Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Mumsnet classics

Relive the funniest, most unforgettable threads. For a daily dose of Mumsnet’s best bits, sign up for Mumsnet's daily newsletter.

Genuinely interesting stuff you learned at school/university/work

214 replies

MrsHathaway · 25/07/2016 11:26

At a tangent from an otherwise rather tedious thread, some of us started talking about the history of the English language.

I did a paper called something like History and Structure of the English Language at university and honestly it didn't feel at all like work. The complicated bits have faded into the dusty corners of my brain, but some interesting snippets have remained within easy grasp.

For example, you can see a lot of the geopolitical history of the British Isles in what we now call English. Very basic words like low numbers (two, three) and natural features (sun, land, water) have their roots in our very earliest history and have scarcely changed since the Stone Age. They're also very similar to their equivalents in languages local at the time - northern European languages like Swedish, German, etc.

Place names come in odd clumps too - there are areas in eg Yorkshire and the Highlands which have very Norse names, and often there will be a geographical boundary between Norse place names and Anglo Saxon place names, such as a wide river or mountain ridge.

French came next, with the Normans in the eleventh century. A lot of our food words come from that period, including beef, pork, salmon, etc.

As English eyes looked further and further overseas we started adding more exotic ingredients to our kitchens and words to our vocabularies. Tomatoes, chocolate!

ANYWAY

We're often told that we won't use 90% of what we learn at school or even university, although we don't know which 90%. But I think it's almost always worth learning stuff for its own sake, if only because it's mildly interesting for one day or breaks the ice at one party where you happen to meet your soul mate.

So go on, what snippets have you retained from your years of formal education that are genuinely interesting in their own right? Can be a tiny thing or a major complicated theory, but it must be interesting - at least interesting enough for us to say "well, fancy that".

I'll leave you with this: in Japanese there was no word for "thank you". There were lots of ways of expressing gratitude, but no single expression in the European way. Then the Portuguese came, and suddenly the Japanese were trading with them. They used lots of hand gestures and gradually a kind of pidgin developed to allow them to communicate until there were enough on each side speaking the other's language. But one legacy from that time and that pidgin is a single-word "thank you" in Japanese: arigato. Which you'll notice is remarkably similar to the Portuguese obrigado.

OP posts:
Mermaid36 · 27/07/2016 09:56

I was told by a friend whose partner is a shepherd, that they can make sheep have multiple births (twins) by what they feed them/where they graze. Twins in sheep are more economically beneficial, so it's useful to be able to have as many sets as possible every year

LoucheLady · 27/07/2016 10:09

Here's another one. Humans are pretty much the only animals to have whites in our eyes. The cooperative eye hypothesis suggests that this was an evolutionary advantage that let our early ancestors communicate silently by eye movement when out hunting.

In other animals, the shape of the pupil tells you whether they are predator or prey. A vertical slit pupil is likely to belong to a small predator like a fox that ambushes its prey, enabling it to judge pouncing distance accurately. Round pupils belong to large predators like tigers that chase down their prey, while prey animals like goats have horizontal pupils and eyes on the side of their head to see danger approaching. Their eyes rotate like gyroscopes when they are eating to maintain the parallel with the horizon.

DadDadDad · 27/07/2016 10:47

RJnomore - I think your reasoning on the DOND boxes is flawed.

I believe there are actually 22 boxes, but that's a technicality and doesn't affect the argument.

At the start, there is 1/22 chance that you hold the largest prize in your box.

A box is opened. That knocks one prize out, so now there is a 1/21 chance that your box holds the largest unrevealed prize. (If the opening revealed the largest prize, then obviously we reset our definition of the largest unrevealed prize, but that doesn't change the argument).

Another box is opened. Now there is a 1/20 chance that your box holds the largest unrevealed prize.

After 20 openings, there is a 1/2 chance that your box holds the largest unrevealed prize. There is a 1/2 chance that the other unopened box holds the largest unrevealed prize. So swapping is a 50:50 chance of getting the largest unrevealed prize.

DaphneCanDoBetterThanFred · 27/07/2016 11:17

Another language based one, about a handful of languages which use geographic coordinates rather than egocentric coordinates.
This is Guy Deutscher explaining it far better than I could:

The area where the most striking evidence for the influence of language on thought has come to light is the language of space — how we describe the orientation of the world around us. Suppose you want to give someone directions for getting to your house. You might say: “After the traffic lights, take the first left, then the second right, and then you’ll see a white house in front of you. Our door is on the right.” But in theory, you could also say: “After the traffic lights, drive north, and then on the second crossing drive east, and you’ll see a white house directly to the east. Ours is the southern door.” These two sets of directions may describe the same route, but they rely on different systems of coordinates. The first uses egocentric coordinates, which depend on our own bodies: a left-right axis and a front-back axis orthogonal to it. The second system uses fixed geographic directions, which do not rotate with us wherever we turn.

We find it useful to use geographic directions when hiking in the open countryside, for example, but the egocentric coordinates completely dominate our speech when we describe small-scale spaces. We don’t say: “When you get out of the elevator, walk south, and then take the second door to the east.” The reason the egocentric system is so dominant in our language is that it feels so much easier and more natural. After all, we always know where “behind” or “in front of” us is. We don’t need a map or a compass to work it out, we just feel it, because the egocentric coordinates are based directly on our own bodies and our immediate visual fields.

But then a remote Australian aboriginal tongue, Guugu Yimithirr, from north Queensland, turned up, and with it came the astounding realization that not all languages conform to what we have always taken as simply “natural.” In fact, Guugu Yimithirr doesn’t make any use of egocentric coordinates at all. The anthropologist John Haviland and later the linguist Stephen Levinson have shown that Guugu Yimithirr does not use words like “left” or “right,” “in front of” or “behind,” to describe the position of objects. Whenever we would use the egocentric system, the Guugu Yimithirr rely on cardinal directions. If they want you to move over on the car seat to make room, they’ll say “move a bit to the east.” To tell you where exactly they left something in your house, they’ll say, “I left it on the southern edge of the western table.” Or they would warn you to “look out for that big ant just north of your foot.” Even when shown a film on television, they gave descriptions of it based on the orientation of the screen. If the television was facing north, and a man on the screen was approaching, they said that he was “coming northward.”

More information here: www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?_r=0

We used this piece from Guy Deutscher, plus others, to show that, when teaching English as a foreign language, you can never assume that languages all work from the same rule book. This is an extreme example of course, but more commonly met ones are the use of gender in language, languages like Turkish and Japanese which look grammatically "back to front" and so on. I could ramble on for hours Grin

GertrudeMoo · 27/07/2016 11:21

Um, but in MH you start with 1/3 chance of having picked the car. A door is then opened knocking out a goat, thus by your logic increasing your chance of having picked the car to 1/2, which goes against the whole MH argument.

Having said that, I did convince myself in the middle of the night that using Bayes Theorem on DOND leads to a 50:50 outcome, but by morning I had a renewed state of being unconvinced.

DaphneCanDoBetterThanFred · 27/07/2016 11:26

Also an interesting language one I've come across is how often the same proverbs crop up in different languages and cultures. I taught a class a while ago where the only instructions were to pair up with someone who speaks a different language to you, teach them a proverb from your language, what it means in English and how to say it in your language.

Most students found that they had really similar proverbs despite being, say, Chinese and German, or Syrian and Brazilian. We discovered that humans aren't as creative as we give ourselves credit for Grin

The winner that day though, was a Turkish student who found his language had a completely unique proverb. He came to the front of the class and proudly told us,

"If you shit with conviction, you can shit through steel!"

It's still my favourite proverb and I guess it counts as I learned it in a classroom Wink

NotDavidTennant · 27/07/2016 11:37

Gertrude, I think what you're not quite getting is that in MH the door that is opened must contain a goat. MH is not allowed to open the door containing the car.

If in MH a door is opened at random with no regard to whether it contains a car or a goat then there is no advantage to switching. It is only because MH is constrained in which door he is allowed to open (and therefore is not making a purely random choice) that it offers an advantage to switch.

In DOND the boxes are opened at random so it matches the case where a door is opened at random, not the original MH where the door is not opened randomly.

NotDavidTennant · 27/07/2016 11:41

Incidentally, I think this is why people find the problem paradoxical, because it seems like Monty Hall is eliminating a door at random and therefore it should have no effect on the outcome, but in fact he is not.

DadDadDad · 27/07/2016 12:08

I agree, NotDavidTennant.

If DOND only involved 3 boxes, we can think through how it differs from MH. If we call the prizes A, B, C, (A the smallest, C the biggest) then there are six equiprobable possibilities:

  1. Contestant holds A, and chooses to open the box with prize B, leaving C still in play.
  2. Contestant holds A, and chooses... C. B is in play.
  3. Contestant holds B, and chooses ... A. C is in play.
  4. Contestant holds B, chooses ... C. A is in play.
  5. Contestant holds C, chooses ... A. B is in play.
  6. Contestant holds C, chooses ... B. A is in play.

Which cases result in a gain on switching? 1, 2, 3 - that's 50%

If MH was doing the choosing, in cases 2 and 4 he would (secretly) stop himself from opening C, because he wants to leave the winning prize unopened. That means 1,2,3 and 4 all now are beneficial on switching.

Arkengarthdale · 27/07/2016 13:23

My brain hurts Grin

GertrudeMoo · 27/07/2016 20:07
Wine
NotCitrus · 27/07/2016 20:07

I agree - the MH problem is often written out badly (hi, Curious Incident in the Night Time), and omits the crucial info about whether it is always a goat that is made visible, ie whether MH knows what he is doing.

If it was on purpose that DOND left someone with a choice of two boxes, one with a big prize and one without, then there would be an improved chance by switching, but because all the boxes were removed at random, it makes no difference because it boils down to the same 50:50.

MrsHathaway · 27/07/2016 20:22

Classics?

::secret fist bump::

OP posts:
GertrudeMoo · 27/07/2016 20:29

Ha! No way! Great thread though MrsHathaway. I might have to add a less brain hurting contribution now!

MrsHathaway · 27/07/2016 20:37

Lol about time! Statistics makes my brain hurt.

OP posts:
eleventybillion · 27/07/2016 20:40

Ooh I have one on colour too. Didn't learn it at school but from Horizon I think. Does it still count? Smile

The Himba Test

The Himba tribe have the same word for blue and green. In tests they can't tell the difference between blue and green squares that look pretty obvious to us.

However they do have different words for two shades of green that we don't. They can distinguish between these two colours. We can't.

Genuinely interesting stuff you learned at school/university/work
MrsHathaway · 27/07/2016 20:55

I think it's just amazing that how we name stuff changes how we interpret it.

OP posts:
LauraMipsum · 27/07/2016 21:09

I think we may have done the same degree MrsHathaway. I loved the history of the English language module.

Here's my contribution: some languages developed with a "genderlect" or gendered dialect, where the men and women spoke slightly different versions of the same language. These are found (sporadically, because those that survive are mostly endangered languages) across the globe. They all seem to have developed organically save for Irish Sign Language which developed a genderlect because of sex segregation in the schools for the Deaf.

There's a fantastic article about it here www.bris.ac.uk/german/hison/reading/dunn2013

CoteDAzur · 27/07/2016 21:13

Another one siding with DadDad, NotDavid, and Drop. Sorry Gertrude.

In MH, it is always better to switch to the unopened door because the one you chose in the beginning had and still has 1/3 chance of holding the prize. The other two doors had and still have 2/3 chance of holding the prize, and since the open one has 0/3 chance, the remaining one has 2/3 chance. So you switch. The reason why the remaining door keeps 2/3 probability of holding the prize is that the host KNOWS which door holds the prize and opens one that doesn't. That is, opening of the doors is not a random operation.

This doesn't translate to any other game where the host does not know which door/case/whatever holds which prize and they are opened randomly.

And this subject is Probability, not Statistics. I would be very surprised if you actually studied the Monty Hill problem in a statistics course.

CoteDAzur · 27/07/2016 21:35

Daphne - re ""If you shit with conviction, you can shit through steel!" It's still my favourite proverb"

I hate to do this to you, but that's not how that proverb really goes. It's often used as "He who shits with determination bores through the wall" (Azimle sican duvari deler) but it's actually "The determined rat bores through the wall" (Azimli siçan duvari deler).

The confusion arises because (1) the two sentences are identical except for 1 letter in the first word (Azimle/Azimli) and (2) "siçan" means both "he/she who shits" and "rat".

Azim = Determination
Azimle = (To do something) with determination
Azimli = Determined (= someone with determination)

Siç = (verb) Shit
Siçan = (1) (Someone) who shits. (2) Rat.

So....

Azimle siçan = The person who shits with determination
Azimli siçan = The determined rat

RJnomore1 · 27/07/2016 21:56

I think you are all missing the point about DOND.

We are talking END GAME

So by that point there are 2 boxes left and we know one of them holds the star prize (as the other 18, or 29, have been opened and revealed not to.)

Therefore the box you chose has a 1/20 (or 22, I'm not that familiar with the show sorry but it doesn't matter really) while every time a box on the other side of the equation is revealed not to be star prize it increases the possibility of the other one being.

I will talk it over with my colleague with a statistics degree tomorrow to check it out!

GertrudeMoo · 27/07/2016 22:07

Thats OK CoteDAzur....In my defence I was remembering MH from my statistics degree of 19 years ago just for this thread, and the DOND thing popped into my head as an example (or probably not seeing as I'm outnumbered) so I dropped it in. I have since googled to see if they've been compared before, and funnily enough they have, with lots of similar jovial debate.

MrsHathaway · 27/07/2016 22:21

"The person who shits with conviction" - that would be my eldest son.

Laura - have pmed.

OP posts:
DadDadDad · 27/07/2016 23:09

RJ - no, you are missing the point. With every reveal, the probability that the box you are holding is the winner also increases.

Cote - I think making distinction between probability and statistics is a bit arbitrary. I've seen so-called statistics courses that would include probability theory. Statistics is the application of probability to empirical data.

MrsHathaway · 27/07/2016 23:10

The application of opinion to empirical data, perhaps.

OP posts: