[senttoschool]

  City kids have friends, play outside and go visit friends.

Yes, and city kids also eat, poop, and talk. :)

I think it's the degree that matters.

  This is simply not true. If you look at social issues like alcoholism, drug use, suicides or domestic violence ... villages have plenty of those.

Degree matters here too.

[watwut]

> I think it's the degree that matters.

City kids do not have less friends then rural kids. They do not socialize less. And if their super local turns up mistreating them, they have actual option to go elsewhere.

> Degree matters here too.

Yes. Small villages have more of these. The rural culture of alcoholism and domestic violence acceptance is both something very real and traditional. What are we talking about here, seriously. You frequently had to drink with others, else you was an outsider. And if family situation turned out bad, you have literally no where to go. (It is not like it would be easy in the city. But you have to from village to city to maybe get help.)

[troupo]

>> City kids have friends, play outside and go visit friends.

> Yes, and city kids also eat, poop, and talk. :)

> I think it's the degree that matters.

The degree is easy to measure. What happens on a cold winter night or generally on a day with bad weather when "play outside" and "visit friends on foot" is out of the question?

City kids can still visit friends (because they are not beholden to adults with cars) and can chose about a billion different activities (because, once again, they are not beholden to adults with cars).

Even socially city kids have a greater degree of freedom because they are not stuck with the same group of people for all eternity. A friend's kid has a more varied social life with his basketball friends than with people from his school, for example. And half of the time we don't even know where he is at any given moment because, once again, he does not depend on having an adult to drive him everywhere for any activity that is not "playing outside".