Debate: That "slow travel" advice I got in Chiang Mai vs. what actually happened

So back in Chiang Mai last year, this older digital nomad at a coffee shop told me I needed to slow down... stay in one spot for at least 3 months to really get the experience. He said hopping around every 2 weeks like I was doing was just tourist mode, not nomad life. I argued with him pretty hard, said I wanted to see as much as possible. Fast forward to now, I spent 6 weeks in Lisbon then 3 weeks in Medellin and honestly, I feel burnt out. I barely made real friends or found a rhythm with work. But then I think about the amazing weekend trips I did and all the variety... it wasn't all bad. So I'm stuck wondering if he was right or if his version is just too boring for people like me. Has anyone else tried both long stays and fast moves and figured out which one actually helps your work and your headspace?

2 comments

2 Comments

xenam8412d ago

That older guy wasn't totally wrong, but his version of slow travel sounds like a privilege not everyone can swing. For me, three months in one spot would drive me nuts, I need new streets to wander to keep my head straight while working. You tried both ends of the spectrum and got burned out on the long stays, so maybe a middle ground like a month in each place could give you real connection without the boredom. Weekend trips and variety matter too, there is no right answer here, just what keeps you from hating your life.

the_robin12d ago

Wait, is that actually a better way to think about it? I used to think slow travel was the only real way to see a place, but you're right that it can get boring and feel like a luxury most people cant afford. A month in each spot sounds like a good sweet spot where you can still get to know a neighborhood but not feel stuck.