🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jan11.134820.3894@llustig.palo-alto.ca.us> oleg@llustig.palo-alto.ca.us (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>In article <1992Jan10.213352.29751@amd.com> jmw@brahms.amd.com (Mike Wincn) writes:
>>The answer might provide a better reference for culturally defined normalcy.  
>
>Now that I looked at what I wrote again, seems that it applies to just about
>all urban, industrialized societies.  From that I have to conclude that
>most people who live in modern cities are insane...  Somehow, I do not find
>this conclusion all too unlikely.

Without better support for your references I can't see how the title
fits, further, I think that you need to define 'sanity'.  I can't claim that 
I have met 'all' or perhaps not even 'many' urbanites, but those that
I have met I would characterize as better able to *cope* rather than
insane.  (You might then argue that a constant need to cope leads to less-
than-sane behaviour that becomes ingrained over time.)  From what I have 
seen the old stereotype holds true:  a 'city' kid will (perhaps grudingly) 
adapt better to sub-sub-urban life more easily than the 'country' kid will 
adapt to the city, and you have to wonder whether city dwellers are so
insane afterall.  Note here that we are not talking about the pathologic 
cases - you made a blanket statement regarding sanity.   

To the extent that my observations are generally accurate, which is preferred? 
Is it an ability to cope with a kind of environment that moves inexorably 
towards tighter confines, choking pollution, and a lower quality tension-
filled daily existence, or a mind that pines for country fields just prior
to getting run over by a trolley whilst lost and looking in the wrong 
direction?    

While you are at it, how could you impose your own definition of sanity on
any group of people without intimate knowledge of their lives and their
way of thinking?  
--
John M. Wincn 	jmw@brahms.amd.com  		"Do AZ. I do."  
(408) 749-3156  DISCLAIMER:  I speak for myself unless noted otherwise.