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 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!
It looks like the Boston Globe doesn't allow public comments on articles -- if they did, a la the SF Chronicle, they'd have a flood of them decrying all the BS in this article thats pointed out out by lb...
lb, there you go with the reading for content thing again - that is definitely bad for your brain.
I wish you had used the complete "urban grid" quote: "There's the confusing urban grid, [i]which forces people to think continually about where they're going and how to get there.[i]"
I have to question anyone who thinks that the public should not be paying attention to where they are going. Perhaps the next study will tell us that talking on your cell phone and drinking a beer while driving is beneficial to your brain because the less you pay attention, the better you are.
Okay...two more ways that this study is total bs (to add to Liberty Bell's great list):
1) The part about how the Michigan prof made his students walk around Ann Arbor (Ann Arbor!) and that somehow this produced credible data about the psychological effects of "cities"...
2) The "savannah hypothesis" part about how it's unnatural that we live in cities now because of our ancient ancestors' preferences for living in "small, primate tribes on the African savannah." Nah, that's not problematic at all.
You can comment on the Boston Globe article through the author's blog.
What annoys me is that he doesn't pick up on several benefits of the urban experience:
1 of course it's tiring, it's the hunt. Are you going to meet the girl, catch the monkey, or bump into your future boss in the wilderness? OK, maybe the monkey.
2 The natural environment, while it is proven to be restorative, is not art, it is kitsch. The lessons from the wilderness are universal natural truths, however, I'm neither natural nor true. Humans however have created our own world with meaning, fun, opportunity, choice, demand... It's called the City, and it is Art.
11 Comments
what if your brain is on drugs?
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 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!
lb, the Council in Support of Specious Scientific Studies hates people like you.
you're supposed to read the headline and the first few sentences and accept, not go [thinking[/i] about it.
It looks like the Boston Globe doesn't allow public comments on articles -- if they did, a la the SF Chronicle, they'd have a flood of them decrying all the BS in this article thats pointed out out by lb...
lb, there you go with the reading for content thing again - that is definitely bad for your brain.
I wish you had used the complete "urban grid" quote: "There's the confusing urban grid, [i]which forces people to think continually about where they're going and how to get there.[i]"
I have to question anyone who thinks that the public should not be paying attention to where they are going. Perhaps the next study will tell us that talking on your cell phone and drinking a beer while driving is beneficial to your brain because the less you pay attention, the better you are.
LOL, crowbert! I think I'll go "stop paying attention" with a drink right now!
two beers tonight: my brain feels better already!
Steven & Liberty, I did the same last night and felt much better too. Perhaps I should try to get a job at the Boston Globe.
Cheers!
Okay...two more ways that this study is total bs (to add to Liberty Bell's great list):
1) The part about how the Michigan prof made his students walk around Ann Arbor (Ann Arbor!) and that somehow this produced credible data about the psychological effects of "cities"...
2) The "savannah hypothesis" part about how it's unnatural that we live in cities now because of our ancient ancestors' preferences for living in "small, primate tribes on the African savannah." Nah, that's not problematic at all.
You can comment on the Boston Globe article through the author's blog.
What annoys me is that he doesn't pick up on several benefits of the urban experience:
1 of course it's tiring, it's the hunt. Are you going to meet the girl, catch the monkey, or bump into your future boss in the wilderness? OK, maybe the monkey.
2 The natural environment, while it is proven to be restorative, is not art, it is kitsch. The lessons from the wilderness are universal natural truths, however, I'm neither natural nor true. Humans however have created our own world with meaning, fun, opportunity, choice, demand... It's called the City, and it is Art.
Oh yes,
"the city impairs our basic mental processes". yadayada. It exercises them in the furtherance of higher mental processes...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.