
Moving for good - dhruvkar
https://sivers.org/mfg
======
ianai
There are jarring contrasts that go too far. You very well could wind up
socially scorned and unwelcome in many places. So you’ve moved away from
everyone you know and the people near you inherently don’t welcome you. Sounds
like a recipe for disaster.

Do your homework - visit a place on extended vacation first. Do yourself the
favor of being open to vast differences as well. I’ve met people who just
discard where I live is the way it is as out of date or backwards, etc,
instead of dignifying the culture and history that proceeded them. We’re
talking people who grew up one state away.

~~~
freeloop10
> You very well could wind up socially scorned and unwelcome in many places.

This is not true. Maybe you could argue a few places are like this, but not
many. For the most part, from personal experience, especially if you are a
Westener, you will be welcome throughout the world.

~~~
ianai
Hence the suggestion to vacation before making a move...

~~~
freeloop10
What I'm saying is that in my opinion, this worry you have is overblown.

------
quantumofmalice
This may be reasonable advice for extreme extroverts, but many humans value
stability and predictability over new experience, particularly when forming
families.

The majority of lifestyle-oriented media is produced with an extrovert bias
and we tend to define happiness in extrovert terms, but for those of us
inclined towards introversion much of this advice would make us miserable.

------
betocmn
Brilliant! I've lived and worked in five countries, and I can recognise the
impact this had on my personal and professional life.

------
nickthemagicman
My issue is that I'm curious with my professional life. So traveling and
dealing with the hassles of that took time away from my professional life.

------
notdonspaulding
(Disclosure: this comment is more critical than I really mean it to be, but
it's late and I'm too lazy to edit it into a more docile tone. I thought the
article was interesting but simply wanted to raise the counterargument)

I've seen both sides of this, and this article paints with a broad brush
without really considering any of the benefits of living in one place for an
extended period of time. It's fine as far as opinions go, but if you're
looking for life advice, I'd suggest taking it with a grain of salt.

My parents' families both moved around when they were kids, and so my family
moved around when I was a kid. I married a farm girl who hasn't ever lived
more than 5 miles from home, and we built a "forever home" on her family's
land. Since being here, I've realized that the kind of urban living that is
completely disconnected from any particular location comes at a cost. Namely,
there are things which you can ONLY learn when you've _stayed in one place for
an extended period of time_. Derek's article almost alludes to this...

    
    
        Form deep friendships with locals. Ask lots of 
        questions. Ask them to explain things, and show you how 
        it’s done. When they state a fact, ask how they know. 
        When they state an opinion, ask for examples.
    

I'm not sure how one could "Form deep friendships" without staying in one
place for a significant period of time. Maybe we just disagree on what makes
for a "deep friendship", but it almost certainly wouldn't happen if you keep
moving on a regular basis.

    
    
        At first, their values and methods will feel wrong. 
        You’ll feel the urge to tell them how it could be 
        better. (Meaning: more like what you know.) But try to 
        understand a perspective where they are right, and you 
        are wrong. Eventually you’ll realize that your beliefs 
        were not correct — they were just the quaint local 
        culture of where you grew up. You are a product of your 
        environment.
    

The uncharitable reading of this statement indicates the author is a moral
relativist, which is a wrongheaded and pointless belief to hold. Is the author
really arguing for respecting the beliefs of a "local culture" which
disapproves of interracial marriage, for instance?

Unfortunately, the more charitable reading is that he's not talking about
"beliefs" so much as "cultural norms". That is, why do the Latin American
countries take a siesta during the day? Or why do European countries drink so
much tea? Or why does an Indian woman's sari reveal more skin than a
traditional western woman's blouse? I say this reading is unfortunate because
though it may be more correct, it's a much less interesting statement.

Of course cultural differences exist. Such differences must be fascinating for
cultural anthropologists. And they are even interesting to curious tourists.
But where did the "locals" get their cultural norms from? Was it from moving
around every few years to a new place? Or was it from staying in one place,
and having their ideas shaped by the land around them and their ancestral
heritage?

The "fish don't know they're in water" metaphor is apt. Similarly, _relocated_
fish may detect a difference in the water, but are unlikely to notice that
even in their new environment, the "local" fish still eat plankton, and swim
by moving their fins, and lay eggs to reproduce, just like the fish did in
their old environment.

My overall point is this: don't dismiss your own culture as being somehow less
significant simply because you didn't choose to be born into it.

------
csense
This advice is good only for certain kinds of people. It's not for me.

