ANSWER FAST . AS I HAVE TO WRITE IT . AS I HAVE NO PRINTER . PLEASE GIVE ME THE POINTS TO WRITE ON DRUGS .. I'M WAITING FOR YOUR HELP . YOUR SINCERELY Cindy 04:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Mohor1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohor1 (talk • contribs)

Which drugs? What kind of information? There's thousands of articles on Wikipedia about drugs, are you looking for legal medications? Prescriptions? Illegal drugs? Drug abuse? How drugs work in the body? How drugs are made? We'd like to help, but your question is very vague. What specific wording did your teacher use in the assignment itself? --Jayron32 04:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There is one article about drugs. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

and the beat goes on . . . Both responses are correct, you might do well starting at the main drug article as μηδείς mentions but if you are looking for us to help you in any meaningful way you may wish to specify along the queries Jayron32 mentioned. Also please refrain from the requests that we give you "the points", there is a ban on homework questions thou many of us will be happy to point you in the right direction and answer some general queries for you, and just understand in the future that ALL CAPS can be taken as offensive by many editors, thou I am sure that was not your intent. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Its been awhile since my schooldays but can't you simply save it to a memory stick and print it out at school? or via email or disk? Just trying to be helpful. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed the most popular (and in my opinion, interesting) stories (fiction and not) are about heroin. Without knowing anything about your assignment, that seems a good base for it, if you want to interest teachers in general. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

And yeah, don't write your paper in caps. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Naked Lunch is an interesting book by William S. Burroughs. I haven't read Junkie, by the same author, but the topic may be related. Bus stop (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The inediblehulk has some good advice; the OP might try heroin first, and if his teacher is not impressed there are other topics. But I am not sure how available any of the drugs in Naked Lunch (going by memories of the movie) actually are. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Our article on substance abuse is probably the most relevant one, but looking at it, I see that it is not written in as accessible a style as it ought to be, given the breadth of its likely readership. Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I should add to the OP that since you mention "teacher", I imagine you are underage and regardless of your state or nation's laws or practices on drugs, they are illegal for you and suggesting that you have personal experience in the topic area would be very ill-advised in a school paper. If you do, though, you should talk with a counselor on a confidential basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Drugs should be taken only as directed, be it the printed instructions for over-the-counter drugs, or the doctor's orders for prescription drugs. If you're talking about illegal drugs, keep in mind that doing illegal things can result in your being slammed, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Film industry

For those who know about bollywood and hollywood industry, I and my friend went on with a discussion about different film industries of the world. My friend said that "Bollywood"(of India) is largest (in terms of money involved in the film making). I said its Hollywood... Who is right. I again say its only on the money that is spent on the film making and not on ticket sales/number of viewers. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.167.214 (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Using this page (blacklisted :Using this www*squidoo.com/hollywood-versus-bollywood), we have $2 billion for Bollywood production and marketing versus $55 billion for Hollywood. If those stats are reliable I can't say. Rmhermen (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bollywood is an informal and ill-defined term, but see here for some more figures.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Cats

When was the earliest photograph of a cat taken? Agrimwelshman (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure, but this credits Harry Pointer as the father of funny cat pictures. He did a series of them in the 1870s. Some are still funny today. Many good examples from several early photographers in that link. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not so funny when you realize those would of course be stuffed cats (and kittens). Mew!--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the sepia ones were alive. Could be wrong, but life-like, at least. I know photo subjects had to stay still for a lot longer then, and kittens aren't the stillest things. But grown cats can zone out with the best of them. In any case, dead cats can also be guiltlessly funny. Killed cats, not so much. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be the 102nd use for a dead cat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)