Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsSunday, January 11, 2009
News Wait Until Knute Hears About This
Posted by Dan Savage on Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 5:10 PM
A study finds that city life—all that damn density—makes people, um, dense.
1
Ugh this article keeps popping up on all the blogs I read!
This is what I wrote about it on another site:
There are some valid points in the study, no doubt, but this article is really biased.
"...a new study that measured the cognitive deficits caused by a short urban walk..."
Did it simultaneously measure for cognitive increases brought on by the PHYSICAL activity of walking, regardless of context?
"...such unnatural surroundings..."
The word “unnatural” is used many times in this article; but the city is natural, in that humans are natural and we created cities. The authors use of it is really loaded and emotional.
"...the confusing urban grid..."
Excuse me, aren’t grids easy to negotiate, which gives one more mental energy for other tasks? Walking in a straight line to one landmark then turning 90 degrees takes less mental energy than creating a path through rough landscape, I imagine.
"...children with attention-deficit disorder have fewer symptoms in natural settings. When surrounded by trees and animals, they are less likely to have behavioral problems and are better able to focus on a particular task."
Now this I can believe, since children’s minds are undeveloped therefore unable to make the kinds of conscious decisions about what they desire that adults can. This is why children aren’t allowed to give consent. But when adults decide via life experience that they prefer the stimulus of the city, is denial of that choice tested, i.e., did the researchers “measure the cognitive deficits” of making a city person take a walk in a forest? I know some people that flip out when they are surrounded by trees and what might be lurking in them...
I'm not totally dismissing the conclusions drawn, but I think they're incomplete, and I do think the article falls into a pretty tired characterization of the city as full of big, bad, scary things!
More...
This is what I wrote about it on another site:
There are some valid points in the study, no doubt, but this article is really biased.
"...a new study that measured the cognitive deficits caused by a short urban walk..."
Did it simultaneously measure for cognitive increases brought on by the PHYSICAL activity of walking, regardless of context?
"...such unnatural surroundings..."
The word “unnatural” is used many times in this article; but the city is natural, in that humans are natural and we created cities. The authors use of it is really loaded and emotional.
"...the confusing urban grid..."
Excuse me, aren’t grids easy to negotiate, which gives one more mental energy for other tasks? Walking in a straight line to one landmark then turning 90 degrees takes less mental energy than creating a path through rough landscape, I imagine.
"...children with attention-deficit disorder have fewer symptoms in natural settings. When surrounded by trees and animals, they are less likely to have behavioral problems and are better able to focus on a particular task."
Now this I can believe, since children’s minds are undeveloped therefore unable to make the kinds of conscious decisions about what they desire that adults can. This is why children aren’t allowed to give consent. But when adults decide via life experience that they prefer the stimulus of the city, is denial of that choice tested, i.e., did the researchers “measure the cognitive deficits” of making a city person take a walk in a forest? I know some people that flip out when they are surrounded by trees and what might be lurking in them...
I'm not totally dismissing the conclusions drawn, but I think they're incomplete, and I do think the article falls into a pretty tired characterization of the city as full of big, bad, scary things!
2
Those rural idiots must be smarter than me, considering how much of my tax money is spent where they live instead of where I live. Although them always wanting a tax cut makes me wonder.
3
Finally a valid study is posted on SLOG!
I can't wait to hear what all the density folks have to say about this!
Just another arrow in my quiver whenever I hear someone talk about the benefits of density.
I think we've all seen a LOT of different recent example of why NOT to get more dense for better urban living. One only needs to look at all the recent urban decay, empty condos that can't be sold, shootings in Seattle this month, homeless begging, paying to park, hip hop gang banger wannabes, graffiti, garbage/beer bottles/cigarette butts/gum littering the city streets, inner city noise diarrhea from car horns, car alarms, squealing tires, obnoxious speakers
Need I go on and on?
Needless to say everyone trying to promote the benefits of getting crammed together is FULL OF SHIT.
period.
I can't wait to hear what all the density folks have to say about this!
Just another arrow in my quiver whenever I hear someone talk about the benefits of density.
I think we've all seen a LOT of different recent example of why NOT to get more dense for better urban living. One only needs to look at all the recent urban decay, empty condos that can't be sold, shootings in Seattle this month, homeless begging, paying to park, hip hop gang banger wannabes, graffiti, garbage/beer bottles/cigarette butts/gum littering the city streets, inner city noise diarrhea from car horns, car alarms, squealing tires, obnoxious speakers
Need I go on and on?
Needless to say everyone trying to promote the benefits of getting crammed together is FULL OF SHIT.
period.
4
This is why people are feeling the urbs into Agraria. Only the drunkard, the junkie and the feeble minded will live in cities. Businesses are folding and media empires collapsing.
5
"Finally a valid study is posted on SLOG!
I can't wait to hear what all the density folks have to say about this!
Just another arrow in my quiver whenever I hear someone talk about the benefits of density.
I think we've all seen a LOT of different recent example of why NOT to get more dense for better urban living. One only needs to look at all the recent urban decay, empty condos that can't be sold, shootings in Seattle this month, homeless begging, paying to park, hip hop gang banger wannabes, graffiti, garbage/beer bottles/cigarette butts/gum littering the city streets, inner city noise diarrhea from car horns, car alarms, squealing tires, obnoxious speakers
Need I go on and on?
Needless to say everyone trying to promote the benefits of getting crammed together is FULL OF SHIT.
period."
All the study finds is that people are more distracted in overly-dense areas.
It doesn't make you idiots any smarter or less of a drain on the economy.
If you were less smug perhaps you could learn to read and benefit from knowing how little this pop-psychology study had to offer!
I can't wait to hear what all the density folks have to say about this!
Just another arrow in my quiver whenever I hear someone talk about the benefits of density.
I think we've all seen a LOT of different recent example of why NOT to get more dense for better urban living. One only needs to look at all the recent urban decay, empty condos that can't be sold, shootings in Seattle this month, homeless begging, paying to park, hip hop gang banger wannabes, graffiti, garbage/beer bottles/cigarette butts/gum littering the city streets, inner city noise diarrhea from car horns, car alarms, squealing tires, obnoxious speakers
Need I go on and on?
Needless to say everyone trying to promote the benefits of getting crammed together is FULL OF SHIT.
period."
All the study finds is that people are more distracted in overly-dense areas.
It doesn't make you idiots any smarter or less of a drain on the economy.
If you were less smug perhaps you could learn to read and benefit from knowing how little this pop-psychology study had to offer!
6
"There are some valid points in the study, no doubt, but this article is really biased."
Yeah, and it's not intended to come to the conclusions and ends that anyone's using it for.
I guess these dopes have to use their grant money for *something*, but all this seems to do is make the rabble who can't properly filter actual data from implied subjective conclusions look stupid and ignorant.
Yeah, and it's not intended to come to the conclusions and ends that anyone's using it for.
I guess these dopes have to use their grant money for *something*, but all this seems to do is make the rabble who can't properly filter actual data from implied subjective conclusions look stupid and ignorant.
7
"I guess these dopes have to use their grant money for *something*"
Gee whiz, you sound like an anti-Science Democrat!
Gee whiz, you sound like an anti-Science Democrat!
8
Is it cars? Of course people will be distracted and drained after focusing their attention at 3000 lb death machines zooming around them constantly -- justifiably, since they are the #1 cause of unnatural death. I'd like to see a study comparing an indoor walk, a walk through a pedestrian outdoor market, and a walk with deadly cars zooming by.
11
Please. If you think this is true, just take a little trip to the suburbs of Puyallup or the areas north of Everett and south of Bellingham. Plenty of non-density, and a whole lot of stupid.
Of course, there's a lot of military in both, and they tend to be stupid, so it might be a bit skewed.
Of course, there's a lot of military in both, and they tend to be stupid, so it might be a bit skewed.
12
@2 right on.
@3 you are an idiot.
when the city allows greater density around light rail stations, you aren't forced to move there. you can live in the iodtic nondense suburbs you love, and we can live here in the wonderful choice filled dense urban areas we love.
Just like gay marriage doesn't make your marriage gay, dude, greater urban density doesn't make your sprawling soul killing boring horrible suburb dense, dude!
Peace out --
@3 you are an idiot.
when the city allows greater density around light rail stations, you aren't forced to move there. you can live in the iodtic nondense suburbs you love, and we can live here in the wonderful choice filled dense urban areas we love.
Just like gay marriage doesn't make your marriage gay, dude, greater urban density doesn't make your sprawling soul killing boring horrible suburb dense, dude!
Peace out --
13
I thought the point of this post was "build more parks".
p.s. Suburbs are pretty high density nowadays. Seriously, it's not like you can see "nature" from cookie-cutter land, just the house across the street.
p.s. Suburbs are pretty high density nowadays. Seriously, it's not like you can see "nature" from cookie-cutter land, just the house across the street.
14
Weird, I totally thought this was going to be a link to the "more people now obese" article until I started reading the comments and realized it meant "dense" in a totally different way.
Guess I am more dense, whattya know.
Guess I am more dense, whattya know.
15
I know someone already said it, but:
Cities are distracting, but the benefits of artistic and intellectual cross-pollination far outweigh that in the end. I think there is a limit to how much density is healthy but cities can be a beautiful place to live and nature can be a perfect place to escape to and find respite in.
There's a happy medium in everything.
There's the confusing urban grid, which forces people to think continually about where they're going and how to get there.How are grids confusing again?
Cities are distracting, but the benefits of artistic and intellectual cross-pollination far outweigh that in the end. I think there is a limit to how much density is healthy but cities can be a beautiful place to live and nature can be a perfect place to escape to and find respite in.
There's a happy medium in everything.
20
Another argument for supporting your local neighborhood park
http://unpavingparadise.blogspot.com
http://unpavingparadise.blogspot.com
22
"I guess these dopes have to use their grant money for *something*"
Gee whiz, you sound like an anti-Science Democrat!"
More an anti-pop psychology dude, which is inherently more pro-science than pro-pseudoscience.
Discriminations like that are sadly too over your head to actually bother with, so I won't try.
Gee whiz, you sound like an anti-Science Democrat!"
More an anti-pop psychology dude, which is inherently more pro-science than pro-pseudoscience.
Discriminations like that are sadly too over your head to actually bother with, so I won't try.
23
I'll admit, I spent several seconds wondering why Knute the polar bear would give a shit about this study.
24
Beats me why you all get so upset by a study that says lots of noise and motion during a busy city day distracts you.
So does ice cream, gelato, or chocolate - but nobody says that's bad ...
So does ice cream, gelato, or chocolate - but nobody says that's bad ...
25
So I guess this study means that parents who make their kids live in the city are actually physically abusive just like third hand smoke parents?
26
You mean Knute the polar bear? Rockne? ??? It is nice to have a study to counterbalance all the ones last year that claimed the suburbs will be America's new ruins or ghettos.
27
@ 26 ftw
With all the announcements about auction condos in Cap Hill going for half their previous "so called value", and with announcements that all kinds of half built skyscrapers are now standing like ghetto ruins it would seem to me that the new "ghetto" will be large cities with over priced/over valued real estate that is pricing out the middle class and delivering on the fallacy of urban utopia living.
With all the announcements about auction condos in Cap Hill going for half their previous "so called value", and with announcements that all kinds of half built skyscrapers are now standing like ghetto ruins it would seem to me that the new "ghetto" will be large cities with over priced/over valued real estate that is pricing out the middle class and delivering on the fallacy of urban utopia living.
28
this study doesn't argue against density you fucking morons, it argues against concrete, and maybe cars. it clearly states that for people living in the same urban area, those who are exposed to vegetation are more mentally healthy. meaning that the 'problem' with cities is in the urban planning model that ignores the benefits of greenery, and thus we need to find a way to incorporate nature into dense urban areas. this conclusion is a total no-brainer, of course. i have never met anyone who is against planting trees in the city. reducing automotive traffic on the other hand, is a different story.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Whitney Is Dead, And So Is Hollywood by Kelly O
-
Planned Parenthood Exposed! by David Schmader
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (28) RSS