4 ms·

Examine what you read. No. Unless you're exceptionally intelligent, don't do that. I can tell you, the average person had a more reasonable picture of the worl

Examine what you read. No. Unless you're exceptionally intelligent, don't do that. I can tell you, the average person had a more reasonable picture of the world back in the 90s than today, despite the multitudes now "doing the research". Being skeptical is not the correct approach for the average person; they just wind up watching Alex Jones, investing their life savings in Dogecoin and drinking silver nitrate. Trust experts!

TeMPOraL 6y ago
Want a more accurate and reasonable picture of the world? The first step: just stop reading news. Watching Alex Jones is obviously bad for you, but binging on CNN isn't good for your well-being either. And if anything important happens, you'll hear about it. (And yes, I'm aware this fails Kant's categorical imperative.)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- uniqueid 6y ago
  Just want to say I regret the tone I used in my reply, which was not in the spirit of HN. You're correct that some level of skepticism is good. My actual view, if I leave out the hyperbole, is that in the current era, we've reached paranoid levels of it.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    That's a fair point you're making here! Also "skepticism" that's used to justify believing whatever you want to believe, regardless of what the evidence says. That's a problem. My reply is something a bit different: I believe news in general is junk food for your brain. The incentives involved in news publishing today tend to go against accuracy and truthfulness, and the things most described are usually the things that matter least - so news ultimately yields a negative value in terms of understanding the world around you. Better to pick a book instead.
    - uniqueid 6y ago
      I think few would argue that big news outlets are free of bias and sensationalism. The questions is to what degree? There's a tendency, on the internet, to write off establishment people and groups completely, based on their all-time most egregious mistake (eg: The NYT is reduced to their toadying to Bush over WMD, election polling is meaningless because it failed to predict 2016, etc). Most of these organizations aren't stellar, but, at this point, the public perception is so paranoid it makes Noam Chomsky sound as credulous as a boy scout.
    - bijant 6y ago
      yea like this book: "Stop Reading The News" https://www.dobelli.com/en/books/ https://www.dobelli.com/en/books/ (It is based on the article by the same author: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-ro...)
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
Then they turn blue like smurfs and you are warned and can avoid them. What's the problem?
- wongarsu 6y ago
  Even the well off in a society seem to profit from everyone else being happier. For example your healthcare is better and cheaper if it doesn't need to care for insolvent blue smurfs

TeMPOraL 6y ago

Want a more accurate and reasonable picture of the world? The first step: just stop reading news. Watching Alex Jones is obviously bad for you, but binging on CNN isn't good for your well-being either. And if anything important happens, you'll hear about it. (And yes, I'm aware this fails Kant's categorical imperative.)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
uniqueid 6y ago
Just want to say I regret the tone I used in my reply, which was not in the spirit of HN. You're correct that some level of skepticism is good. My actual view, if I leave out the hyperbole, is that in the current era, we've reached paranoid levels of it.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  That's a fair point you're making here! Also "skepticism" that's used to justify believing whatever you want to believe, regardless of what the evidence says. That's a problem. My reply is something a bit different: I believe news in general is junk food for your brain. The incentives involved in news publishing today tend to go against accuracy and truthfulness, and the things most described are usually the things that matter least - so news ultimately yields a negative value in terms of understanding the world around you. Better to pick a book instead.
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    I think few would argue that big news outlets are free of bias and sensationalism. The questions is to what degree? There's a tendency, on the internet, to write off establishment people and groups completely, based on their all-time most egregious mistake (eg: The NYT is reduced to their toadying to Bush over WMD, election polling is meaningless because it failed to predict 2016, etc). Most of these organizations aren't stellar, but, at this point, the public perception is so paranoid it makes Noam Chomsky sound as credulous as a boy scout.
  - bijant 6y ago
    yea like this book: "Stop Reading The News" https://www.dobelli.com/en/books/ https://www.dobelli.com/en/books/ (It is based on the article by the same author: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-ro...)

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago

Then they turn blue like smurfs and you are warned and can avoid them. What's the problem?

wongarsu 6y ago
Even the well off in a society seem to profit from everyone else being happier. For example your healthcare is better and cheaper if it doesn't need to care for insolvent blue smurfs