The post title, from the last sentence in the end note of the Milgram reading, lends startling gravity. Were "geniuses" really consulted to pursue the line of research described? Why?
It seems that psychological mapping is something intuitive or natural, and less about psychoanalysis. With conclusions similar to Lynch's resarch in Boston, Milgram clearly presents the difference between individual perception, collective recognition, and official representation. I would like to see more comparative study of psychological maps against tech-based representations, and relative reality conveyed by each.
What are Berkeley's "places of beauty"?