Miscellaneous desk
< August 3	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 4

People who don't like to travel

Hi,

I've always wanted to travel and I did it a lot as soon as I had money for it. I've been living abroad for 7 years. I've lived many amazing things and I have plenty of pictures and stories to tell but nobody in my family never got interested in it. It's been a big frustration for so many years and I'm about to lose contact with them cause we have nothing to talk about. They are from France and they would spend 2000 euros to go in the south of France every single year instead of going to Asia or to the US or to visit me in south east Asia. So time and money is not the issue. Why are some people so closed minded about the rest of the world? Should I try to motivate them to travel or should I give up? Please share your experience if you have some related to this topic. Thank you very much. 122.53.58.54 (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Travel aversion reads more like an essay than an article, but it might suggest some insights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am one who doesn't care to travel. I have traveled a fair amount for work, at least in the US and Canada, but don't enjoy it. Let me list some reasons:

1) I absolutely hate air travel. From the illogical pricing, long lines and invasion of privacy at security, the bus I have to take to get from the parking lot to the terminal (the bus driver actually parked the bus to go eat dinner once), the unbearable heat in the plane when parked on the tarmac, having to sit uncomfortably close to a stranger or 2 in a seat that's way too small with way too little foot room, to having to risk them losing my luggage if I check it or having to pack unreasonably light to avoid it and jam my possessions into an overhead bin or under the seat. I am subject to DVTs, too.

2) I don't care for hotels. They are unsanitary (rarely clean the comforters, etc.) and lack privacy with the housekeepers coming in to clean. Theft is also possible.

3) I don't like unfamiliar places where I can get lost.

4) As I've mentioned earlier, I don't like strangers.

5) I don't like long lines at tourist attractions.

6) Once I arrive at a sight worth seeing, like the Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls, or Pike's Peak, I am unimpressed. It just looks like the pics I've seen. Others mention that there is something magical about actually being there, but I just don't get it. Full colors pics at a sufficient resolution do just fine for me.

7) I don't like trying to communicate with people who don't speak English.

8) As a tourist, I am more likely to be robbed, kidnapped for ransom, targeted by terrorists, etc.

So, when I do take a vacation, I travel to visit relatives nearby. I know the route, there are no strangers involved, I can take a car that won't cause me cramps, there are no lines, etc. I seem to be a bit on the autism spectrum, so some of my reluctance to travel may be due to that. StuRat (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's even more basic: To you (and probably to many others) the annoyances outweigh the benefits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people simply don't like being out of their comfort zone, for many of the reasons StuRat mentioned. Not much you can do to change that, it's largely just personally. For example, I'm the exact opposite, and many of the reasons StuRat listed to not travel are in fact appealing to me (meeting strangers, unfamiliar places, trying to communicate across languages, etc). Trust me, you never complain about hotels again if you've spent weeks camping through East Africa with strangers .... For me, almost any annoyance is outweighed by experiences like that. I have noticed that it also seems to vary from country to country. People from the US seem to be more reluctant to travel, particularly more adventurous travel, than those from European countries for instance. All OR, or course. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest hesitation I have had when traveling is that I do not want to go to a foreign country, and automatically receive the perception that I am a Westerner tourist, and therefore must be dumb, naive, racist, or ignorant to the culture. I try to do a lot of research on the place I am traveling to before going. Sometimes there's not a whole lot that I can do, though.--WaltCip (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with StuRat (talk · contribs). For me, the disadvantages of going to a different country (or even a new part of my own country) are that everything is unfamiliar, confusing and possibly threatening. Advantages - none. Zilch. Not a one. I don't see that as closed minded - I am very happy to listen to other people's amazing (and, often, terrifying) travel stories. Just don't expect me to join you ! Gandalf61 (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the attitude that "anyone with different preferences than my own is close-minded" is itself close-minded. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And of course we have an article, Travel aversion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may have posted that link earlier. Traveling in America underscores the importance of franchise businesses. Most anywhere you are, you can find a brand-name hotel or fast-food joint or department store to fall back on, to help mitigate the unfamiliarity of a place. Someone commented on national parks looking like the pictures. The way around that is to do something that is less often photographed, and can put you much closer to what you're seeing from afar in the postcard view. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually two different issues involved: one concerns the actual travel, and the other being in an unfamiliar place. They are not necessarily linked. I would love to be in Australia, or Japan, or China - but I would no appreciate the travel involved in getting to those places (from the UK) Wymspen (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better to travel to visit someone you know who lives there and has space to put you up. That eliminates the hotel issue. Getting there, of course, can still be a major pain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may contain some reliable sources. --Jayron 32 15:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no sources, but it seems there is an evo-psych reason for some people's aversion to travel. this is because for like 99.9% of human history, venturing outside your village was a sure way to get killed (men) or raped (women.) I also predict that women enjoy non-business (or war) related travel (aka vacationing) more than men. Asmrulz (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also, the opening-up of air travel to the lower classes. Asmrulz (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the security theatre, too Asmrulz (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also known that a particular form of travel, - namely, hiking, camping, mountaineering etc, is largely a White thing. I don't know why that should be so (and there have been some BS explanations put forward), but I can confirm from personal experience that it is. Asmrulz (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then your personal experience is pretty limited, it doesn't sound like you've been hiking in any affluent country with a large Asian population. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's limited alright, but the difference is I can substantiate my bs when asked. This here puts Asian hikers at 3.2%, which is way fewer than the Asians' share of the population, and Whites at 86.3%, which is more. The personal experience I referred to is that I know more outdoorsy Slavs than outdoorsy Joos and I myself never understood what the point of hiking was. Asmrulz (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jews (it appears you don't have to say "Joos") are not considered Asian in the US just because Israel's in Asia (neither are Russians from Siberia). And in the US Asians (Jews too) disproportionately live in the places furthest from nature (big cities) so it's no surprise that Asians hike slightly less than their share of the population. Asians were 4% of the population the last time I checked. A random African-American is more likely to be poor or not have a car, Northern African-Americans often live in cities and people that live close to nature are whiter than average so it'd be expected that white people hike out of proportion to their numbers. I don't know where the Slavs you know live but I believe the most Russian-American part of the US by percentage is around North Dakota/Montana/Idaho (Alaska too?) so.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Sagittarian Milky Way. And Asmrulz, if your stereotypes based on race held true all the many hiking trails in Japan would be mostly empty. They are not. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our Demographics of Asian Americans suggests 5.6%. However it's still not way fewer. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW [1] is interesting. While it doesn't separate by race or ethnicity, it does by overseas market. China and Japan were both markets with fairly low rates of people who weren't interested in tramping in NZ, similar rates to US. Both the UK and Australia had significantly higher percentages of people who weren't interested. China and Japan did however have fairly low rates of actual participation (lower than UK or US), although still higher than Australia. (The closeness of Australia combined with the fact it's likely quite a few of the visitors were probably simply visiting family or friends or needing to spend their money so they don't contribute to the Australian economy despite working and living there most of the time probably didn't help.) Germany is in a world of their own. South Korea was the only Asian country of the three listed that comes close to fitting the claim of not being into tramping, but even for them, there was still more people who were interested in it (or did it) then who weren't. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make sure I understand you, Stu, You are coward and a pussy. You are a bigot, or chauvinist. You're simply lazy. Did I miss some other point? My biggest complaint with travel is the foreign gits all try to speak english atcha! Bastrards! μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unacceptable attack on an editor just trying to honestly answer a Q. Coward ? If I don't feel the need to risk my life by going to foreign tourist attractions that are frequently targeted by terrorists, that's my business, not yours. Bigot ? Most people choose to associate with people like themselves. Trying to ban those different from yourself from moving into your neighborhood is a bad thing, but choosing not to go to theirs is anybody's right. As for being lazy, who decided that a vacation should be hard work ? If I choose not to use my vacation to struggle to learn a new language, that's also my business, not yours. And speaking of intolerance, you seem amazingly intolerant of anyone whose preferences differ from your own. Not I. Those who choose to go to places where it's hot and humid and nobody wears deodorant are welcome to do so. StuRat (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - as Marchetti's constant says - "Even since Neolithic times, people have kept the time at which they travel per day the same, even though the distance may increase." So technology & money (access to tech) probably explain all the variation between groups of peoples through time; within groups the proportions of wanderlust & homebodies are likely stable too.John Z (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that people have different interests and preferences. This sounds like more of a problem for the OP than for his or her family. If the family are not interested in talking about travel, are there really no other possible topics of discussion? I would drop the travel topic, at least for a while, since further proselytizing in the immedIate future is likely to lead only to further resistance. John M Baker (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought of a couple more reasons:

9) Bad for the environment, since lots of fossil fuels must be burnt to get me to the other side of the world. If VR progresses to the pt where I can pilot a robot down the streets of Beijing, then I might like to give that method of tourism a try.

10) Tourism is a net negative for the world economy. It's a positive for nations that receive lots of tourists, and a negative for those nations that send them. Add to this the inefficiency of the process, considering the wasted fossil fuels, etc., needed to make it all happen. If the goal is to send money to poor nations, then foreign aid and charity may be more efficient ways. StuRat (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you send money to a poor nation, how do you know who will pocket it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whom you send it to. Many poor nations have notoriously corrupt governments, so giving it to the government is like flushing it down the toilet. On the other hand, if it's used to do something that benefits the poor and can't easily be stolen be the government, like digging wells in poor areas, the poor should benefit. StuRat (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Countries that need foreign aid for digging wells in poor areas generally don't have tourism to speak of. Anyway, tourism, even if it didn't contribute anything useful, does a far better job of "trickling down" income to poor workers than any kind of foreign aid, which no country would ever send in such amounts as to match the money moved by tourists (you don't want to even risk making a beggar richer than yourself). And tourism does benefit people on both sides of the transaction: the tourists get an enjoyable experience, while the hospitality workers get money to live on and can pride themselves on doing good deeds for their family and their country. Few cultures, if any, pride themselves on receiving aid. 78.0.218.174 (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how effective tourism is at helping the locals. For example, the hotel you stay at is likely to be owned by rich people who pay the staff as little as possible, which may be just enough to keep them from starving. Same for any restaurant where you might want to dine (unless you feel safe eating food from street vendors). Trinidad and Tobago even seems to go so far as to keep most of the poor people on Tobago, so they won't come into contact with the tourists in Trinidad. StuRat (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To underscore the robbery aspect, I had my vehicle broken into twice, both while travelling. I've spent less than 1% of my life travelling, so that's clearly a pattern. Of course, thieves know cars with out-of-state license plates are likely to contain valuables, and know that the police won't bother to investigate, since the victims aren't voters and will be gone before anything can be done, and likely won't return to identify belongings or testify. StuRat (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've traveled a fair amount, and the only time my vehicle was broken into was in my home city. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which US states do not have a "Single-subject rule"?

Our article "Single-subject rule" says that 41 US states have single-state rules - but doesn't list them (or, more briefly, list the ones that don't have this). A quick Google didn't provide a list either. Help! SteveBaker (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There might be 41 different ways to say it, and 41 different Google sources to look for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This[2] purports to be a list of states which have the single-subject rule. There are 15 of them, so the numbers don't add up. But that might help narrow your search. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 3 in our article lists 15 states that have a single-subject rule for initiatives, and it states that 41 have a single-subject rule for legislative bills. At the end of that reference there is a link to a person you could contact for more info (if it's not out-of-date).Loraof (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I saw the short lists of 15 states that have the rule for public initiatives. I was mostly interested in it for legislative language. There is currently an effort to get a similar rule added into the US constitution - but for that to happen, there has to be near-unanimity between the states. I was interested to discover which states might object if such a question were seriously raised. To me it sounds like a good idea, with no downsides - it's hard to find arguments why it wouldn't be a good idea - and again, finding places that don't have it might provide some insight. SteveBaker (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]