Escaping the Echo Chamber

[RoseMorninStar]

The Crime Report. Statistics can be skewed and one should always be careful of sources, but statistics are not lies. (and yes, I'm aware that's just a saying.. a trope)

I simply do not do well when there are a lot of people around me.

And that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. To each his own. It's a good thing we don't all have the same preferences. Consider yourself fortunate that you are able to live as you wish. It doesn't seem right to pass judgement on everyone else based on your preferences however. Not everyone can choose to/afford live in a rural area even if that were their preference. Rural areas are not where most of the work is.. and it is that work that brings all of us the things we need & use every day.

Individual people in rural areas aren't any better or worse than people in suburban or urban areas - there will always be sickos in either place..

I agree with that.

I lived in a rural area growing up and it didn't save me from sexual violence.

[narya]

Rose:

[RoseMorninStar]

narya, thanks. It was a very long time ago.

[Maria]

I'm sorry for your long ago trauma.

Consider yourself fortunate that you are able to live as you wish.

It's some luck, and a lot of determination and planning and hard work. We didn't just happen on this place. It took conscious thought and sincere desire to put ourselves where we are today. If we hadn't sold ourselves to the Army for a few years, we couldn't have done it. And it WAS just luck that no wars broke out while we were in.

It doesn't seem right to pass judgement on everyone else based on your preferences however.

I didn't mean to make it sound like judgement against individual people. It's the whole phenomenon of huge metropolises (metropolae?) that bothers me. It is inescapable, I know. There are simply too many people and if they spread out all over the place, there wouldn't be enough farm land to feed them all. You've got to concentrate them into dense urban areas to save the farmland for crops. I'm just saying it isn't natural to crowd human animals that way. It *does* affect their behavior negatively.

And as far as passing judgement goes, you say that like it's a bad thing. Doesn't everyone judge how safe a situation is likely to be? I work in a city of about 125,000 people, and there are neighborhoods I avoid driving through. They just aren't safe. (A former coworker lived there for a while.) If I didn't listen to her and just ignored the fact that people get violent in those few blocks of the city, I'd be kind of silly, wouldn't I? If the pizza delivery guys won't deliver to a particular part of the city--then that's a pretty good sign it's not a good place to be.

Of course, they don't deliver to where I live, either, but that's a mileage thing. We haven't had food delivered to our home in the 25 years we've lived here. It's only 15 minutes from the city limits, but that's too far, apparently.

We do have neighbors where I live. When the leaves are off the trees, you can see 5 other homes about half a mile away. When the trees are leafed out, though, we can pretend it's just us out here ...until we hear a vehicle on the road, or a crop duster buzzes our place. We dream, sometimes, of moving somewhere more isolated when we retire. My parents have 75 acres in the backwoods of the Ozark mountains, surrounded on three sides by National Forest land. I would love to get a place like that, near them, when we retire. My husband, however, is not finished with judo yet. We'll probably stay here in our little pocket of pseudo isolation until he decides he's had enough.

[yovargas]

This is getting pretty Osgilliated but at the very least, there is actually science now that has shown that not having exposure to nature can negatively impact mental health and has been shown to lead to depression. Rural areas have their own problems like anywhere else but at least that one is a lot less likely there.

[RoseMorninStar]

Some animals live in herds/flocks/schools, some are more solitary creatures. Humans are adaptable. We (somewhat) have the ability to chose where we live, but other circumstances (family, finances, jobs, where we happen to be born) often make the choice for us. Most towns & even large cities have wonderful parks/natural areas, some are even close to great State and National parks. I've traveled quite a lot and seen both cities and vast expanses of nothing. I can (usually) understand the appeal of both.

That said--I've been to Wyoming several times, a beautiful state with many wonders. On one trip we found ourselves in an area that was flat and treeless as far as the eye could see. No grass. No houses. No nothing except the smell of shale gas. For all of the wide-open space, I found it simply cloying and surreal. I had that feeling one gets when they feel they are falling with nothing to grab onto. A sort of mild panic or vertigo. The road we were traveling was having work done and we were held up for awhile. As we waited we had a conversation with the young woman who was monitoring the 'traffic' (HA!). I asked her about living in the area. She said she couldn't imagine living somewhere with trees because she felt they were hiding something/kept her from seeing the horizon. To each their own.

Is there reason to escape the 'echo chamber' of where WE feel is the perfect or safest place? No, not at all. Viva la difference! While place (location) plays a part, I believe it's the environment as a whole which has a greater role to play. That environment is not location only, but security.. food security, shelter, opportunities, support from/safety with those close to us, etc... If one lives in a hostile, abusive, &/or impoverished environment, location is just another (relatively minor) factor. Maria, you were likely happy and felt safe because you had good and supportive parents who loved you, and that is a very good thing.

elengil.. and it's always our fault.

Always.

Also, most of the time we don't even exist. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/invisible-women/

This was quite interesting. Almost immediately after listening to the podcast I came across an article discussing how school environments are set up for girls and that we are (too often) treating boys within the girl 'model'. The article said that boys need and should have far more physical activity throughout the day, not be treated as if they have a disorder.

[Frelga]

I saw a Twitter thread where people went round saying "We got plenty of X but when I see Y, it's amazing" where Y was, in no particular order, trees, ocean, mountains, grasslands, etc, and X = Y - 1. And then someone came in with "I'm from California, we have everything within a short drive." We don't have endless corn fields, though.

River, when we applied for a private school known for being highly academic and selective, they told us that the only way to keep admissions 50/50 was to apply lower criteria for boys than for girls. Otherwise, it would've been a 90% girl school.

It's a recurring theme - males have much lower hurdles to clear, so that an average white male can easily get to a position where anyone else has to be outstanding and brilliant. See also, the recent interview by GoT show writers who were handed one of the most lucrative TV projects despite admitting that they had no idea what they were doing.

Come to think, in ye olde USSR, my CS department was about 70% girls.

[River]

River, when we applied for a private school known for being highly academic and selective, they told us that the only way to keep admissions 50/50 was to apply lower criteria for boys than for girls. Otherwise, it would've been a 90% girl school.

It's a recurring theme - males have much lower hurdles to clear, so that an average white male can easily get to a position where anyone else has to be outstanding and brilliant. See also, the recent interview by GoT show writers who were handed one of the most lucrative TV projects despite admitting that they had no idea what they were doing.

Come to think, in ye olde USSR, my CS department was about 70% girls.

This runs counter to the narrative I've been fed my whole life. Wow. Bit of an eye-opener there.

There've been debates about whether women are scarce in American CS departments because we just suck at CS or because CS departments just suck for women.

It's not just CS that's skewed though. My post-doc lab was actually immortalized by Piled Higher and Deeper as "The Hot Chick Lab". Our PI found this irritating. Apparently he caught a lot of crap from his peers for his gender ratio and was pleased when he started recruiting male students. After I left the place turned into a complete sausage-fest. A former female post-doc in the lab had tales of being mistaken for a secretary on days she dressed nice. Which is probably why no one dressed nice, now that I think about it.

[Frelga]

Sorry, the last post was in response to Rose, not River.

[elengil]

This was quite interesting. Almost immediately after listening to the podcast I came across an article discussing how school environments are set up for girls and that we are (too often) treating boys within the girl 'model'. The article said that boys need and should have far more physical activity throughout the day, not be treated as if they have a disorder.

I have heard that before, too. I think it's inaccurate to say it's set up *for* girls. It's set up in a way that they are better suited to with regard to energy/focus, but no one set out to make a school system beneficial to girls. I'm honestly surprised it hasn't been 'corrected' yet to adjust to boy's more natural learning, social, and activity styles.

I am forced to wonder how boys in past generations dealt with the same systems (or similar). Butt-in-chair learning via lecture goes back to medieval times. Are kids these days actually more hyper? I don't mean as in having a disorder, I mean perhaps their ability to focus due to things like fast-paced cartoons, movies, video games, etc, has (and I think this has been shown to a degree) makes it harder to focus for long periods of time because they're so used to adapting to an ever-changing action packed narrative playing out before them. Or maybe the lack of activity in their daily life outside of school contributes? Less outdoor play-yard and bikes, more tv and games. But this would apply to both girls and boys.

It seems that back in, say, the 50's you didn't have this same problem. Or maybe it just wasn't acknowledged - as so many other problems were not. It's an interesting question. Maybe girls are better at flip-flopping between fast paced and slow focused?

[Frelga]

Elengil, several thoughts:

1. From what I've seen from volunteering in my son's classrooms through middle school, the "girls are quiet/boys are hyper" stereotype is highly exaggerated. He had some really hyper girls in his class, and he himself was able to sit and read quite early.

2. The classrooms in earlier grades are becoming more adapted to age-appropriate attention span, which benefits boys and girls.

3. In girls, hyperactivity often expresses itself in daydreaming or fidgeting, which is less disruptive and leads to ADHD often being undiagnosed until adulthood.

4. I haven't been around in the 50s but from my own very desk based classroom I suspect that the problem of forcing children to sit still was always there, and was solved with discipline and treating children who were unable to comply as deliberately disruptive. At least USSR didn't use corporal punishment.

5. I do think that our screen-free childhood helped to compensate for the enforced immobility in the classroom.

6. While women were banned from higher education, #4 didn't matter as much. When they are allowed to compete on an equal footing, #4 does work against boys, because they can get written off as bad students early on and not given a chance to catch up in a rigid system. But remember that it didn't matter for a heck of a long time. I went googling just now and some Ivy League schools did not accept female students until 1969.

[elengil]

Elengil, several thoughts:

1. From what I've seen from volunteering in my son's classrooms through middle school, the "girls are quiet/boys are hyper" stereotype is highly exaggerated. He had some really hyper girls in his class, and he himself was able to sit and read quite early.

Agreed, I think it was more averages than absolutes. But agreed.

2.

The classrooms in earlier grades are becoming more adapted to age-appropriate attention span, which benefits boys and girls.

That's nice to hear, actually! Having no kids or really any access to that myself it's nice to hear.

3. In girls, hyperactivity often expresses itself in daydreaming or fidgeting, which is less disruptive and leads to ADHD often being undiagnosed until adulthood.

Agreed again. That was usually my problem, too. (well, that is, the daydreaming and fidgeting bit, I am not diagnosed with anything, whether I have it or not.)

4. I haven't been around in the 50s but from my own very desk based classroom I suspect that the problem of forcing children to sit still was always there, and was solved with discipline and treating children who were unable to comply as deliberately disruptive. At least USSR didn't use corporal punishment.

LOL well neither have I, I was just thinking about like my dad's generation, I can't imagine they being disruptive in general, though individually sure. I guess it's just part of that image we have of the past, maybe?

5. I do think that our screen-free childhood helped to compensate for the enforced immobility in the classroom.

Nooooooo, not at all. (as in, yes I agree, it doesn't help)

6. While women were banned from higher education, #4 didn't matter as much. When they are allowed to compete on an equal footing, #4 does work against boys, because they can get written off as bad students early on and not given a chance to catch up in a rigid system. But remember that it didn't matter for a heck of a long time. I went googling just now and some Ivy League schools did not accept female students until 1969.

Agreed that our system generally can work in girls' favors and work against boys, I was just commenting that the system was not designed for girls, even if it does work better for them, due in part -as you said- to girls and women often being barred from educational institutions. That's partly why I'm surprised it hasn't changed before, to suit boys better, and partly why I wonder how it worked in the past.

[Frelga]

I think the why is that instilling discipline and obedience was an important part of the traditional system.

Because boys were meant to be soldiers.

[Maria]

3. In girls, hyperactivity often expresses itself in daydreaming or fidgeting, which is less disruptive and leads to ADHD often being undiagnosed until adulthood.

Interesting. In yet another personal anecdote: When we lived in a big city, Birmingham, Alabama, in fifth grade (10 years old) I daydreamed so much that they decided I was "retarded" (yes, that was the term used back the '70s) and put in a special class. This got my attention and I caught myself up on half a years work in about 2 weeks. We we moved to the Ozarks that summer and when school started in the fall- I found myself in an elementary school with TWO classrooms. K-4th grade in one room. 5th through 8th grade in the other. Each grade consisted of one row of students in each grade. There were five students in my grade.

Anyway, I soon started to slip back into my day dreaming mode. The harridan who ran the class promptly took me to the principal's office (she filled that job slot, too.) and paddled my butt for inattention. I managed to pay attention after that. The only other time I got in trouble at that school was when I tried to read a book during recess instead of playing with the other kids. Three years, I was under "Miss Colleen's" thumb and got almost perfect grades the whole time. My parents were pleased after the failing grades of the previous school. The effect lasted through high school, in the next town 25 miles away: Wide eyed attention to every word out of every teacher's mouth with almost perfect retention. There I was in a class of 65 students for my grade, and there were a variety of teachers to learn from. After Miss Colleen, it seemed like a utopia.

I've many traits in common with high functioning autism. I read recently that trying to connect with people via personal examples is a part of that. Maybe that's why every time I enter a discussion, it's usually describing something about me and my life. I apologize for the weirdness of that. It's not all about me. But I have lead a weird life, and sometimes it seems like an example contrary to "normalcy" seems to be in order.

In my case, I was shocked out of whatever it was that I was doing- and forced to mimic normal behavior through threat of violence. I'm not saying that's the Solution.... but it worked on me.

Later on, when I was 19 and in Basic Training for the Army, I perfected the art of sitting bolt upright in my chair, eyes wide open and being quite asleep. The classes were so repetitive that I got the gist immediately and didn't need the reiterations. My brain checked out in sheer boredom, but I NEVER got caught as it seemed like I was awake and could always do the work or answer questions.

So, maybe the Miss Colleen method of teaching does produce soldiers out of the most unlikely candidates.

[elengil]

Maria, I've often found myself identifying with the long lists of symptoms of undiagnosed female Aspergers. I still won't bother going getting tested, but it's interesting to bear in mind that not diagnosed is not the same as not being.

[Maria]

My older daughter has actually been diagnosed with autism as an adult, and I can easily see the signs in my son and my father.
But actually admitting that I am? Well, that's a little different.

I'm certainly not going attempt a diagnosis at my age. What would be the point?

Edit; and my younger daughter has an adult ADHD diagnosis.

[yovargas]

For whatever it's worth, I've always enjoyed hearing about your "weird" life.

[Maria]

Awwww!

[RoseMorninStar]

The autism spectrum covers a lot of territory, from very mild to severe. It's a big umbrella and too often it's affiliated with the severe end of the spectrum and the stigma that carries. There are many brilliant people who are, are thought to be, or likely were on the spectrum including Leonardo DaVinci, Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, Hans Christian Anderson, Tim Burton, Lewis Carroll, Charles Darwin, Sir Isaac Newton, Andy Warhol, Nikola Tesla, Steve Jobs, Thomas Jefferson, (the list goes on). Some of these people had a LOT of trouble in school. Traditional schooling. Thomas Edison was described by educators as “addled” and spent only a few months in school before being taken out and taught by his mother. Are/were some of these people just 'late bloomers' who needed extra time for their brains to mature? Perhaps they are wired to learn in a more non-traditional way.

I've known a fair number of people on the spectrum and it's interesting how differently some of them think. For example, I knew one young girl who was diagnosed with ADHD who was later found to be on the very mild end of the spectrum (diagnosed with PDD-NOS.. Pervasive Developmental Disorder, not otherwise specified-she did not have ADHD). And I've known some on the more typically severe end of the spectrum as well as those who have (high functioning) Asperger syndrome, some of whom are quite brilliant with incredible photographic memories (somewhat like Sheldon Cooper). One thing I found fascinating is how differently it presented itself in individuals; one of the boys I knew was on the severe end of the autism spectrum and also had serious intellectual disabilities, but he knew his schedule. He knew that he went bowling on Wednesdays. He noticed if his mother took a different route on the way to the bowling alley in spite of his serious intellectual disabillities. Contrast that with the young girl with PDD-NOS (who most people would never suspect had a developmental issue and, although delayed in school, did just fine in a regular classroom) but she never noticed if a different route was being taken or knew what her schedule was. It was an issue of obliviousness and what I call the inability to learn through 'osmosis' and having to be taught everything rather than learning by example/watching.

Maria, I'm not on the spectrum, but I find it easier to relate to others through personal experience too, both in reading/listening to others such as yourself and in relating my own point of view. That might be due to being a visual and tactile learner- listening is my poorest form of taking in information. 'Stories' I relate to make it easier for me to form a mental picture.

Frelga/River: traditional schools are for the round pegs which fit in the round holes. I was fortunate that when my daughter was going to school there were a lot of programs recognizing the different learning styles. Unfortunately much of the funding for that has been cut. I think in years past (pre-1960's) those who had trouble in traditional schools dropped out and many did well in apprenticeship/physical labor jobs. Perhaps mechanics, farming, factories, etc..

[Frelga]

Rose, it's a good point that many students who did not do well in the classroom used to have a much wider choice of well-paying trades that required physical effort rather than education.