a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by user-inactivated
user-inactivated  ·  4000 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Reading The News Is Bad For You (Not Reading Will Make You Happier)

Let's see. It depends what you mean by "in control." Obviously not directly. But ... who do I know to vote for at all levels of government if I don't follow US politics? How do I know what to do with my money if I don't follow world finance? How do I know where to vacation and where not to vacation if I don't follow world news? Those are fundamental questions (and yes, you might respond that I could just "ask an expert" -- but come on). To go further -- how do I avoid looking like an idiot if someone wants to talk about the recession, Chechnya, the currency debates... How can I have any opinions at all without shame if I don't know what I'm talking about? It's human nature to have opinions on things; most of our opinions are frankly pretty stupid because we don't pay attention to the world around us. (I know you're playing devil's advocate, but to the thread at large: I can't even believe I'm having to argue for being informed over being not informed.)

In the late 19th century, a bunch of northeastern farmers started a legitimate political movement, the Populist, because they were informed about what the gold standard, debt and inflation would do to their livelihoods. It led directly to one of the most famous debates of all time. They were farmers in the 1890s. They probably got news from the big cities once a week. They probably owned a Bible, an almanac and not a damn thing else. But because they cared about the politics of their country, they were able to contribute to it. There lies my biggest problem with this article; putting aside whether I can influence the news or not -- what I know is that if I am not aware of it, I definitely can't influence it. Saying goodbye to being informed is saying goodbye to activism and making an impact. (And yes, hell yes I can shape the events that happen. I can write my congressman, I can donate to organizations that I only know about because I spend time learning about such things. I can go to rallies, and when they start axing educational programs and firing teachers in the state of Texas, I can help reverse the trend. Or I can sit under a rock and one day when I get to first period the door will be locked and I won't have a Latin class anymore.)

The history of the present is applicable history. Why does anyone study history? To learn. To be entertained. To understand the impacts of the names and places we've heard all our lives. Why do I read what we should no longer be calling the news in this discussion but rather "the state of the world" or something? To learn, to be entertained, and to understand ... as events are unfolding. That's a thousand times more interesting than reading about the 1450s, and I already find that pretty damn interesting.





swearitwasntme  ·  4000 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    who do I know to vote for at all levels of government if I don't follow US politics? How do I know what to do with my money if I don't follow world finance? How do I know where to vacation and where not to vacation if I don't follow world news? Those are fundamental questions (and yes, you might respond that I could just "ask an expert" -- but come on).

A more fundamental question is what really constitutes knowledge. Haven't you ever found yourself talking to someone and quoting a news article only to find that they've got personal experience that invalidates it? Following US politics doesn't tell you much about which campaign promises will turn out to be lies, world news won't tell you how not to get mugged in your own town, and hell, the best financial forecasting in the world is still pretty close to 50/50. I believe this to be the fundamental reason why reading the news is sometimes bad for you: it can lead to a false sense of certainty about the world and then distress when that illusion is shattered.

Even an understanding of the world that comes from direct experience is sort of a statistical inference that assumes that past behavior accurately represents what will happen in the future. Trusting other peoples' interpretations of interpretations of dispatches of firsthand accounts from across the world is just an aggregation and layering of somebody else's inferences. And on that topic:

    Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful - George E. P. Box

Life is easier with fewer expectations that you know exactly how things are going to play out.

user-inactivated  ·  4000 days ago  ·  link  ·  

As to that, I agree in general, but would counter that it completely depends what you read. Photoessays from journalists on the scene in Syria are news. Articles on the state of the bitcoin from experts are news. Hard not to benefit from knowledge if you know what you're doing.

I follow US politics for many reasons, not least of which is that it makes election night very interesting when it otherwise would be confusing and pointless. But I would say that yes, having a general knowledge of politics does tell you what's going to be a lie in some cases -- various politicians have been promising to hit a budget surplus consistently for years now, and none of them have done it for very long ... now Paul Ryan wants to. Should I believe him? Nope.

World news indeed will not tell me how not to get mugged in my own town. (I'm honestly not sure why I should expect it to?) Common sense will probably help me out there, though.

The best financial forecasting in the world isn't really 50/50, either. There are plenty of ways to safely invest money longterm for a guaranteed small return -- but only not having your head in the sand and knowing a bit about economics would have told you not to invest in real estate in 2007.

    I believe this to be the fundamental reason why reading the news is sometimes bad for you: it can lead to a false sense of certainty about the world and then distress when that illusion is shattered.

This is utterly and completely a personal problem (not your personal problem; a common problem that people have when attempting to separate fact and opinion). Bad proofs can lead to a false sense of certainty about math, but we don't swear off math as a result, usually.