Living in cities creates psychological problems

[iron_jones]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

... and this is what leads to isolation.
In a city, we cannot grasp the number of individuals around us. We cannot interact with them because there are too many, beyond the human capacity. Thus we have to simplify and objectify them. They become like "trees in the forest". The people are the mailman and the grabage man and bus passengers and not Karl and Fred and John. I think that this behaviour is needed in a city for psychological self defense against the "too many people error", but it also has negative consequences especially if it is chonic.

No, that's not isolation at all. That's people minding their own business and not knowing who you are. People in cities still have friends and co-workers. Why does it pay to know the mailman. And why would the mailman want to know me. He does his job, I do mine, that's it. He's not my friend, I'm not his, and beyond the fact that he delivers my mail, we know nothing of each other.

And why should we? Just because we live in the same town or city or street does not mean we should be "friends" or "get to know eachother".

And I don't know which city any of you live in... but where I live there are countless groups to join and interact with other people. Art, music, support groups, enviromental groups, groups that go and help the homeless. So you can't just sit in your apartment all day and complain that you're isolated. There are places where you can go to interact with others.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

And objectifying people certainly does not do any good to our general attitude for other people anywhere in the world. It fosters such things as not thinking about child labor in remote countries. If you can objectify thousands of people around you, you certainly can objectify the origin of your cheap T-Shirt. If you'd know the person personally who has made that T-Shirt, you'd for sure be inclined to pay her a proper countervalue.

Yeah there's places in my city where you can buy had made clothing. For a higher price, but it's good quality stuff. I own a denim shirt. **** NEVER tears.

Have you ever bought clothing from a major clothing store or from a superstore such as Wal Mart??

[iron_jones]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

if one applies city life measurements to rural life, it is of course incredibly boring, because one looks only at all the things one has not. One looks at the holes and not at the cheese. And then people start to move away to fill these holes, throwing away the cheese. And the people left behind now not only have these perceived holes, but also are missing their friends and so that pull of the city is stronger and stronger. Until one reaches a certain age at which point people strangely try to get out of the city if they can afford and start busing expensive suburban or rural homes to live in fulltime or part-time...

Implying that's the "city way" of living.

[Human No More]

Nobody does it because they want to be unnoticed. that doesn't mean they don't have people and things they care about. Living somewhere with far fewer people is just as isolating if not more so, because there is far less likely to be anyone similar, and people DO need a balance of people and solitude and as has been mentioned before, being overly interested in other people's business can be just as bad for the opposite reason.

The truth is, people can live in either place, and while certainly, some people may have issues in either, if you forced them to live another way, they'd probably do far worse.

As for suburban houses, the entire point of them is it's often perceived as a nicer environment, but is still within easy reach of a decent number of people unlike the middle of nowhere, and where you will still be able to get around easily. That is the entire appeal.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by iron_jones

No, that's not isolation at all. That's people minding their own business and not knowing who you are. People in cities still have friends and co-workers. Why does it pay to know the mailman. And why would the mailman want to know me. He does his job, I do mine, that's it. He's not my friend, I'm not his, and beyond the fact that he delivers my mail, we know nothing of each other.

I do not deny that in a city you can still meet people. It takes a bit more incentive, as you have to get off your own ass to go some places and participate, but certainly one can find such things. Many dont do so though. And I am not so much talking about the opportunities and chances but rather what really happens. Everyone has the chance to be a millionaire, but only very few make it there. In a city, everyone has the chance to have a lot of friends but only some people use that potential to the fullest while others do the opposite. And if one has to move a lot, that kind of adds to the chances of isolation. And with isolation I mean more that attitude of running around and deliberately isolating oneself from too many other people.
The problem with not knowing the mailman is basically twofold - for once, here is an opportunity for a person that has little other contact to people to have a good chat once in a while (and the number of people with that kind of status, often ascribed to "internet nerds" and such is on the rise). But the main problem I have with it is that this turns into the objectification and commodification of people and their work. This is a person, who is working for you to get mail. Yet you regard him basically as the "thing" that delivers the mail - as a part of the mail delivery system, as a part of the machine that provides you with services of daily demand. I think this is in a way a degradation of the perception of a human being. This process is part of why we all, and I do not exclude myself as I grew up in this culture, sometimes and increasingly think of other beings - humans or nonhumans - as objects, as services or as something similar to machines. We do not care if the mail is delivered by a human being or by a robot, we are just interested in the result - our mail. But as long as there are humans involved in that delivery (or any other service or production for that matter), that equation can lead to us perceiving these humans as machines in some abstract way. And look at how we as a culture often treat humans and nonhumans that are not our "friends" and within our range of personal affliction. People throw away the trash while walking (leaving it for the cleaning person to put it in the dumpster), they use cars (fully knowing that nonhuman animals are harmed by that), buy cheap goods (fully aware that the people producing these are underpaid and unhealthy),... we rely on other people to act as a part of a machine, a system that provides us with goods and cares for the waste. In a way this is as it is, but I think to recognize that these others are not just parts of the machine, but individual beings would change our relationship - or allow us at all to enter into a relationship - with these others and respect them and honor them and make sure that they do not suffer from our personal desires. That their freedom is not impaired because we want to live our own freedom.

On a personal note, I am not sitting at home all day feeling isolated. I am living in a house with several people who are my friends and we share a lot of time. I have a group of friends and we do things together like medieval fairs. And of course I do have some "online firends", but I do regard this as inadequate and would vastly prefer a personal contact.

Yeah there's places in my city where you can buy had made clothing. For a higher price, but it's good quality stuff.

Oh yes of course there are such shops - the opportunity is there again, but the fact that probably 99% will not buy there but at Walmart is a result of them having an easy time dismissing and ignoring the objectified persons at the other end of that production. Because in the end all that counts is a cheap shirt. Maybe some people will even buy at that store because the stuff is better quality, not because they have some kind of feeling for the people who produce it.

Have you ever bought clothing from a major clothing store or from a superstore such as Wal Mart??

Yes of course. I also use a computer and the internet to complain about people using computers too much and consuming too much electricity and all that. I have replied to the certainly upwelling comment on hypocrisy before and will not repeat that, suffice to say that within my means, I try to act responsably, even though I think that by acting that way, I will most likely not change anything on the global situation.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Living somewhere with far fewer people is just as isolating if not more so, because there is far less likely to be anyone similar, and people DO need a balance of people and solitude and as has been mentioned before

Yes, a BALANCE - and I think in a crowded city, that balance is challenged and requires some mind tricks to deal with it daily and this is what causes people to get mor problems. We need some contact to people and some chance to solitude - though I personally would make a difference when it comes to solitude and isolation. I think to be away from people, in solitude, does not need to mean to be isolated. If I want solitude, I may go out in Nature and I am there far from isolated - there are trees and animals and other plants and the clouds - all of them are there and participate in my experience of solitude from humans - while trying to do this in a city inevitably fails. If you sit in your flat, isolated and try to get solitude, all you can do is to flee into your own mind, or you fill that isolation with human made events by turning on a TV, reading a book, browsing the web, listening to music - all of that is human made, so you never really reach solitude from humans, you just experience isolation from physical human presences, but still linger around in the world of human interaction.

And while it really is a nice feature of a city or the internet to find people that are "like you" with the "same interests", I think it is also very adequate to know a lot of people that have different interests and are different - and that kind of interaction I would say is rather declining in such a setting. One might in a city not bother to deal with a climate sceptic, a traditional bavarian, a free market economist, an Anarchist, a communist,... if that is not ones own flavour of life. Is that good to have it so easy to avoid these other people? I dont know - maybe it is, certainly it is fun, I prefer to discuss all this here over trying to debate this with someone who is just totally into Justin Bieber and Soccer & Beer....

The truth is, people can live in either place, and while certainly, some people may have issues in either, if you forced them to live another way, they'd probably do far worse.

Yes, I agree. Forcing people is not good. My point is a bit that people are in a way forced into cities though. Mostly because the opportunities they see are nonexistent in rural areas. One expects as a person brought up in this culture to have a wellpaid job and a good education - so one goes where these things are. It is a bit like telling people they get $1000 if they move into a house they do not like. If they want or need the $1000, they may do it even if they do not like it. My idea of freedom would be that no one has to be coerced like that, that there is no artificial incentive for people to move into an environment they dislike or take a job they hate.

Sorry for the long post & turning a bit philosophical again...

[iron_jones]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I do not deny that in a city you can still meet people. It takes a bit more incentive, as you have to get off your own ass to go some places and participate, but certainly one can find such things. Many dont do so though. And I am not so much talking about the opportunities and chances but rather what really happens. Everyone has the chance to be a millionaire, but only very few make it there. In a city, everyone has the chance to have a lot of friends but only some people use that potential to the fullest while others do the opposite. And if one has to move a lot, that kind of adds to the chances of isolation. And with isolation I mean more that attitude of running around and deliberately isolating oneself from too many other people.

So then it's a personal choice to be isolated, not a cause of living in a city?

[auroraglacialis]

So then it's a personal choice to be isolated, not a cause of living in a city?

Only insofar as it is the choice of a poor person to be poor...

... which is something that we hopefully all agree upon is not the case. Circumstances, chances, opportunities and other influences create a situation in which a person becomes poor. His personal choices are merely one part in that. So certainly it is in part the personality, choices and interests of a person that makes him feel isolated, but it is also to a large part the environment he lives in that determines that. And in that case, the city as an environment that drives more people into feeling isolated has an effect as well as the peoples desire not to feel isolated.
I also want to add that feeling isolated is not necessariyl the same as being isolated. Certainly people in a city have plenty of people around and many opportunities to get in contact with people, still paradoxically this is often not used or not perceived as something that eliminates isolation. You can be in a room full of people and feel isolated - maybe even moreso than in a room with only a few people, if you can imagine that.
For example, for me, and probably for many others that are not by nature very extroverted, it is harder to not feel isolated when I enter a room with plenty of people, all chattering about to each other, even when they know that I am supposed to be part of that group. On the other side for me it feels easier to get into contact and feel less isolated if I enter the a room with only a few people who are also aware that I am coming and supposed to be part of that group.
So I guess for extroverts, a city may be a place they do not feel so isolated as tehy just pick and choose people they want to get to know and do not care so much if they leave again. This is kind of a way of life of superficial connections between people - easily built and easily lost. The downside of that is however that one also has an insecurity, as one can only rely on oneself, because many of these superficial connections break at the sight of a problem. Deeper connections that in my opinion really define getting out of isolation would be harder but they provide a deeper feeling of safety.
I am of course only speculating here on the topic of isolation as one possible cause of the things observed in the study linked in the OP. The fact is after all, that there is such an effect (increased psychological problems connected to living in cities) - the reasons of that are yet speculative.

[iron_jones]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Only insofar as it is the choice of a poor person to be poor...

... which is something that we hopefully all agree upon is not the case.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Everyone has the chance to be a millionaire

Maybe I'm taking this out of context.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by iron_jones

Maybe I'm taking this out of context.

yes you do