Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 April 11

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

April 11

Hume on EM spectrum

I've come to learn that David Hume's theory of knowledge essentially outlines that perceptions take two forms, impressions (sense experience) and ideas (memories of these experiences). He explains that all knowledge derives from these ideas and impressions, and more importantly, if anything is not derived from any sense impression, it is meaningless.

Now, Hume passed away in 1776, so he would not have been aware of the discovery of infrared radiation (which of course is not visible to the human eye) in 1800. We know (assuming a non-skeptical approach) that the visible spectrum is just a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, the range of all possible frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. This radiation can be detected by machines, and there is good reason to believe they exist (e.g., the use of radio and X-ray machines), yet we cannot perceive them, and we cannot have impressions of them. My question is, would Hume contend the EM spectrum beyond the visible spectrum does not exist? That other wavelengths of light are meaningless? 74.15.20.253 (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. We cannot speculate as to what a dead man brought back to life would say. μηδείς (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough; may I rephrase the question to "what would a supporter of Hume's beliefs on impressions and skepticism respond?" 74.15.20.253 (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I can't say what a Humean would say either. But, frankly, I think Hume's doubt of things like causation and identity is puerile and manifestly insincere. He didn't refuse to be paid for his books because he couldn't be sure he was still the same person that had written them. He never once acted as if his conundrums were actually real. That speaks volumes. He was a sophist, pure and simple.

There would be two answers to a Humean skeptic of the infrared. First, that if one understands the nature of the device used to detect infrared rays, one reads that device with one's senses, and one's understanding of the device comes from one's senses, even if integrated over time. Second, infrared heat can be felt with the skin, even by the blind who cannot se a fire, or stove, or the sun. That knowledge would be direct.

I have never met a Scott I didn't like, but Hume and Kant are two of them. For your sake, I hope this is not your homework. μηδείς (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You must be referring to Hans Kant, the Scottish-born paternal grandfather of the German Immanuel Kant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Equestrian statues with female riders

What is the oldest equestrian statue with female riders?--95.247.25.222 (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is actually the oldest one, and I'm not sure if you count statues that no longer exist, but apparently there was an equestrian statue of Cloelia in Rome (noted by Plutarch and Pliny among others). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably not the oldest, but there is a statue of a Nereid riding a horse dating to c. 380 BC. Edit: This one appears to be slightly older, but is very incomplete. - Lindert (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Vintage article by Prof. Toumanoff

Hello. Would be grateful for any help in finding this article: Toumanoff, Cyril. "Chronology of the Kings of Abasgia and Other Problems," Le Muséon 69/1-2 (1956), pp. 73-90. Tried and failed to locate it in a local library. --Kober^Talk 18:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any copies online in either Google Scholar or Google Books, but it is cited all over the place, so it's a legit article and clearly people are citing it for their research. May only exist in print. --Jayron32 18:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems the journal only offers online issues back to the '80s: [1]. Kober, did you ask about interlibrary loan? It's amazing what they can get. 184.147.117.34 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

There are many issues on archive.org, but only up volume 30 or so, not as far as vol. 56 unfortunately. Someday, maybe! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• As I suspected, the OP is talking about the Kingdom of Abkhazia. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Do deaf people install telephones in their homes?

I know this isn't a Humanities question but I can't post on the Miscellaneous page anymore for some reason. Please don't move it to the Miscellaneous page because I won't be able to reply to anything there. Thank you!

Do the majoritiy of deaf people in developed Western countries have landline telephones installed in their homes? What do they use them for? DeafTelephones (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This may help to answer part of your question. Also, think about the fact that not everyone in the household is deaf. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 19:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

They can flash a light to tell the deaf person the phone is ringing (or have a portable phone that vibrates on them), and can be used to send text messages, or convert text to spoken words via voice synthesis. However, incoming spoken words must be converted to text via speech recognition, which doesn't work all that well. So, emails and texting on cell phones might be preferred. StuRat (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is all contained the the link to the .pdf I have just given. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 19:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

How do you know that you can't post to Miscellaneous desk? Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Because of trolling (by someone else?) the miscellaneous desk is currently limited to confirmed editors only. Is the poster also "Pressure reducing valve", "National Treasure Question" etc? If so, then please don't create a new account for every question. Dbfirs 20:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You need one for this: Telecommunications device for the deaf Mingmingla (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Before email and text messaging, deaf people needed a telephone in order to use a Telecommunications device for the deaf, commonly abbreviated TDD. The original technology was similar to the electromechanical teletype machines used by news agencies like AP and UPI to send stories to newspapers. By the late 1970s, they were miniaturized electronic devices. By the way, I have been married to a deaf woman for 33 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• the US they are called TTY and TTY Relay devices. I have taken a few dozen calls from clients via TTY relay. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

7 days

Are the "7 days" mentioned in the Bible actually representations of far longer periods of time? Like how people in the Bible are said to be "hundreds of years old" when we know that's impossible
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Asthecrowflies3388 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 11 April 2015

I think of them as days in a vision given to the author of that part of Genesis, rather than "Day" as defined in verse 5, but different people have different opinions. I notice that the questioner is a new account called Asthecrowflies3388. Is this the same as DeafTelephones etc? Dbfirs 20:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

In order for the "days" to match up with what science tells us happened, not only would they need to be far longer than 24 hours, but they would also need to be of highly variable length, as some things, like "Creating the heavens and the Earth", would have taken many billions of years, while some of the other things, like "creation" of various animals, would only have taken millions of years, and perhaps only tends of thousands for modern humans to evolve from primitive humans (although the Bible didn't mention those). Then there are things which don't really make any sense, like "separating the light from the darkness". If that means the Earth was rotating to produce day and night, then that rotation seemed to have existed right from the start of the Earth, so there's no extra time required. StuRat (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

See Day-year principle for the general subject, and Day-age creationism for this specific topic. Tevildo (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC) The Earth (or at least the solar system) was created just under 5 billion years ago. Add that to the 7 billion years (metaphorically 7 days?) previous to that in which the universe was invented, and we have 12 billion years - not a far off guess, really, for the invention of the entire universe (13.85 billion years, but, hey, they didn't have calculators). Maybe that's what the '7' thing was about, or maybe it was just the fact that many cultures think of the number 7 as being special in some way. (Think of 'Lucky 7', or '7 Deadly Sins', etc.) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 21:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• No. As you will see from our article on the Genesis creation narrative, the story borrows heavily from the earlier Babylonian creation myth, the Enûma Eliš (sometimes written Enuma Elish), adjusted for the fact that the Jews seem to have begun as monolatrists (that is, like many other Canaanites they chose to worship only one god of the many whose existence they recognised (such as Baal and Moloch); the internal evidence of the Old Testament is that they only later evolved into monotheists). The creation of the universe and its contents in six days is likely just a convenient story-telling device, possibly linked to the Mesopotamian religious cycle of seven days (as ordained by the god Enki, first recorded in the Atra-Hasis epic). There are many other structural parallels between parts of the OT and the myths of other religions of the Fertile Crescent: the story of Noah's Ark, the significance of two mountains as pillars of the firmament (Horeb and Sinai), the loss of eternal life through the consumption of a forbidden fruit, and many other ideas in the Bible are mirrored in other Canaanite and Babylonian religions.

The suggestion that a "day" in Genesis is "a billion years" or "an age of creation" was merely an attempt by Christians (notably George Frederick Wright) desperate to retain as much "biblical truth" as possible as the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story was thoroughly disproven by the accumulating evidence for Lyell's uniformitarian interpretation of geology. This attempt to re-interpret "days" as "ages" has now been shown to be completely false, as we now know (as wasn't absolutely clear when uniformitarianism first arose) that the sun and stars must have been created before planet Earth; that is, the events of "day 4" of the Genesis myth must have happened before the events of "day 3". Similarly, in Genesis it seems that whales were created on "day 5"; we now know that since whales are descended from land mammals this is inconsistent. And so on.

Of course you could, if you wished, argue that any "little" inconsistencies in the Genesis myth are just the result of transcription errors. If you truly wish to believe that this or that bit of the Bible (or any other religious text you particularly like) is true, you will find ways to ignore its errors or distort its plain interpretation, and there's nothing we here can do to help you. All we can do is encourage you to review the facts.

One final point: nowhere in Genesis does it say "by the way, when we say 'day' we mean 'age', so please take this all metaphorically". It's very clear that the writers of Genesis wrote "day" and meant "day". They were trying to write down their beliefs accurately, so other people could understand them clearly - that's the purpose of writing things down. The authors meant their work to be taken literally, and at no point do they imply otherwise. It just happens that they were wrong. There's nothing wrong with that: people are wrong all the time, and everything we claim is the "truth" is at best highly provisional. What matters is that, when you find out that you said or believed something wrong, you admit your error and do your best to correct it. It's hugely difficult to give up false beliefs, and many otherwise smart people (such as George Frederick Wright) can't do it, and have to make up increasingly convoluted reasons why their original beliefs are still "true". Our best understanding of the world is that the creation myth presented in Genesis is not literally true, nor is it true if you replace "day" by "age", "billion years" or any other measure of time. RomanSpa (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The word "yom" is elsewhere translated (literally) as "age," "year," and "season." The first creation myth in Genesis is a parody of the Babylonian one. Marduk had to fight to kill Tiamat, but Elohim merely spoke and the Tehom was divided.

The second Genesis creation myth is written in a poetic format. If someone wrote a poem with the first character's name being a pun between "Earth" and "Humanity" and the other character named "Life," no one in their right mind would treat it as a scientific or historical treatise, but as Mythopoeia.

It's really personal interpretation (and not without counterevidence) to say that the authors intended for it to be taken literally like a creed. The authors of Genesis didn't write down "take this as a metaphor," but they sure wrote less about taking it literally. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that's wrong. The principal source cited in our article on yom turns out, on inspection, not to be from a reputable academic, but from a "self-taught" expert. More careful examination of the issue reveals that elsewhere in the OT the use of the specific referents "evening" and/or "morning" attached to "yom" invariably indicates that a calendar day is being mentioned. If the writers of Genesis had wished to indicate a more general time span they would not have been careful to specify that "the evening and the morning were the n-th day". Consolingly, this interpretation is provided by a bona fide academic, John H. Walton. RomanSpa (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The concordance for the New American Standard Bible notes that yom is translated as day or age, as does the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon and the Strong's exhaustive concordance. The LXX uses ἡμέρα, which also translates to either day or time. Dawn and dusk are commonly used metaphorically to refer to the beginning and end of periods, not just in a literal sense of the sun rising and setting. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Earlier I remarked that "It's hugely difficult to give up false beliefs, and many otherwise smart people can't do it, and have to make up increasingly convoluted reasons why their original beliefs are still "true"." It's fairly clear that the preceding respondent is strongly invested in one particular interpretation ("yom" as "period of time" rather than "24 hour day"), and so is now engaging in a further contortion to support their position. Everywhere else in the OT that "yom" is used in conjunction with "evening" and/or "morning" it means "24 hour day", but suddenly the preceding respondent requires that "evening" and "morning" be metaphorical too, but just in Genesis. This is an excellent example for our questioner of the astonishing lengths that people will go to to avoid changing their minds. RomanSpa (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You presented some information, I just presented alternatives, Bowlhover misrepresented those alternatives, you misrepresented ensuing discussion before actually addressing anything I said, I defended those alternatives, and now you are the one telling people what to believe. The information I presented was an alternative and was defended as such. The information you presented could have been presented as an alternative, but you're soapboxing instead. I criticized the misrepresenting behavior, you are criticizing the person, and insultingly so. To accuse me of a vested interest is the pot calling the kettle black. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The order of creation in Genesis is completely wrong--plants are created before the sun, all water animals are created before all land animals, etc. There is no evidence that the first creation myth is a parody. English and Hindi have many differences and many similarities because they're related--that doesn't make English a parody of Hindi.

Where did you read that the second creation myth is in a poetic format? As for puns, the Bible is filled with them. The names of almost every major character in the Torah is a pun--Adam, Eve, Moses, Abram, Abraham, Isaac, etc. Is all of it supposed to be metaphor? Where is the metaphor behind executing kids for insulting their parents, or not eating land animals that don't chew the cud and have true hoofs? --Bowlhover (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

English and Hindi developed independently, while the first creation myth in Genesis was written either during or right after the Babylonian captivity. Saying that the first creation myth in Genesis wasn't a response to the Babylonian one is like saying that Space Balls isn't a parody of Star Wars. This is common knowledge mainly denied only by fundamentalists.

The structure of the first creation myth in Genesis is more complex than a lymeric, but has a definite poetic structure. The second creation myth in Genesis likewise uses less complex, but still uses poetic structures throughout. While not as common knowledge, it is still primarily only denied by fundamentalists.

And bringing in Abraham, Moses, et al, is beyond a red herring. They're part of the patriarchial and tribal foundation myths, not the creation myth. One might as well bring up Remus and Romulus in a discussion about Prometheus and Pandora. The behavioral and dietary guidelines you refer to aren't even in Genesis, but Leviticus. That's like bringing up Seneca in a discussion on Prometheus and Pandora. Furthermore, scholars point out that the drastic difference between law-as-practiced and what's found in Leviticus (and the Code of Hammurabi) are a good argument that the latter were intended for meditation, not practice. They were akin to giving a Senator a handbook that recommends never entering a public restroom with anyone younger than them, or never speaking at conferences, calling either action suicide.

And again, there is nothing in the Genesis creation myths indicating that they are to be taken literally or scientifically. Saint Augustine (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19) said that a literal reading of Genesis was the wrong reading, back in the year 408.

If one reads Genesis as a poetic myth, the message of it is existence as a continued and multi-layered act of creation (hence six days instead of an instant) in which we play a role. Many of the apparent problems are results of translation. The first mention of birds and fish should really just be "flying things" and "swimming things." Hebrew has plenty of words for birds and fish, but Genesis first uses entirely different words that most directly translate to "flying things." When read as a metaphor, it lines up just fine with the appearance of energy, then matter, then stars and planets, then a clear enough atmosphere to discern night and day, then simple life, and then more complex life. This is definitely not to imply that the ancients had advanced scientific knowledge, just a reconcilable interpretation would have been more acceptable to them than a literalist one. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

English shows unmistakable Latin influences. Does this mean English was developed as a parody of Latin?

Yes, plants being created before the sun definitely "lines up just fine" with scientific understanding. So does the cosmology in 1:6-8, where the sky is said to be a solid dome holding back the water above it, and 1:9, where God gathers the water under the sky into one place (implying the Earth is flat).

Please do more research on the Torah. Very few scholars, whether fundamentalist or modern, doubt that Genesis 1 and Leviticus were from the same source. Traditionally, all of the Torah was attributed to Moses. In the documentary hypothesis, both are from the Priestly source.--Bowlhover (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Genesis contained specific language meant to imitate and subvert Enuma Elish. English casually borrowed from Latin, it was not crafted specifically to rebut Latin. Languages are also not parodies, so your comparison there is still a categorical error.

What part of "symbolic" and "metaphor" are you incapable of understanding? Do you just not know what those words means or something? If you're reading a portion of a work as metaphorical, you do not pull out part to read as literal simply to go against the symbolism. Doing so shows a problem with the reader, not the text. As I already explained, if you read it, the fourth day lines up with the atmosphere clearing up enough to readily distinguish night and day (assuming that the sun pre-existed). I recommended taking the opposite of a literal approach, and you dishonestly imply a literal approach on my part with your jab about "plants being created before the sun."

If you'd study the documentary hypothesis, you'd know that the Jahwist and Elohist portions were both assembled from different portions as well. Even then, the creation myths and the later commands are still clearly distinct parts of the work. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

There certainly is a lot of metaphor use in the Bible, such as in dream interpretation. However, we also have the tendency to say anything the Bible stated which has been clearly scientifically disproven must be meant as metaphor. That's just wishful thinking. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That certainly applies for things like the burning bush or the sun stopping for Joshua, but there's nothing suggesting that the creation myth was intended to be taken literally, and plenty to suggest it wasn't. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

While neither of those events could literally happen, that doesn't mean the Bible didn't claim they literally happened. And, in the case of the "bush which burns yet is not consumed by flame", that appearance could be achieved by coating it with a phosphorescent material. This trick would be particularly effective if the bush was on the west side of a mountain, as then it would absorb sunlight after the Sun had set everywhere around it, and could continue to glow well into the night. And Moses seems to have been familiar with such tricks from his dealings with the high priests of Egypt, as demonstrated by his mastery of the same "staff turning into snakes" trick they practiced. StuRat (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information about the creative days at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001132?q=%22flexible+use%22&p=par, and the article "Did People in Bible Times Really Live So Long?" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010886.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that the contributions by the editor above who asserts of the Genesis creation myth that "there's nothing suggesting that the creation myth was intended to be taken literally, and plenty to suggest it wasn't" has completely missed the point of the original question, which is about whether the word "day" should be taken literally or as a synonym for some other time period. It's certainly possible that the story in Genesis was meant to be taken as a broader metaphor, just as every other creation myth might be, but this is trivially true, uninteresting, and unhelpful in answering the question we have been asked. RomanSpa (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I addressed the question (The word "yom" is elsewhere translated (literally) as "age," "year," and "season"). I also responded to your representation of non-literal interpretations of Genesis as a modern phenomena, and your assertion that Genesis's authors did not intend their poetry to be read non-literally. It was another user who proceeded to misrepresented what I wrote without addressing the initial question. Please actually make an accurate assessment of situations before passing judgement on them. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see my comment on your remark on yom, inserted further up this section. As you'll see, there is excellent internal evidence that the authors of Genesis did intend the word yom to refer to a 24 hour day. RomanSpa (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that in my Catholic high school, we learned that the creation story in Genesis was an "etiological myth" (as no one seems to have mentioned etiology yet). That is, it's not literally true, but you're supposed to learn some moral lesson from it, or something. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this - I've spent most of the last 18 hours trying to remember the word! RomanSpa (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That's true of a great deal of the Old Testament. The point of the two stitched-together creation stories in Genesis was not so much to provide a textbook to describe the literal origins of the earth, but rather to describe humankind's "fall from grace" - a lesson which is repeatedly taught in different places in the O.T., in reference to humans lacking humility before God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if someone else already mentioned this, but if you're careful with the text, it can't possibly be "days" as in periods of 24 hours. The length of a day is dictated by the earth's movements relative to the sun. The sun was not created until "day" 4. What that means is that it's a bit of a mystery. Even though evolutionists and creationists like to do battle over it, the Bible isn't really that interested in creation - in total, 2 chapters of the Old Testament are devoted to it. There are 929 chapters in total. --Dweller (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The text says that God created light before He created the sun and the moon, which is cosmologically true, albeit by dumb luck. And you're right, how He managed to have evenings and mornings, before creating the sun and the moon, is not at all obvious. Also, the second creation story, which begins at Genesis 2:4, does not quite jibe with the first one. Details, details. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Driving

Are there any resources or references for people who have difficulty passing their practical driving test? 78.146.96.177 (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

IN the US there are all sorts of driving schools. I can't imagine the UK would be very different. I am sure you are aware you can learn the laws from a book, but to learn to ride a bike you have to get on and do it. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering this is a legal issue, we can only advise you to consult your local Police station, or Driving School, as jurisdictional laws are different in whatever locality you are hoping to take the test in. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 22:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

In Canada sometimes people will book their test in an easier to drive area. I would imagine driving in London would be difficult so maybe try booking at a small town nearby and of course practice driving there beforehand. Driving testers also always follow the same route here in Canada so people who have taken the test will put the route up online, try seeing if the same holds true in your area by searching the web, then practice the route. Also, practice in the same vehicle you are going to take the test in as performing a parallel park is hard to perfect in a strange vehicle. I'd tell you other tricks, but it really is in everyone's interest that you become a capable driver. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the IP is from London, England, not London, Ontario...but for the latter, I can tell you that taking a driving test the morning after a large snowstorm will help you pass, heh. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to avoid taking a test somewhere with a lot on one-way streets, like the CBD of Hobart, Tasmania, for example. Driving the wrong way down a one-way street will instantly fail you, in the experience of, erm, someone I know. Luckily, I didn't do that the second time I took the test. No, wait, I mean, someone I know didn't do that the second time they took the test. Oops.--Shirt58 (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with booking your test in a nearby small town, this certainly helped me. Also many lessons with a qualified driving instructor first - you may need to shop around to find someone who clicks with you though. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree that you should practice in the area where you are likely to take your test, so that you know roughly what to expect. As for resources, you could try Driving Test Success All Tests New Edition 2013/14 (PC) which has some (generally positive) customer reviews but seems to be mainly focussed on the theory test. However, if you know the theory inside-out, it should make the practical easier. Alansplodge (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

In a word, practice. Supervision by an experienced driver while you drive around in your own car helps. If you are a passenger, pretend to do your own mirror checks etc. Technique and being methodical works - how far you turn the wheel on a reverse park, etc. There are intensive driving schools across the country which regularly take people from zero to their test being passed, although be suspicious of advertised 'pass rates'. Speaking of which, hate to tell you but being in London doesn't help, statistically. The pass rate is something like 30%, whereas Stranraer is closer to 85%.--Crazy Aberdeen Guy (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Think the OP might be asking if there is a short cut to acquiring the skills of temporal attention. The human race has become so successful because people specialize in different areas and co-operate together. So that our combined skill come together. I've tried to show (intelligent) people how to poach eggs and other things but they can't keep their attention on what their doing. Flying an aircraft is another good example. One has to think ahead, not just in seconds but many minutes ahead in order not allow the aircraft to 'fly them' into a difficult situation. Cars are the same. One needs temporal attention to for-read what 'might' happen and adjust speed, lane position, etc. For some people, this ability is completely beyond them. Ray Bradbury (the Sci- Fi author) never learnt to dive. Some people people can't – ever- now matter how many time they go through repetition of execution (practice) but might be word perfect on Shakespeare or something. "A rose coloured T-Bird by any other name would smell as sweet, until Willy took her T-Bird away " Apologies to Will Shakespeare & Brian Wilson--Aspro (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really that surprising about Ray Bradbury. The vast majority of people in the world never learn to dive. Same even for many subpopulations like the developed world, people in the US, people in LA, I think sci-fi authors.... Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Given Bradbury never learned to write, it's hardly surprising he never learned something as esoteric as how to drive. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)