"Historically, however, walking has been the privilege of white men." Come on...
Anyway, Nietzsche used to walk before writing like Darwin
Long time ago I read that walking or taking a shower make your thinking more effective because it somehow enables automation mode and allow to be more focused
This statement is a bit broad and thus debatable in overall accuracy, but it is based on something real. It is probably overly centered on the western and white-centric world, since being white or not doesn't even come into question in many other parts of the world. But in the US/Europe...
Women have been, for valid reasons and patriarchal overprotectiveness, been trained to feel vulnerable and exposed when walking outside. Always half-focused on who may be looking at them or tailing them, it takes away the mental freedom needed for perambulatory reflection.
Black men, brown men, immigrants, similarly, have over time faced a variety of hate crimes and false incarceration, that they must again often pay attention to their perceived "suspiciousness" factor, such as wandering around late at night with a hoodie on, or idly staring into a park where kids may be playing, lest they be mistaken for a latent criminal and get apprehended or worse.
So "walking has been the privilege of white men" is a bit of an extreme, but "justifiably walking thoughts free with impunity" is indeed the privilege of white men in the lands of white men.
>This statement is a bit broad and thus debatable in overall accuracy
the statement is very broad and as such laughable. Basically it implies history is something that has existed in the last few hundred years in the Americas.
It's ridiculous enough it could easily fit in a satirical skit.
>"justifiably walking thoughts free with impunity" is indeed the privilege of white men in the lands of white men
- maybe lose the 'thoughts' there
yes, I can agree that was what was meant and it is correct, it was just phrased so badly that it should prompt guffaws of laughter instead of nods of agreement.
What an extremely dumb statement. When you think this guy is an anthropologist...
> Jeremy DeSilva is an anthropologist at Dartmouth College. He is part of the research team that discovered and described two ancient members of the human family tree—Australopithecus sediba and Homo naledi.
> Long time ago I read that walking or taking a shower make your thinking more effective because it somehow enables automation mode and allow to be more focused
They mention it quite a lot in the "Learning how to learn" coursera course. They call it the "diffuse mode", by opposition with the "focused mode".
The course was quite interesting and easy to digest.
Poor walk to survive and work—often hungry, stressed or with a goal in mind. Goes without saying that this is different from strolling a private residence with the freedom to ruminate.
My words exactly, I even considered leaving a comment on the issue but decided to leave it to you I guess.
The author of this should've taken a walk before writing this, you've got to trudge half way through to finally get to the point, which is apparently "someone who walks to think walked to think on why we walk to think"
A great many of my female friends in [Asian country] basically expect to be harassed or asked to go to a "hotel" at least once when they're out and about.
It's easy to roll our eyes at statements like these but that just feels like adding on to the issue.
It is true, in the sense that white men were the class that was privileged enough to have the free time to walk and think. Not all, but those who did were predominantly white.
What's a bit disgusting is that yes the privileged nature of thinking is of course accurate, and all the time before the 19th century was very oppressive to the women and other groups, but that's not quite relevant to the story of walking being good for thought. It's like in the USSR where Physics textbooks had to be prefaced with quotes from Lenin and Marx just to check off the current political agenda checkmarks and allow the otherwise completely unrelated to politics text to get published.
I think the "come on" is justified because the article doesn't even expand on it. It brings up race out of nowhere and then trails off somewhere else. It just feels like a grab for woke points.
46 students put into 2 unfamiliar neighborhoods in the UK with various a level of affluence, and "surprisingly" people feel more positive about more affluent area. This says nothing about how residents feel or how different from their own neighborhoods they were for the students. Put me in an unfamiliar area and I'll prefer it to be affluent too, even when I was quite low on the socioeconomic ladder.
Geez... Go walk around Fuller Park and tell me you're comfortable. Ask residents of Fuller Park if they're comfortable strolling around and ruminating.
Did you post the correct study? This paper seems more about mental state than any race/gender type research. e.g.
"In particular, this study aimed to explore how the participants’ pre-existing levels of non-clinical depression, anxiety, persecutory feelings and personal resilience influence the in situ judgments they make about the contrasting urban environments."
Did you read any of the study? It's about the respective mental states of walking through good and bad neighborhoods.
Very poor reading comprehension from the posters in this thread.
"Forty-six student participants walked in groups through 2 urban neighbourhoods, separated by a park, in the North West of England, noting responses at pre-determined stops. Significant differences existed in participants’ sense of trust and threat between the 2 neighbourhoods along with differences in perceived resident wealth and sentiments expressed"
Or maybe, and this might sound outlandish, we are tired of the tendrils of this insidious beast infecting every single thing. Walking. Walking? Yes, walking. "Come on" is right.
Dramatic? Maybe. But definitely not an overstatement, and nowhere near as dramatic as ideas like all social dynamics are oppressor/oppressed social dynamics, or that for example black people cannot walk around and therefore white people have privilege to walk around and therefore think and reason.
I don't mind mention of a racial past, as long as it is actually applicable. Want to talk about slavery in the Americas? Jim Crow and segregation? European colonialism? The Maori genocide on the Moriori people? Sure, we can talk about it. But Walking? Yes, walking apparently. An attempt to cram racism into every facet of life, even where it didn't exist and doesn't belong, is absolutely 100% and evil monster seeking to pervade all culture.
Anyway, Nietzsche used to walk before writing like Darwin
Long time ago I read that walking or taking a shower make your thinking more effective because it somehow enables automation mode and allow to be more focused