"It's not the place, its the person"? (Iran, Iraq, independent)

[bchris02]

What does everybody think about the old saying for people who aren't happy with where they live; "it's not the place, its the person"?

I think there is a slight bit of truth to it in that if you are unhappy somewhere, its very easy to focus on the negative and ignore the positives of even an undesirable place, making it all that much more miserable. However, I think its mostly false in that some places aren't going to be a good fit for everyone and some places can be such a poor fit that happiness seems to be impossible to find. Thoughts?

[Nanny Goat]

I don't believe you can be content anywhere. Iran, Iraq, a favela in Brazil? Contentment? Or, closer to home, a city person living in a small rural cow town, a rural body living in NYC? On and on--no, certain places fit better than others. We're all unique and need different things to feel satisfied and fulfilled. Surviving, yes, but truly living--only in the right place. Maybe an enlightened Buddha or the Dali Lama, but not for most of us.

[AQUEMINI331]

There is some truth to this (i.e. some people, because of their negative attitude, will be unhappy anywhere). But for people who generally aren't neurotics who complain about everything, this just isn't true. An atheist will not be happy in Mississippi or Arkansas. An evangelical will not enjoy living in San Francisco.

Some people orient their entire lives around a large body of water (i.e. an ocean). I never thought about this since I grew up in a mountainous town five hours from the ocean. But for people like that, they could never live in a non-coastal city. Likewise, some people may simply be more content living around mountains as opposed to flat land. Whatever the case may be, all places cannot be all things to all people.

In my own personal experience, I realized by the time I finished college that I was wayyyyyyyyyyyy too liberal to live in a super red state, so I moved. Not saying life is perfect here, but it's much better than it was before. I get along with people better. I fit in, as opposed to feeling like an outcast back home. You can't fit square pegs into round holes, and some places are just the wrong shape and/or size for some people.

[Minervah]

I actually think both are true. Sometimes it can be the person and somtimes it can be the place.

There is a saying "Bloom where you're planted." I agree with this to a large extent. If a person comes to a place solely on the belief that place is of a certain type or has a certain type of population especially when that opinion has been derived from the Media, word of mouth or anything other than personal observation, it's the person. That person will never bloom and that is not the fault of the place.

I see this time and time again in my city of Portland OR. People come here expecting one thing and find something entirely different. Usually it is because they put too much belief in what they hear from others who have never been here but freely give information and advicde about living here through secondhand knowlege via the Internet or the Media. In these situations, it is not the place that is the fault, it is the person who did not reseach for themselves either by making a long visit and talking to people who actually live here.

In a situation where it can be the place, it is possible for a place to change over the years and no longer be the right place for someone. Again, Portland was the place for me when I moved here 35 years ago. Today I don't feel it is any longer and I will eventually be moving on. But that's the good thing, we can move on.

So my answer to the question is that is can be both the person and the place depending upon the circumstances.

[ohio_peasant]

In those matters were we can thrive as independent individuals, the place matters comparatively little. In those matters where we explicitly depend on others, the place can matter substantially. For instance, if you're a Christian trying to find a Christian person to marry, and you live in a predominantly Muslim country, this can be tough. Likewise, if you are an atheist living in a predominantly Christian country, and are looking for another atheist to marry, it's a tough undertaking. But one can practice one's faith (or non-faith) privately, regardless of societal expectations. Of course, there are extremes. Taking again the example of religion, in some places professing an unpopular religion (or lack of religion) can get you killed. That probably depends more on the place than on the person!

[boxus]

There are some places that just suck, has nothing to do with the person.

I have heard this "it is not the place, it is the person" nonsense before. Sure, then go to the extreme and live in Somalia and see just how happy you will be there.

To be much less extreme, there are some places that are just not a fit. The unhappiness comes in that the culture and entertainment options are not what you prefer, and to make the situation even more unhappy, you know there are plenty of places that you would be just fine in, but are stuck in a miserable place for whatever reason.

I was living in the deep South and hated every second of it, thank goodness for vacations. I finally got out of there to Miami where life is great now.

[DR2012]

Being military affiliated, we always said you have to make the best of it, and if you didn't like where you were or where you were stationed, it was often the person's negative attitude. A lot of people who complained just weren't open to new cultures or experiences and only wanted to stay home where they grew up. They seemed narrow-minded.

However, we wound up somewhere I just couldn't find happiness. I can usually adapt anywhere I end up, but this place was somewhere we really weren't supposed to be in the first place; it was a huge disappointment to find out we were going; not only going, but forced to stay for an extended amount of time - double the usual amount of time. I tried so hard to make it a home, to fit in, to find something I love there. I tried to make friends, find a job, everything. The climate and terrain forced me to even give up my hobbies (skiing, snowboarding, mountain biking, sports, the arts, and hiking). I was extremely depressed there, and it was so bad for us it led to my spouse prematurely ending the military career.

I think in many situations, it could be the person - but not all of them. I don't think it's so black and white. I knew plenty of people who couldn't adapt, but they didn't really want to, they only wanted to be surrounded by what they knew growing up or what they wanted. They weren't open to other things. But, even if you are open to new things, I don't think that means you can easily adapt and be happy ANYWHERE no problem.

I think most people would have a few places in the world they would not thrive in so well. Like the previous poster that said Somalia - definitely, but I think everyone in the US would at least have one state they would not feel so happy in, and that doesn't mean it's their fault. Now, if they could only feel happy in one or two states, and hate the other 48 maybe without hardly trying, then that's probably more the person.

[Donna-501]

I think it is a little of both. Every place that I have moved, I have enjoyed the experience. Yes, there may be a few issues but overall been happy.

I have known people that aren't happy any where but they can't figure out it is because they bring themselves with them on each move. They look for the negative and of course they find it.

[LauraC]

Poor fits as it relates to moving is the result of incomple or poor research and that includes the visit. There are usually untolerable (to the person) conditions where they currently live so when they research where to move to, they place too much emphasis on the absence of the untolerable condition(s) and not enough emphasis on whether the new place has the things they like in the abundance, variety and quality they are accustomed to having.

For example, the place they live in now has a high cost of living, too much traffic, too much snow and a lot of rude people so they look for a place that's cheap, has less traffic, has friendly people and one that gets little to zero snow. But, they forget they enjoy some things they take for granted for example, singing in the church choir, eating Indian food, going to garage sales, bowling in a league, reading the Sunday newspaper. They get to the new place and at first the absence of the intolerable conditions is great but after a few months they miss the things they like because although the new place might have them they don't have them in the variety, quality or abundance that they are used to having.

You know people like that. They come on forums and complain that the new place doesn't have this or that and would be a whole lot better if it did. These are people that forget they are supposed to fit in, not have the new town accommodate them. They did poor pre-moving research (including the pre-move visit when they probably visited like a tourist instead of a future resident).

[Natural510]

My wife is kind of like that; when she came to the U.S. she first lived in Brooklyn, and complained about the dirtiness, the stress, the rude people. Then she moved out to the Bay Area, and complained it was boring and she couldn't make friends. Then she moved to Ohio and complained it was even more boring than the Bay Area, and while people were friendlier, she wasn't interested in making friends over here. And constantly talks about moving back to California or New York, where of course everything will be better and she'll be completely happy. Yeah right!
On the other hand, you have myself who tries to look for the good where I live, but in the end do not want to live the rest of my life in a place I'm not truly happy. I like to think, like others stated, it's a healthy mixture of both.