8 ms·

I find that my personal happiness is a lot higher if I don't watch the news. I tend to be a rather analytical person who obsesses over ideas, and I find that r

I find that my personal happiness is a lot higher if I don't watch the news. I tend to be a rather analytical person who obsesses over ideas, and I find that ruminating over news or politics drains my energy. Thinking about math or science for a few hours energizes me, but doing the same for social issues wears me out. Part of the problem is that I feel most people underestimate the enormous complexity of social issues. There's so many variables and so many different types of interactions that my opinion on a lot of issues is "I don't have enough information" or "it's too complex for me to pick a side". A lot of people get upset if you say this to them though, and then they attempt to persuade you otherwise using some well-known argument that I've already researched in depth and found to be largely inconclusive. It's easier just to abstain from these conversations. I don't think the average person actually likes exploring topics in extreme depth to figure out "the truth"; the surface level conversation is much more interesting to them. How many people have actually looked at the original studies on climate change themselves? I have a hard time imagining how anyone who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global warming. Strong opinions based on weak data seems to be the prevailing theme lately, but perhaps that's just my perception.

yaseer 10y ago
"Thinking about math or science for a few hours energizes me, but doing the same for social issues wears me out." I feel exactly the same way. I can't tell if this is an introvert trait, or whether it arises from the kind of problem your mind is attuned to solving (perhaps both). Reading social news makes me pessimistic for the future, and feel more withdrawn from the world. Reading about mathematics or science excites me, makes me more optimistic for the future, and makes me want to engage with as much as possible.
- innocentoldguy 10y ago
  I would guess it is an introvert trait. I believe introverts are emotionally drained by activities that involve other people, and are energized by activities that don't.
arglebarnacle 10y ago
You're not wrong that politics is enormously complex, but I think you are wrong that the average person is able to pick a side perhaps only because they lack analytical depth or consideration. Rather, it may be that most people are more comfortable than you are at making judgments in these fraught, ambiguous scenarios, and that this is not at all a bad thing. Most art, politics, and even sports (physical qualities being considered equal) are all areas that can't really be solved by a complete analysis because, as you say, there are too many variables. Nonetheless, some people are much better at these things than others due to qualities that are hard to describe exactly. This ability to make good split second decisions without a complete analytical understanding of the problem or even the current state is one of those qualities. I don't think this ability is superficial, or without value. Rather, it just goes to show how different people are from one another. So I would encourage you not to suggest to others who do have strong political views that their views are unfounded just because they are strong and the domain is complex.
- hnbro 10y ago
  do you have "strong political views"?
- tfigment 10y ago
  While I partially agree, some of these people will also actively ignore information when presented and do not have a skeptical mind. Many people do not change their mind after they first form an opinion on a subject or it takes a lot of effort to change it afterwords. Forming opinions quickly and never revisiting the underlying assumptions, I would argue can be dangerous as well and is probably more normal that either of us care to acknowledge. Some people are in very high positions of power and can make decisions that impact peoples lives. Ignoring them and letting them do whatever they want may not always lead to good outcomes. But I will agree that purely ruminating on it does not improve one's situation.
  - matwood 10y ago
    Practicing skepticism and always being analytical is a lot of work. Listening to the SGU podcasts shows that even when people are actively trying to be skeptics they still catch themselves shortcutting to opinions. Let me ask you this. Take something you believe 100%, how much evidence the other way will it take for your opinion to change? Now imagine that item is somehow part of your identity. It's not an easy fight every single day. The reason I bring this up is instead of saying 'some of these people', it's better to say all of us.
innocentoldguy 10y ago
I stopped watching the news for similar reasons. I got tired of the polarization, spin, editorializing, and vilification. I got tired of politics too, since most people simply play team-sports, and couldn't care less what the facts are. Having said that, I can speak to your comment on global warming. People reject it because: 1. Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age. Didn't happen. 2. Many of us lived through the late 1970s and 1980s when the media and environmentalists claimed that Earth would be a lifeless rock by the end of the century due to deforestation. Didn't happen. 3. In 2005, climate scientists predicted that by 2010, global warming would cause oceans to rise to the point that populations would be decimated, and we would have 50 million "climate refugees" fleeing these flooded areas of the globe. Didn't happen. 4. NASA, CRU, NOAA, and other government and scientific organizations have been caught falsifying data. 5. There are claims that federal funding is biasing climate research; that the federal government isn't just funding research, but are buying science that promotes specific agendas. Sure, if you only look at scientific climate data, it may look like climate change is an issue. However, if you look at government behavior, scientific scandals, evidences of falsified data, historical climate facts, and even current temperatures, there is more than enough evidence to cast a serious doubt on the accuracy and even legitimacy of climate change data, don't you think?
- _coldfire 10y ago
  Did you live through people claiming the ozone layer was disappearing? And the ensuing global action to remedy it? At the current rate and compliance with the Montreal protocol we should be back to pre-CFC levels in 30 years or so
  - innocentoldguy 10y ago
    Yes, I did. How does this even remotely refute what I wrote? The parent poster said, "I have a hard time imagining how anyone who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global warming." To answer his/her question, I provided multiple reasons why people, in fact, do reject climate change. I think your response, and the knee-jerk responses of those who down-voted me, are perfect examples of why I don't watch the news anymore. None of you bothered to read and understand what I said, or why I was saying it. You just assumed that my views on climate change differ from yours, and down-voted me based on your emotional views. Instead of leaping to irrational conclusions, regarding my post, I invite you to read it and understand why I wrote it and what I was responding to. I believe it will give you a great insight into the matter at hand, and the challenges you must overcome in reaching those who refuse to accept climate change as an issue. Or, you could just polarize the issue, down-vote those you assume don't agree with you, and keep things at the status quo.
daphneokeefe 10y ago
Scott Adams has an excellent explanation of this today in his blog "The Illusion of Knowledge" http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155121836641/the-illusion-of-knowledge http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155121836641/the-illusion-of-kn... A snippet: "no non-scientist can evaluate the claims of climate science because BOTH sides look 100% convincing to the under-informed. So how did the public respond to my claim that BOTH sides of the debate look convincing? They berated me for not sufficiently researching materials from ONE side of the debate that happens to be their side. Many people suggested that I could simply do some homework, on my own, and get to the bottom of climate science. That is a massive public illusion."
- _Codemonkeyism 10y ago
  The article is mostly BS. And it is a strawman attack "Many people suggested that I could simply do some homework, on my own, and get to the bottom of climate science." Obviously you can't get down to climate science, no serious person is suggesting it. The same as with LIGO, you can't get down to gravitational waves and understand them. The reason is that these people have decades of experience and studied some really hard topics - not liberal arts. To get to the bottom you need to take the same route into the topic. I might be the last person believing in the usefulness of experts in these days - real experts on a topic not those "experts" on CNN and Fox. I know this is unpopular. It's also funny that people want to understand climate change when from my experience with people many can't even add simple numbers or correctly work with percentages, e.g. calculating VAT. This is the illusion of I-can-do-everything-if-I-want-something. No you can't. Sometimes it takes decades of training, say piano, to do something. Everyone thinks today he is entitled to understand this and entitled to have an opinion that is as valuable as the opinion of someone who did something for years. THIS is the illusion. Site note to Scott Adams: Reality - climate in this case - does not care the least what you think of it. [Edit] In short: I don't care about the opnion of a comic writer about climate science.
- spinlock 10y ago
  There are plenty of debates in science. The debate over gravity would have been a good example because you had serious people in both sides of the debate and something approaching the truth came to be the consensus. There is not a similar debate about climate change.
throwaway91111 10y ago
Isn't this just another way of saying social issues are hard? Which isn't to say you should drain yourself daily with them. But, collectively, we should.
platz 10y ago
> I don't think the average person actually likes exploring topics in extreme depth to figure out "the truth" That is because the average person believes they are playing a zero-sum game, in which competition is inescapable And because each side has a set of values that must be protected, anything that threatens those values needs to be defeated. Whether the thing threatening the values has an underlying "truth" that matches up with the surface is less relevant. * EDIT - also, enlightenment-rationalism is a liberal value; just present people the facts, they will reason to the right conclusion (science!)... false — people don't think so literally about things (they think metaphorically); they think inside a frame shaped by the value framework.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
fauigerzigerk 10y ago
I totally agree with you on the complexity of the issues. The news won't help much with that. News are mostly about sentiment. I don't want to hear all those people trumpeting their simple "truths" on all news channels ever more aggressively. But I fear if I stop listening to those sentiments I could miss the moment when it's time for me to leave or warn others. I have often wondered how my ancestors could have missed what was going on and end up in a nazi death camp. Did they not get the news? Did they not believe it? Did it all sound too similar to what had come before until it was too late? Was it too complex to predict? I don't know, but I can't take my eyes off the ball now even though my eyes hurt.
gist 10y ago
> and I find that ruminating over news or politics drains my energy. To many people it's entertainment. Just like watching football or any sport. Political drama is interesting and lends itself to speculation and monday morning quarterbacking and plenty of drama and personalities.
mtdewcmu 10y ago
You don't have to make up all your opinions from scratch. Pick a person who you trust and who you think shares your values. For me, that could be President Obama. Whatever position Obama has on a given issue, I will find that position reasonable virtually 10 out of 10 times. If I happen to be expert in some issue, I might presume to disagree. Outsourcing the problem to someone who does think about policy all day is a big time saver.
- lend000 10y ago
  This also results in people thinking Obama is a good president and electing characters like Donald Trump. Not everyone has time to educate themselves about something that will provide very little personal return (rational ignorance), but it would be great if people at least put in more initial research to find their initial "intellectual champion," and then trusted them from there, with perhaps an annual update to make sure your values still align. Then you might come up with someone like Glenn Greenwald, instead. Granted, Obama sounded a lot more promising in 2008.
  - mtdewcmu 10y ago
    It is a good idea to choose the person carefully. Think of it like choosing a lawyer or a doctor. The thing is, it doesn't have to be Obama. It could be almost any Democrat, like the Clintons, Biden, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi. They all agree on 99.9% of issues, because they have a common set of values.
    - lend000 10y ago
      Theoretically, that sounds reasonable, but in reality, they tend to agree on issues due to political alliance, not values. Politicians in both the Republican and Democratic parties have almost unanimously been on both sides of issues depending on who put it forward/who was in power.
tshadley 10y ago
> Thinking about math or science for a few hours energizes me, but doing the same for social issues wears me out. I think your exhaustion comes from the moral labeling always connected to social issues. Strip out the morality and social issues really are just math and science.

yaseer 10y ago

"Thinking about math or science for a few hours energizes me, but doing the same for social issues wears me out." I feel exactly the same way. I can't tell if this is an introvert trait, or whether it arises from the kind of problem your mind is attuned to solving (perhaps both). Reading social news makes me pessimistic for the future, and feel more withdrawn from the world. Reading about mathematics or science excites me, makes me more optimistic for the future, and makes me want to engage with as much as possible.

innocentoldguy 10y ago
I would guess it is an introvert trait. I believe introverts are emotionally drained by activities that involve other people, and are energized by activities that don't.

arglebarnacle 10y ago

You're not wrong that politics is enormously complex, but I think you are wrong that the average person is able to pick a side perhaps only because they lack analytical depth or consideration. Rather, it may be that most people are more comfortable than you are at making judgments in these fraught, ambiguous scenarios, and that this is not at all a bad thing. Most art, politics, and even sports (physical qualities being considered equal) are all areas that can't really be solved by a complete analysis because, as you say, there are too many variables. Nonetheless, some people are much better at these things than others due to qualities that are hard to describe exactly. This ability to make good split second decisions without a complete analytical understanding of the problem or even the current state is one of those qualities. I don't think this ability is superficial, or without value. Rather, it just goes to show how different people are from one another. So I would encourage you not to suggest to others who do have strong political views that their views are unfounded just because they are strong and the domain is complex.

hnbro 10y ago
do you have "strong political views"?
tfigment 10y ago
While I partially agree, some of these people will also actively ignore information when presented and do not have a skeptical mind. Many people do not change their mind after they first form an opinion on a subject or it takes a lot of effort to change it afterwords. Forming opinions quickly and never revisiting the underlying assumptions, I would argue can be dangerous as well and is probably more normal that either of us care to acknowledge. Some people are in very high positions of power and can make decisions that impact peoples lives. Ignoring them and letting them do whatever they want may not always lead to good outcomes. But I will agree that purely ruminating on it does not improve one's situation.
- matwood 10y ago
  Practicing skepticism and always being analytical is a lot of work. Listening to the SGU podcasts shows that even when people are actively trying to be skeptics they still catch themselves shortcutting to opinions. Let me ask you this. Take something you believe 100%, how much evidence the other way will it take for your opinion to change? Now imagine that item is somehow part of your identity. It's not an easy fight every single day. The reason I bring this up is instead of saying 'some of these people', it's better to say all of us.

innocentoldguy 10y ago

I stopped watching the news for similar reasons. I got tired of the polarization, spin, editorializing, and vilification. I got tired of politics too, since most people simply play team-sports, and couldn't care less what the facts are. Having said that, I can speak to your comment on global warming. People reject it because: 1. Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age. Didn't happen. 2. Many of us lived through the late 1970s and 1980s when the media and environmentalists claimed that Earth would be a lifeless rock by the end of the century due to deforestation. Didn't happen. 3. In 2005, climate scientists predicted that by 2010, global warming would cause oceans to rise to the point that populations would be decimated, and we would have 50 million "climate refugees" fleeing these flooded areas of the globe. Didn't happen. 4. NASA, CRU, NOAA, and other government and scientific organizations have been caught falsifying data. 5. There are claims that federal funding is biasing climate research; that the federal government isn't just funding research, but are buying science that promotes specific agendas. Sure, if you only look at scientific climate data, it may look like climate change is an issue. However, if you look at government behavior, scientific scandals, evidences of falsified data, historical climate facts, and even current temperatures, there is more than enough evidence to cast a serious doubt on the accuracy and even legitimacy of climate change data, don't you think?

_coldfire 10y ago
Did you live through people claiming the ozone layer was disappearing? And the ensuing global action to remedy it? At the current rate and compliance with the Montreal protocol we should be back to pre-CFC levels in 30 years or so
- innocentoldguy 10y ago
  Yes, I did. How does this even remotely refute what I wrote? The parent poster said, "I have a hard time imagining how anyone who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global warming." To answer his/her question, I provided multiple reasons why people, in fact, do reject climate change. I think your response, and the knee-jerk responses of those who down-voted me, are perfect examples of why I don't watch the news anymore. None of you bothered to read and understand what I said, or why I was saying it. You just assumed that my views on climate change differ from yours, and down-voted me based on your emotional views. Instead of leaping to irrational conclusions, regarding my post, I invite you to read it and understand why I wrote it and what I was responding to. I believe it will give you a great insight into the matter at hand, and the challenges you must overcome in reaching those who refuse to accept climate change as an issue. Or, you could just polarize the issue, down-vote those you assume don't agree with you, and keep things at the status quo.

daphneokeefe 10y ago

Scott Adams has an excellent explanation of this today in his blog "The Illusion of Knowledge" http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155121836641/the-illusion-of-knowledge http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155121836641/the-illusion-of-kn... A snippet: "no non-scientist can evaluate the claims of climate science because BOTH sides look 100% convincing to the under-informed. So how did the public respond to my claim that BOTH sides of the debate look convincing? They berated me for not sufficiently researching materials from ONE side of the debate that happens to be their side. Many people suggested that I could simply do some homework, on my own, and get to the bottom of climate science. That is a massive public illusion."

_Codemonkeyism 10y ago
The article is mostly BS. And it is a strawman attack "Many people suggested that I could simply do some homework, on my own, and get to the bottom of climate science." Obviously you can't get down to climate science, no serious person is suggesting it. The same as with LIGO, you can't get down to gravitational waves and understand them. The reason is that these people have decades of experience and studied some really hard topics - not liberal arts. To get to the bottom you need to take the same route into the topic. I might be the last person believing in the usefulness of experts in these days - real experts on a topic not those "experts" on CNN and Fox. I know this is unpopular. It's also funny that people want to understand climate change when from my experience with people many can't even add simple numbers or correctly work with percentages, e.g. calculating VAT. This is the illusion of I-can-do-everything-if-I-want-something. No you can't. Sometimes it takes decades of training, say piano, to do something. Everyone thinks today he is entitled to understand this and entitled to have an opinion that is as valuable as the opinion of someone who did something for years. THIS is the illusion. Site note to Scott Adams: Reality - climate in this case - does not care the least what you think of it. [Edit] In short: I don't care about the opnion of a comic writer about climate science.
spinlock 10y ago
There are plenty of debates in science. The debate over gravity would have been a good example because you had serious people in both sides of the debate and something approaching the truth came to be the consensus. There is not a similar debate about climate change.

throwaway91111 10y ago

Isn't this just another way of saying social issues are hard? Which isn't to say you should drain yourself daily with them. But, collectively, we should.

platz 10y ago

> I don't think the average person actually likes exploring topics in extreme depth to figure out "the truth" That is because the average person believes they are playing a zero-sum game, in which competition is inescapable And because each side has a set of values that must be protected, anything that threatens those values needs to be defeated. Whether the thing threatening the values has an underlying "truth" that matches up with the surface is less relevant. * EDIT - also, enlightenment-rationalism is a liberal value; just present people the facts, they will reason to the right conclusion (science!)... false — people don't think so literally about things (they think metaphorically); they think inside a frame shaped by the value framework.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

fauigerzigerk 10y ago

I totally agree with you on the complexity of the issues. The news won't help much with that. News are mostly about sentiment. I don't want to hear all those people trumpeting their simple "truths" on all news channels ever more aggressively. But I fear if I stop listening to those sentiments I could miss the moment when it's time for me to leave or warn others. I have often wondered how my ancestors could have missed what was going on and end up in a nazi death camp. Did they not get the news? Did they not believe it? Did it all sound too similar to what had come before until it was too late? Was it too complex to predict? I don't know, but I can't take my eyes off the ball now even though my eyes hurt.

gist 10y ago

> and I find that ruminating over news or politics drains my energy. To many people it's entertainment. Just like watching football or any sport. Political drama is interesting and lends itself to speculation and monday morning quarterbacking and plenty of drama and personalities.

mtdewcmu 10y ago

You don't have to make up all your opinions from scratch. Pick a person who you trust and who you think shares your values. For me, that could be President Obama. Whatever position Obama has on a given issue, I will find that position reasonable virtually 10 out of 10 times. If I happen to be expert in some issue, I might presume to disagree. Outsourcing the problem to someone who does think about policy all day is a big time saver.

lend000 10y ago
This also results in people thinking Obama is a good president and electing characters like Donald Trump. Not everyone has time to educate themselves about something that will provide very little personal return (rational ignorance), but it would be great if people at least put in more initial research to find their initial "intellectual champion," and then trusted them from there, with perhaps an annual update to make sure your values still align. Then you might come up with someone like Glenn Greenwald, instead. Granted, Obama sounded a lot more promising in 2008.
- mtdewcmu 10y ago
  It is a good idea to choose the person carefully. Think of it like choosing a lawyer or a doctor. The thing is, it doesn't have to be Obama. It could be almost any Democrat, like the Clintons, Biden, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi. They all agree on 99.9% of issues, because they have a common set of values.
  - lend000 10y ago
    Theoretically, that sounds reasonable, but in reality, they tend to agree on issues due to political alliance, not values. Politicians in both the Republican and Democratic parties have almost unanimously been on both sides of issues depending on who put it forward/who was in power.

tshadley 10y ago

> Thinking about math or science for a few hours energizes me, but doing the same for social issues wears me out. I think your exhaustion comes from the moral labeling always connected to social issues. Strip out the morality and social issues really are just math and science.