On geography

[posic]

Scott D. Clary writes in Facebook -- https://www.facebook.com/scottdclarypage/posts/pfbid02g8EohDyAfMYjB87wnhnKp8RFVGgzmdpboEJRSB5sbhAyZxi29NjkUGLbzPSt9uiMl :

Most people's idea of a fresh start is changing their environment while keeping their habits. It doesn't work. The habits follow you. The new city, the new job, the new relationship, none of it sticks if the underlying patterns don't change. The geography is never the problem.

***

I changed my environment in 2014-18 while keeping my habits, and it worked. The new country, the new city, the new job. The same contramodules and contraherent cosheaves, the same fierce independence, the same extreme nonconformism, the same disregard for career considerations, the same workaholic lifestyle. But a much more pleasant life.

The geography was the problem.

The patterns of other people's behavior towards me had to change in order to resolve my problems. And contrary to the fashionable sloppy thinking, the people in different geographical locations are not the same.

Comments

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> The geography was the problem. <<

In order to solve a problem, you must understand its root cause.

If someone's bad habits include things like procrastination or backbiting, then a change of location may have little or no effect. They would need a different solution. Although, if they already solved that problem but people won't acknowledge the change, a move would give them new people without that baggage.

If it's something like problem drinking, that might continue too. But then, why are they drinking? If it's a physical predisposition, moving probably won't help. But if they're drinking to cope with an abusive boss or depressing city, a new context could very well make it easier to break that habit.

Some habits are forcibly broken by a change in context. Moving to a walkable city will certainly encourage more movement, but you can't loaf in Alaska -- that place will kill you if it can.

As you note, people and culture vary. A gay person in Alabama is in life-threatening, soul-crushing conditions but in San Francisco would have a thriving queer community for support.

Re: Thoughts

[posic]

Surely there is a lot of a difference between Alabama and San Francisco. The people are way more conservative in Alabama, I presume. Being a sharply politically incorrect right-winger (like me) would be problematic in a university in or near San Francisco.

There is also a lot of a difference between Moscow and Prague. The people are way more aggressive in Moscow. The mores in Prague are much softer. That's what has made all the difference for me.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Surely there is a lot of a difference between Alabama and San Francisco. The people are way more conservative in Alabama, I presume.<<

Alabama is the most conservative, insular state I've visited personally.

>> Being a sharply politically incorrect right-winger (like me) would be problematic in a university in or near San Francisco.<<

Likely so. And that's why cultural diversity matters -- so everyone can wander around to find a place that fits them better, if their current location does not.

>>There is also a lot of a difference between Moscow and Prague. The people are way more aggressive in Moscow. The mores in Prague are much softer. That's what has made all the difference for me.<<

Yeah. Moscow is weirdly tight-assed. When I visited Russia a few decades back, and we went into then-Soviet Georgia, the Georgian folks constantly heckled the Russian tour guide. I liked Tblisi a lot better than Moscow. But part of the point to traveling is to observe different places, their people, culture, food, wildlife, everything. It discourages you from getting stuck in your own head.