Humanities desk
< March 2	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 4 >

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.

March 3

Jane Eyre

What are some images related to Jane Eyre that have an interesting story behind them or are related to the novel in some way, and that actually exist as images? Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. --Jayron 32 01:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I was looking for some pictures. I'm the OP.2602:306:C541:CC60:51D:B38D:18D2:A14C (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. There are lots of images on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Jane_Eyre. Is that what you are looking for? --Judithcomm (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another place to look: Jane Eyre Illustrated: Featuring book illustrations by Ethel Léontine Gabain, Edmund Dulac, Francis Donkin Bedford, and many many more, covers and dust jackets by Lynton Lamb, Emilio Grau Sala, and others, postage stamps designed by Paula Rego and others, comic books and graphic novels by Rebecca Guay and others, audio covers by Leo and Diane Dillon and others, magazine illustrations and miniature books. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adloyada

Does Adloyada occur outside Israel?—Wavelength (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Bus stop (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it occur outside Israel?—Wavelength (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drinking wine is part of Purim. I don't know about the parade. But "Adloyada" means to "mellow himself (with wine) on Purim". Bus stop (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: literally the name is composed of three words slurred together, עַד דְּלָא יָדַע (Aramaic), "...until he cannot know [i.e., tell the difference]...". The degree of intoxication is that of impaired judgment, and the example of "Blessed be [the hero] and cursed be [the villain]" particularly indicates judgment between virtue and vice. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redacted: Deborahjay (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, back up. You mean there's a day we're actually supposed to get black-out drunk off wine? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 12 Adar 5775 04:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to stick to wine. That specific element is not in the original text. Drink what you like. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I picked the right side of the family heritage! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 13 Adar 5775 00:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have truly committed to the Jewish faith, then you not be so quick to accept every tradition and festival that is not ordained by the Lord. This one in particular should be considered an abomination; it runs across the grain of Scripture - why would the Lord approve of intentionally corrupting your sense of what is good and what is wicked, even for a day? Take heed,I'm not speaking against becoming mellow, just against stupefying drunkenness, I myself do enjoy a good wine. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't. You still have to be fit to fulfil your religious obligations a few hours later, especially praying. Standard interpretation is that what's called for is food+alchohol-aided rejoicing to an extreme, not drunkenness to an extreme. The Hebrew Bible is replete with verses praising the effect of alcohol - and food. As the Talmud puts it: "ein simcha elah b'basar v'yayin" - there's no happiness without meat and wine. --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Superficially, that sounds more acceptable. However, I'm not convinced that such indulging extremes is fitting behaviour. The vast majority of my denomination are vegetarian or vegan and abstain from acoholated food and drink, and they are quite content with their quality of life as a result. I am an exception to the norm, as I have a high affinity for meat and alcohol. As an aside, speaking as a non-Jew, I don't have high regard for writings by theologians, since at the basest of levels, such writings are a collection of opinions, and man is not infallible. So please pardon me when I say that I only regard the Talmud with skepticism. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an opinion that says that the degree of drunkenness called for is sufficient intoxication to impair one's ability to calculate the comparison between the gematria of "cursed is Haman" and "blessed is Mordechai". (These would be Hebrew alpha-numeric equivalencies.)That being a difficult calculation, little wine would be needed to impair it. Another opinion maintains that while there is an obligation to drink, that there is no set amount called for, and that every person should simply determine this for themselves. Bus stop (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism has no tradition of asceticism. Quite the opposite: we're supposed to enjoy the pleasures of this world, but always with a measure of responsibility and control and with acknowledgment to its ultimate source. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually an agnostic Jewish archaeologist who adheres to that most venerable belief system of archæo-Judaism (no μεδεις, don't deconstruct that). The prophetess Kenyon (known for being able to easily kill two bottles of gin in one day) said,

"Thou shalt drink happily and to excess in merriment with thine own noble comrades. May your cups overfloweth with the fermented bounties of the earth and may your beds always have a second (or third) occupant. Harken to me though, thou must be ever watchful and certain that in the morning thine own sections be straight and thou risketh not cracking thine own skull upon the holy soil from a 2 metre fall. Woe be unto any that commits that gravest sin of sleeping-in for this is the work of that most malevolent force, Laziness." (Kenyon 6:1–4)

Personally, I drink for pleasure and social occasions and never just to get drunk. And I've never managed to get drunk to the point where I didn't know good from bad (though there was a day where I did the unthinkable and slept-in whilst on a dig and no one threw water on me). As my fellow Son of Abraham says, we're all about being good people and enjoying the bounties of this universe whilst being ever respectful as well. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 13 Adar 5775 13:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard a parade referred to with that word in the UK (as opposed to drinking, which is where the expression comes from), but I've seen Purim parades in the street - without the nomenclature. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas, Atlantic

Of the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlas Mountains, which received its name first? Was one of them named in imitation of the other? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see Atlas (mythology). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic Ocean is named after the mythical continent of Atlantis, which was named, in turn for Atlas, the Greek mythological figure. Thus, the name Atlas has to have come before both Atlantis (land of Atlas) and Atlantic (named for Atlantis and by extension Atlas). I'm not sure whether the mountains or the ocean were named first, but neither directly influence the other. Rather, they were each named for Atlas himself (though through different routes). --Jayron 32 16:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two words come from the same root. What's going on is that the nominative form in old dialects of PIE, like Greek and Latin, used a shortened form (often with an ess) in the nominative, while the genitive case used the full stem, and it was that longer stem which was used in combining forms and adjectives. Hence the stem of Atlas is Ἄτλαντ-and the adjectival form is hence Atlant-ikos "related to Atlas.

Likewise, the Greek word for foot is pous, but its stem is pod-, hence podiatry. Students have to learn both the nominative and the genitive of any new noun, as the other cases can be predicted from the genitive form, not the nominative. Latin nom./gen. pairs include:cor/cordis (cordial); homo/hominis (ad hominem); Mars/Martis (martial); rex/regis (regent, regal); nox/noctis (nocturnal); etc. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The early IE languages reduce the final cluster –nt–s (which is common in the nominative of present participles) in different ways: Sanskrit to –n [iirc], Greek to –s, Latin to –ns. Similarly noct-s was simplified to nocs, Mart-s to Mars; and reg-s became recs by assimilation. —Tamfang (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is most plausible that the Atlas mountains were named first after the titan Atlas. The Atlantic Ocean was named after Atlantis, which in turn probably took its name from its location beyond the mountains of Atlas. Marco polo (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Atlantis, first sentence. It was named after Atlas (mythology) not Atlas Mountains. --Jayron 32 19:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly heard before the theory that the Atlantic Ocean was named after Atlantis, but it does not seem to be very well referenced. Our article says: "The Atlantic Ocean was named by the ancient Greeks after either Atlas the Titan or the Atlas Mountains named for him; both involve the concept of holding up the sky." Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th ed.) derives Atlantic (ocean) from Atlanticus, of the Atlas Mountains, which in turn were named after Atlas. However, if Webster's New World is wrong and the Atlantic Ocean was named directly after Atlas the Titan, then it is possible that the Atlantic Ocean was named earlier than the Atlas Mountains. John M Baker (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OED also supports the Atlas -> Mount Atlas (= Atlas Mountains?) -> Atlantic Ocean etymology. Its Atlantic entry says, "1. Of or pertaining to Mount Atlas in Libya, on which the heavens were fabled to rest. Hence applied to the sea near the western shore of Africa, and afterwards extended to the whole ocean lying between Europe and Africa on the east and America on the west." Incidentally, the first quote it provides referencing "Atlantick Ocean" is from Philemon Holland's 1601 translation of Pliny's Natural History. Abecedare (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Obviously ec'ed with Dbfirs note below. Great minds... and all that :) [reply]

The OED entry for Atlantic says: "Of or pertaining to Mount Atlas in Libya, on which the heavens were fabled to rest. Hence applied to the sea near the western shore of Africa, and afterwards extended to the whole ocean lying between Europe and Africa on the east and America on the west." The etymology is: "from Latin Atlanticus, < Greek Ἀτλαντικός , < Ἀτλαντ- : see Atlas n.1 ["One who supports or sustains a great burden; a chief supporter, a mainstay."] and -ic suffix." Dbfirs 21:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree with Marco Polo and John M Baker. We should ignore all scholarly study, philology, and linguistic science, and just use the Stargate theory of history. The Atlantic Ocean is obviously named after Atlantic City, and has nothing to do with Atlas or the Atlas Mountains. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And The World Book agrees that the Atlantic Ocean was named after the Atlas Mountains, implying that the mountains have primacy. On the other hand, Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia and the Encyclopaedia Brittannica both state flatly that the ocean was named after Atlas. I'm not sure we're going to be able to give a definitive answer here. John M Baker (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the Atlantic Ocean was named after Atlantis, and Atlantis was named after Atlas, but obviously a fictional region beyond the Pillars of Hercules was named after Atlantis because the pillars and the nearby mountains that had already been named after Atlas were associated with that titan. It is almost self-evident. Marco polo (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it isn't so self evident. Linguistically, we all recognize they're all related to the name of the Titan. The source of the disagreement is the route we take to get from the name of the Titan to the name of the ocean. Is the ocean "The Ocean Atlantis is located in" or is it "The Ocean past the Atlas Mountains" or is it "The Ocean that belongs to Atlas". The answer to THAT question is what is in disagreement. All the sources broadly agree that the ocean means "yada yada Atlas something something" But it's the specific linguistic route to get there that the sources (and us) can't agree on. It isn't necessarily self-evident what the order of naming of all of the features was. --Jayron 32 23:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not quite accurate. Before the discovery of the Pacific, what we now call the Atlantic was called the Ocean Sea (Mare Okeanos). Only once the rather radical difference between the Atlantic and the Paific was discovered were the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans differentiated. The original stem was Atalanta which is not of PIE form. It referred to a heroine. Then there were the Atlas mountains, the tallest known to the seafaring Greeks, which were associatited with Atlas, whose name is a derivation from the root atalant-, and referred to holding up the sky. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bills from the UK House of Lords

Both House of Lords and Act of Parliament#United Kingdom Parliament note that either House may originate bills on most topics, but they don't address the reality on the ground. In real life, do the Lords ever introduce bills, and if they do, do those bills ever get passed? Since the members of the Government are all in the Commons, do Lords bills all get treated like private members' bills? Nyttend (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ may help. --Jayron 32 17:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true that "the members of the Government are all in the Commons". See House_of_Lords#Leaders_and_Ministers, which gives a current list of ministers (i.e. members of the government) who sit in the House of Lords. However I think it's true nowadays that any government-sponsored legislation would start off in the Commons, and only Private Members' Bills would originate in the Lords. I can't think of any very recent examples, but it's not that long since we had Secretaries of State (i.e. heads of government departments) in the Lords; for example, Lord Carrington was Foreign Secretary between 1979 and 1982 (when he resigned over the invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More recently than that. Lord Mandelson was simultaneously Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and First Secretary of State as recently as 2010. --Jayron 32 20:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while there are no current Secretary of State level Lords, there are lower-ranked Ministers who are, e.g. Baroness Anelay. --Jayron 32 20:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this page for the current list of bills before the House - I make it 33 Lords bills out of a total of 169 (numbers may be slightly off). Some ploughing through the listings on this page indicates that the last Private Member's Bill originating in the Lords which became legislation was the Live Music Act 2012, compared with 21 successful Commons Private Member's Bills in the same period. Quite a few Government bills are introduced in the Lords, as well. Tevildo (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See here for the full details of the bill's passage, incidentally. Interesting to note that the last stage is officially called "ping-pong". Tevildo (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starboard port side

I just watched the Battle of Trafalgar scene in the 1941 movie That Hamilton Woman. In the movie, when Nelson gives the order to open fire, his words are "Starboard port side—fire!" This makes no sense to me. What could it mean, or was it just an error by the filmmakers? --70.49.169.244 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Victory sailed through the line of French and Spanish ships, so the order was to fire from both sides of the ship at the targets that were on both sides. Mikenorton (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, but wouldn't he have used the word "and" then? --70.49.169.244 (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that Nelson spoke those words, Hardy was making the decisions - it was he that directed the Victory to start by running close behind the stern of the Bucentaure, which received the fire of the port side cannon as they swept past. It was only later that Hardy brought the Victory up against the Redoutable and the starboard side broadside was fired. Mikenorton (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that Nelson spoke those exact words, because larboard was the opposite to starboard before 1844, except when giving steering orders. I'm a bit puzzled by that turn of phrase too. Alansplodge (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's it - perhaps he shouted "Larboard (port) side - fire!" - however the transcript on Ark TV - The Hamilton Woman agrees with your version; "01:06:58 Starboard port side, fire!". I had a good search of Google for an actual eyewitness account but no luck so far. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could it need a bit more punctuation? "Starboard! Port side! Fire" —Tamfang (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the intent, the actor misread the line. Anyway, why say "side" only once in that case? Well, this is looking like an error at this point. (Original poster, new IP address.) --65.94.49.242 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to mis-hear a monosyllable, so I'm willing to imagine a custom of always saying port side in circumstances where hearing is at all iffy, such as a battle. —Tamfang (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History

Is there a wiki for political history?Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe here would be a place to start looking. --Jayron 32 19:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friendlessness = disorder?

I'm a 27 year old and I have just come to the realization that I haven't had a single friend since I was 19 years old. Other than my parents, noone ever gives me a call to see how I'm doing. But this is partly my own fault since i rarely have anything to talk about. I recently tried to befriend an associate when he dropped me off in his car but the entire 10 minute car ride was silent since I have nothing to talk about. I get jealous seeing people my age socializing like its second nature. Am I unique? Is there such a thing as a psychological disorder that stops people from connecting to others? I feel like a weirdo who is the odd one out. Keep it truer (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The possibilities are too broad to give a ready answer. If this situation is unacceptable to you, you would be best off seeking professional help of some kind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There are psychological or physiological disorders such as Asperger syndrome that affect communication with others, but we can't diagnose such conditions here, and you shouldn't try to diagnose yourself. You are certainly not unique. Many people have the same problem with conversations. It helps if you can find someone with whom you have an interest in common, since then you have an easy topic to talk about. If this isn't possible, then keep trying to maintain a conversation -- it gets easier with practice. Dbfirs 22:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a variety of antisocial personality disorders and social anxiety disorders. On the other side, you have dependent personality disorders and histrionic personality disorders. Pretty much everyone's screwed up these days, at least according to the DSM-V. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A personality development disorder is not officially a thing, by any manual, but has an article anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, excessive friendliness can be off-putting, and result in fewer friends. There's even a condition that causes that: Williams syndrome#Social and psychological. StuRat (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I do to avoid awkward silences is make up notes ahead of time on my smart phone, of things to talk about. They can be jokes, news, etc. When conversation starts to lag, I ask them to excuse me while I look something up, although I often remember what it was without having to look. StuRat (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are your interests? There are probably Wikipedia articles on topics that interest you. The inevitable interaction with others at articles may be helpful, although Wikipedians can also be frustratingly argumentative. Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think I suffer from anxiety that much. As for awkward silences, I am capable of thwarting them, but I avoid doing so because I feel like i'm being fake. My mind basically says "why would I talk for the sake of talking?" Keep it truer (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The love you take is equal to the love you make. I think you should read How to Win Friends and Influence People. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you were talking, you wouldn't hear your mind fill the silence with rational thoughts like that. Eve 6 (sort of) explains here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever asked yourself "Do sociopaths know they are sociopaths?" I'm not saying you are, but you might be. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of discussion here about the variations of natural human personality, psychological "disorders", and the like. You say yourself that you've "only just come to the realization" that you haven't had any close friends for the past eight years, so it seems likely to me that (at least in the past) you weren't particularly bothered by the presence or absence of close friends. If this is so, then I'd suggest not dwelling on this too much, and trying to resist the temptation to "pathologise" your current state. Most people can count their close friends on the fingers of one hand, and there are many people who have none at all, but continue to live happy and productive lives (I know a few!). Many people find it difficult to socialise; sometimes this is part of a broader psychological variation (many people with Asperger syndrome, for example, find small talk pointless or illogical), but just as often it's just not a skill that they've developed much. And that is, sort of, the point: managing interpersonal relationships is to some extent a skill that each of us develops. Just as with any other aspect of human behaviour, we are born with a certain base level of ability, but each of us can build on this. If you don't have many close friends that may be an indication that you're just a bit out of practice. The way to get back into practice is, as you probably already know, by arranging to meet more people and seeing what develops. The usual advice is "join the local church, volunteer for local chapters of charities and service organisations, and join local sports and hobbies clubs"; people give this advice because it generally works, and because by having something in common with the people you meet at these places, you already have something to talk about. If you join a choir you both talk about the music you enjoy singing; if it's a model railway society you talk about whether you prefer finescale standard or something less strict, and so on. Gradually friendships grow out of these shared interests.

In answer to your specific questions: no, you are not unique in having no close friends at present; no, you are not unique in finding socialising difficult and not having much in the way of small talk; no, you are not the only person who envies other people's social skills (I frequently envy this in other people!); yes, there are psychological conditions that can make it more difficult for someone to "connect" with other people, but there are also plenty of perfectly normal, well, happy people who find it difficult, too. Finally, as for feeling like a "weirdo" or suspecting that you might be the "odd one out", the good news is that this is perfectly normal, and anybody with two brain cells to rub together has this feeling from time to time! RomanSpa (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RomanSpa, I think you might be underestimating the extent to which I'm a loner. I am not your average loner. You could do a documentary on me on the extent to which I'm a loner. For example: I barely communicate with my siblings even though i share the same house; I don't own a mobile phone or e-mail as I dont need one; one of my hobbies is sitting on isolated park benches at night by myself; I quit my previous job because it involved interacting with a lot of people; sometimes I go to my grocery store or call strangers in directories just to remember what it's like to communicate with others. I have reached extremes that my own family look visibly scared of me. Keep it truer (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you happy, or at least content or at peace with yourself? If not, what do you want out of life that you're not able to get? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am content when I dont dwell on it. I am currently doing a jobsearch for vacancies that involves a job description requiring little interaction with others. Keep it truer (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Night watchman, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. I dislike staying in the same place for too long. I was thinking of something akin to a truck driver or something. Keep it truer (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I find befriending people to be easy, you just need to find a topic which interests both of you and don't be a jerk. Where I work the people vary and so must the conversations I have with them, for example I talk mainly about motorcycles and electronics with one person, I exchange recent personal stories with another, I talk politics and 'in the news items' with another, I talk about girls and cars with another, one person likes Magic the Gathering but he's so terrible at his job I don't want to see his face, and one person is just an ass-kissing parrot so I don't care to talk with him. So just try to have no reason for someone to hate you and try and figure out what you have in common with the person and start there. 70.53.71.219 (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to dissuade OP from his quest but I should point out that professional driving (trucking or otherwise) isn't a particularly lonely pursuit, nor an ideal profession for loners (in my view). Yes, there are long tracts of "alone time" but then you're effectively sitting in the same place (which you've said you don't like) while that place moves around you at your direction. But the driving is broken up by pick-up and delivery interactions with often-under-socialised store-men and the like (keen for a chat) and interactions with random people at truck-stops. Then there's the CB radio crackling to life every few minutes with everything from pop quizzes to weather reports and news of lurking highway patrol. A friend of mine worked (for quite some time) in a laboratory testing samples for fairly benign things (not Ebola and such) and he found it incredibly lonely. He rarely interacted with others and when he did, it was to transmit very technical data. Sterile, climate-controlled and air-sealed environments inherently prevent passers-by from dropping in to ask for your thoughts about the latest sporting results. As a bonus, lab tech qualifications aren't that hard to attain. He stayed because it suited his studies but was thrilled to leave when he completed his degree for an environment with a lot more socialisation. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're at a loss for words and feel the need to make small talk, there's always the time-honored subject of "the weather": mundane, non-controversial (as opposed to religion, politics, etc.) If you follow any sports teams, you could bring that up (at some small risk of getting into it with someone who doesn't like your team). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you mention trying to befriend an associate, or colleague, or presumably someone you work(ed with. Do you find that semi-formal or semi-impersonal or semi-structured situations, like conducting business, are easier than unstructured conversation, small talk, etc.? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The person I tried to befriend is a fellow churchgoer. In answer to your question; yes. Semi-person/semi-formal conversations are much much easier for me. I was doing driving lessons last week and I was able to keep the conversation going with my instructor. Keep it truer (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're an introvert in a world that superficially appears to be populated by extraverts - which doesn't make the latter a normative, prescriptive state. Are you familiar with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator? Fully half of the 16 personality types are introverts (though that may not represent their distribution in our culture). There you'll find descriptions that suggest the introvert prefers quality over quantity in social interactions, and a whole lot more. Numerous websites discuss the characteristic strengths of each type, e.g. the web links people have posted on Pinterest contain lots of illustrative content I've personally found illuminating and supportive. (See this about one introvert type, found by searching within Pinterest on "INFP personality" - there are also infographics of the 16 Myers-Briggs types among Disney and Harry Potter characters, etc. :-). You're probably going to be fine once you stop comparing yourself with people whose wants and needs are different from your own. And consider: people who can't bear being alone are a lot worse off than you are. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any introverts whose lack of communication with siblings in their own home amounts to perhaps five sentences a year; whose favorite hobby is sitting alone in isolated parks at midnight etc. In other words, I have reached extreme levels. Keep it truer (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By what standard are you judging that you're at an "extreme" limit? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, is what you know about [other] introverts mainly or merely what you've gained by observation? By speculation? I suggest you investigate the resources I linked above which include findings of studies, discussions and individual testimonies about personal characteristics and different aspects of the social spectrum. You're very likely drawing conclusions based on insufficient sampling. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be too ambitious in seeking to go directly from your current status as a loner to having newfound friendships. I would suggest that you work first on your ability to carry on a conversation. Once you are able to do this comfortably, it will make it much easier for you to form and maintain friendly relationships. There are essentially two keys to being able to do this. First, you need appropriate topics for small talk, things that are of interest to both you and whoever you were talking to. The classic examples are sports and weather. Sports will be unsuitable, however, if you do not have a genuine interest in sports. Weather is of pretty much universal interest, but unsuitable for sustained conversations unless there is a notable weather event going on or imminent. Other common topics include the use of leisure or vacation time, current events, and recent movies or books. Politics is of broad interest, but it risks starting arguments, which is undesirable. Second, try to the extent possible to ask open ended questions about the person you are talking to. People like talking about themselves, and this puts less of the conversational burden on you. "What do you think of [the Yankees/the Oscars/President Obama]?" Is good. So is "did you do anything interesting this weekend?" Then ask follow-up questions, if it is something they seem interested in talking about. John M Baker (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I live in a megacity. This has given me sufficient observation to notice if there's anyone else out there like me. There's not. I know all the loner spots in my city within a 8 kilometer radius and I'm the only one who ever goes to them. Also, my parents call me an isolationist. I used to be called "weirdo" when I was at school. My siblings appear scared of me. One of my biggest resentments growing up was having to go to a public school. I would have preferred to study by myself. Keep it truer (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "loner spot"? Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a place where it is extremely unlikely that someone will walk past, where you don't hear the hum of cars, where there are no street lights thus making the stars more visible, where there has been minimal artificial architecture. Only basics like a wall perhaps or a bench. Keep it truer (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example of where in a "megacity" it is "extremely unlikely that someone will walk past, where you don't hear the hum of cars, where there are no street lights thus making the stars more visible, where there has been minimal artificial architecture"? Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots. For example cemeteries, undeveloped areas near the banks of riverbeds, elevated pavement works near abandoned industrial sites. There are also empty fields, but I tend to avoid those because there's nowhere to sit, especially now that I don't own a car. I would end up having to stand for hours which is not fun. When I owned a car I used to drive up to a sub-urban area and sit near a patchwork at the end of a farm. I know the stuff I'm saying is freaking you out, but it's what I've been doing for ages. Keep it truer (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're ever in Toronto, try moping here. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I see the word 'megacity', I'm tempted to pronounce it to rhyme with mendacity. And that's no word of lie. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first I've seen or heard that word. So I'll probably honestly hear "megacity" if I ever do again. Thanks for the conditioning! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Citing the Statutes at Large

How does one cite an old act of the US Congress from the Statutes at Large? [1] gives easy-to-understand guidance on citations, but it assumes the presence of Public Law numbers. I'd like to cite the act that begins at the bottom of PDF page 478 of http://constitution.org/uslaw/sal/022_statutes_at_large.pdf (specifically, the paragraph at the top of 480 dealing with postal rates), but I'm hesitant to use the marginal note of "20 Stat., 357." because I don't know what it is, and I don't know what else to use. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have Template:USStat, but I'm not familiar enough with legal citations to understand exactly how it's used. Deor (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Stat." is just an abbreviation for Statutes at Large, which publishes federal statutes in bound volumes. "20 Stat. 357" (the comma after "Stat." is omitted in current practice) means Statutes at Large, volume 20, page 357. It's customary to provide the first page on which a given statute is printed, and when appropriate the particular page or pages on which the referenced portion of a statute appears may also be given. Here, "20 Stat. 357" appears in the margin of the PDF in order to give a citation for the statute referenced in text ("chapter one hundred and eighty of the laws of Congress, approved March third, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, entitled an act making appropriations for the service of the Post-Office Department for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty, and for other purposes"). In other words, it's a citation to an earlier statute, not to the statute you want to cite.

The provision to which you refer should be cited as follows: Act of Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 92, 22 Stat. 453, 455. The date is used for the name of the act, because it has no official or popular name, and the chapter number is given because that was the numbering system given before Congress started calling its enactments Public Laws. John M Baker (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you use the template to which Deor links, it would be: Act of Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 92, 22 Stat. 453, 455. John M Baker (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]