Does Mainstream Media and What Seems like Major Online Opinion Drive You Bonkers?
05-26-2018, 12:27 AM
I've thoroughly enjoyed some of the suggestions on this thread. Cheers, everyone. Thanks for the reading and viewing suggestions.
Related to the original post:
I agree with Taleb (from Antifragile and The Bed of Procrustes) that a book (or any media really) will be around and relevant in proportion to how long it has been around and relevant. I think the example he uses is The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama. I am just old enough to remember when this book came out. Everyone was lauding it as near gospel. Now, many of Fukuyama's predictions seem ridiculous. I will add my own note that I do think some exceptions exist. In general, I believe reading actual books to trump reading short-form "journalism" or "commentary" any day.
A good read, that I'm sure has been posted before, is Rolf Dobelli's paper on this.
Many years ago, I read something by Tim Ferris about how he manages to stay informed of current events. He does not read the paper or watch the news. He simply asks people if they have seen or heard anything interesting. I employ this technique and I have found it has multiple benefits. First, most of the "news" on the "news" is not actual news. Without the immediate music and the chyron and panicked newsreader, most stories sound exceptionally boring. Having them repeated by a friend or family member will illustrate the monotony and uselessness of most of the MSM nonsense. Second, if anything major happens (stock crashes, wars, death of whoever), you will hear about it only minutes after news junkies. Finally, filtering your news through other people outsources your brain power (that could be used elsewhere) while, simultaneously, allowing you to develop and maintain more social contacts. It is a win for you, no matter how you look at it.
Related to the original post:
I agree with Taleb (from Antifragile and The Bed of Procrustes) that a book (or any media really) will be around and relevant in proportion to how long it has been around and relevant. I think the example he uses is The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama. I am just old enough to remember when this book came out. Everyone was lauding it as near gospel. Now, many of Fukuyama's predictions seem ridiculous. I will add my own note that I do think some exceptions exist. In general, I believe reading actual books to trump reading short-form "journalism" or "commentary" any day.
A good read, that I'm sure has been posted before, is Rolf Dobelli's paper on this.
Many years ago, I read something by Tim Ferris about how he manages to stay informed of current events. He does not read the paper or watch the news. He simply asks people if they have seen or heard anything interesting. I employ this technique and I have found it has multiple benefits. First, most of the "news" on the "news" is not actual news. Without the immediate music and the chyron and panicked newsreader, most stories sound exceptionally boring. Having them repeated by a friend or family member will illustrate the monotony and uselessness of most of the MSM nonsense. Second, if anything major happens (stock crashes, wars, death of whoever), you will hear about it only minutes after news junkies. Finally, filtering your news through other people outsources your brain power (that could be used elsewhere) while, simultaneously, allowing you to develop and maintain more social contacts. It is a win for you, no matter how you look at it.
Currently out of office.