4 ms·

Nearly everyone would be a better citizen if they swapped 95% of the time the spend on the news for reading classics and textbooks in political science, economi

Nearly everyone would be a better citizen if they swapped 95% of the time the spend on the news for reading classics and textbooks in political science, economics, and history. Even the days of the morning paper and evening TV news program were probably a bit much, as far as non-local news goes anyway, let alone today's constant torrent of news, between the horrible 24/7 news channels and the Internet.

tablespoon 4y ago
> Nearly everyone would be a better citizen if they swapped 95% of the time the spend on the news for reading classics and textbooks in political science, economics, and history. I hear that said a lot, but I doubt it, at least not with those proportions. Those things offer important perspective, but to put it bluntly: George Washington isn't running for president anymore and slavery has been abolished for more than a century. The past is the past and this is the present: there are some commonalities but also a lot of important differences. To be a "better citizen," you need pretty deep knowledge of current events. That takes a lot of time, because a lot is going on and it's often more informative to follow a story than just read a summary once it's over. Think of it this way: an investor will lose his shirt if he spends 95% of his time reading classic investment books and only 5% actually researching businesses. Being a citizen is similar. Also, one of the nice things about the news is it exposes you more to the rough edges and uncertainty of the present, rather than smoothing that over with theory and narratives (that can be thoroughly curve-fitted to the past, so as not to jar you with their wrongness).
- javajosh 4y ago
  Your post is based on the hypothesis that more information is better. We've done the experiment, and it's false. People's perspectives are not deepened by more information, but made more shallow. In large part this is because the information they get is mostly second order, information about other people's reactions, or even reactions to reactions. This reaction information is used to preempt and override people's own reactions, often with something extreme, which drives engagement, which represents value for the corporation. The modern "news" environment takes the worst of our justice system, the unethical, dishonest, manipulative lawyers who consider it their duty to use every rhetorical tool to achieve their goals, and has mainstreamed it. The news, and politics, are dominated by attorneys. But most of us aren't, and most of us don't use those same techniques in our lives, or are even familiar with the techniques, and so we're left vulnerable to them.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Your post is based on the hypothesis that more information is better. We've done the experiment, and it's false. No, it's based on the hypothesis that sufficient up-to-date information is required. > People's perspectives are not deepened by more information, but made more shallow. In large part this is because the information they get is mostly second order, information about other people's reactions, or even reactions to reactions. This reaction information is used to preempt and override people's own reactions, often with something extreme, which drives engagement, which represents value for the corporation. That's a twisted cartoon of the news. If that's how you've actually experienced it, you probably need to pick better sources or get better at separating the wheat from the chaff. > The modern "news" environment takes the worst of our justice system, the unethical, dishonest, manipulative lawyers who consider it their duty to use every rhetorical tool to achieve their goals, and has mainstreamed it. The news, and politics, are dominated by attorneys. But most of us aren't, and most of us don't use those same techniques in our lives, or are even familiar with the techniques, and so we're left vulnerable to them. That's another twisted cartoon, but I'll say one of the best ways to avoid being manipulated is to actually be familiar with the facts.
    - javajosh 4y ago
      It's actually kind of refreshing for someone to defend the news. But I don't think we are agreeing on what news is so it's not an argument that can really go anywhere. I mean if you want to define news as only the Good News and not the bad news then yes the news is good.
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > But I don't think we are agreeing on what news is so it's not an argument that can really go anywhere. I mean if you want to define news as only the Good News and not the bad news then yes the news is good. Quite possibly. You're usage of Good News/bad news there is about the most confused thing possible. There are much clearer ways of saying what I think you might be saying.
- brimble 4y ago
  > I hear that said a lot, but I doubt it, at least not with those proportions. Those things offer important perspective, but to put it bluntly: George Washington isn't running for president anymore and slavery has been abolished for more than a century. The past is the past and this is the present: there are some commonalities but also a lot of important differences. Sure, but I doubt someone with a deep grounding in political science, economics, and history, but who'd never heard of either candidate, would need more than an hour or so on Google to decide between Trump and Biden, for instance. Our choices are, as voters, for better or worse, pretty limited. Frankly, I often make decisions about local candidates or ballot initiatives based on like 5 minutes of research. I doubt any of those choices would change if I closely followed all those candidates and issues and spent 50x more time on them—what might change them is if I'd read fewer, or different, books. (meanwhile, if I wanted to make any actual difference in the world, I'm aware that what I ought to do is get involved with one of the big two political parties, at the local level)
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Sure, but I doubt someone with a deep grounding in political science, economics, and history, but who'd never heard of either candidate, would need more than an hour or so on Google to decide between Trump and Biden, for instance. That's a bad example, because Trump was such an oaf. A better recent example might have been choosing between McCain and Obama, if you're focused on presidential races. The bigger issue isn't so much picking candidates, but understanding current situation and problems, and having opinions about those things to inform your choices.
    - brimble 4y ago
      Haha, that's fair. I still think spending more than an hour or two on the news per week has rapidly diminishing returns, in terms of societal benefit, and most of that should be local news or very focused, deep coverage, for maximum benefit. > A better recent example might have been choosing between McCain and Obama, if you're focused on presidential races. I'd love to see some blank-slate person try to judge them just by their own websites. God, those were so different.
- nemothekid 4y ago
  >George Washington isn't running for president anymore and slavery has been abolished for more than a century. The past is the past and this is the present: there are some commonalities but also a lot of important differences. I think the policies from the 60s and 70s have way more impact today than people realize and without understanding that context, "deep knowledge of current events" gets you nowhere. The seeds for an event like 9/11 were planted almost 50 years earlier and without understanding that it's easy for people to get swept up in takes like "they hate us for our freedom".
  - javajosh 4y ago
    A good point with a bad example. 9/11 really was plotted by Islamists who do actually hate us for our freedoms, since to them our freedom amounts to a rejection of God's law, the soul of heresy, for which the punishment is death. There are no "civilians" in a holy war, since every man, woman and child of the heretical nation are living in defiance of God's law. Of course, this view is shared by every fanatic everywhere, of every faith, such that the jingo "They hate us for our freedom" applies to them, too.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      Japan is even farther from Islamic culture than the United States but they didn't have a 9/11. Why? Because jingoism is subordinate to things that actually matter, like justifying or resenting 50 years of sometimes violent American involvement in the middle east. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be fooled by internally-targeted propaganda from other countries, in a way that's even more embarrassing than being fooled by our own propaganda.
    - nemothekid 4y ago
      >9/11 really was plotted by Islamists who do actually hate us for our freedoms, since to them our freedom amounts to a rejection of God's law, the soul of heresy, for which the punishment is death. Osama Bin Laden's own motivations for 9/11 had more to do with American imperialism in the Middle East and less to do with "rejection of God's Law". This isn't speculation, but from the horse's mouth. The "hate us for our freedom" was propaganda by Bush, and anyone who only looks at that, without studying the history of American imperialism in the middle east, starting from the coup of Iran, ends up in the backwards conclusion that Islam is a violent religion (or at least any more violent than any other Abrahamic religion). Please bear in mind that "rejection of God's law, the soul of heresy, for which the punishment is death" is also a major tenet in all Abrahamic religions. Secondly, there are plenty of Americans who are pining for nuclear war with Russia over Ukrainians; but somehow the blowback of nearly 50 years of foreign intervention by the CIA wouldn't be a motivation for anti-American sentiment in the middle east and instead "they just hate us for our freedom".
- 8note 4y ago
  I recently learned that slavery was abolished in response to pearl harbour[0], which isn't quite a century away. The vestiges of the later slavery are still around too, well, I guess the slavery is too, but now you have to buy their labour from the government, and the government keeps ownership of the slave. Actually, I don't know how that goes for private prisons? But pressuring people to plea guilty to crime, perceptions of black people as violent criminals, the large US prison population, the police, etc. Those are legacies and continuations of practices from slavery. A but more reading on history puts today's problems in better context [0]: https://weeklysift.com/2014/03/31/slavery-lasted-until-pearl-harbor/ https://weeklysift.com/2014/03/31/slavery-lasted-until-pearl...

tablespoon 4y ago

> Nearly everyone would be a better citizen if they swapped 95% of the time the spend on the news for reading classics and textbooks in political science, economics, and history. I hear that said a lot, but I doubt it, at least not with those proportions. Those things offer important perspective, but to put it bluntly: George Washington isn't running for president anymore and slavery has been abolished for more than a century. The past is the past and this is the present: there are some commonalities but also a lot of important differences. To be a "better citizen," you need pretty deep knowledge of current events. That takes a lot of time, because a lot is going on and it's often more informative to follow a story than just read a summary once it's over. Think of it this way: an investor will lose his shirt if he spends 95% of his time reading classic investment books and only 5% actually researching businesses. Being a citizen is similar. Also, one of the nice things about the news is it exposes you more to the rough edges and uncertainty of the present, rather than smoothing that over with theory and narratives (that can be thoroughly curve-fitted to the past, so as not to jar you with their wrongness).

javajosh 4y ago
Your post is based on the hypothesis that more information is better. We've done the experiment, and it's false. People's perspectives are not deepened by more information, but made more shallow. In large part this is because the information they get is mostly second order, information about other people's reactions, or even reactions to reactions. This reaction information is used to preempt and override people's own reactions, often with something extreme, which drives engagement, which represents value for the corporation. The modern "news" environment takes the worst of our justice system, the unethical, dishonest, manipulative lawyers who consider it their duty to use every rhetorical tool to achieve their goals, and has mainstreamed it. The news, and politics, are dominated by attorneys. But most of us aren't, and most of us don't use those same techniques in our lives, or are even familiar with the techniques, and so we're left vulnerable to them.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Your post is based on the hypothesis that more information is better. We've done the experiment, and it's false. No, it's based on the hypothesis that sufficient up-to-date information is required. > People's perspectives are not deepened by more information, but made more shallow. In large part this is because the information they get is mostly second order, information about other people's reactions, or even reactions to reactions. This reaction information is used to preempt and override people's own reactions, often with something extreme, which drives engagement, which represents value for the corporation. That's a twisted cartoon of the news. If that's how you've actually experienced it, you probably need to pick better sources or get better at separating the wheat from the chaff. > The modern "news" environment takes the worst of our justice system, the unethical, dishonest, manipulative lawyers who consider it their duty to use every rhetorical tool to achieve their goals, and has mainstreamed it. The news, and politics, are dominated by attorneys. But most of us aren't, and most of us don't use those same techniques in our lives, or are even familiar with the techniques, and so we're left vulnerable to them. That's another twisted cartoon, but I'll say one of the best ways to avoid being manipulated is to actually be familiar with the facts.
  - javajosh 4y ago
    It's actually kind of refreshing for someone to defend the news. But I don't think we are agreeing on what news is so it's not an argument that can really go anywhere. I mean if you want to define news as only the Good News and not the bad news then yes the news is good.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > But I don't think we are agreeing on what news is so it's not an argument that can really go anywhere. I mean if you want to define news as only the Good News and not the bad news then yes the news is good. Quite possibly. You're usage of Good News/bad news there is about the most confused thing possible. There are much clearer ways of saying what I think you might be saying.
brimble 4y ago
> I hear that said a lot, but I doubt it, at least not with those proportions. Those things offer important perspective, but to put it bluntly: George Washington isn't running for president anymore and slavery has been abolished for more than a century. The past is the past and this is the present: there are some commonalities but also a lot of important differences. Sure, but I doubt someone with a deep grounding in political science, economics, and history, but who'd never heard of either candidate, would need more than an hour or so on Google to decide between Trump and Biden, for instance. Our choices are, as voters, for better or worse, pretty limited. Frankly, I often make decisions about local candidates or ballot initiatives based on like 5 minutes of research. I doubt any of those choices would change if I closely followed all those candidates and issues and spent 50x more time on them—what might change them is if I'd read fewer, or different, books. (meanwhile, if I wanted to make any actual difference in the world, I'm aware that what I ought to do is get involved with one of the big two political parties, at the local level)
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Sure, but I doubt someone with a deep grounding in political science, economics, and history, but who'd never heard of either candidate, would need more than an hour or so on Google to decide between Trump and Biden, for instance. That's a bad example, because Trump was such an oaf. A better recent example might have been choosing between McCain and Obama, if you're focused on presidential races. The bigger issue isn't so much picking candidates, but understanding current situation and problems, and having opinions about those things to inform your choices.
  - brimble 4y ago
    Haha, that's fair. I still think spending more than an hour or two on the news per week has rapidly diminishing returns, in terms of societal benefit, and most of that should be local news or very focused, deep coverage, for maximum benefit. > A better recent example might have been choosing between McCain and Obama, if you're focused on presidential races. I'd love to see some blank-slate person try to judge them just by their own websites. God, those were so different.
nemothekid 4y ago
>George Washington isn't running for president anymore and slavery has been abolished for more than a century. The past is the past and this is the present: there are some commonalities but also a lot of important differences. I think the policies from the 60s and 70s have way more impact today than people realize and without understanding that context, "deep knowledge of current events" gets you nowhere. The seeds for an event like 9/11 were planted almost 50 years earlier and without understanding that it's easy for people to get swept up in takes like "they hate us for our freedom".
- javajosh 4y ago
  A good point with a bad example. 9/11 really was plotted by Islamists who do actually hate us for our freedoms, since to them our freedom amounts to a rejection of God's law, the soul of heresy, for which the punishment is death. There are no "civilians" in a holy war, since every man, woman and child of the heretical nation are living in defiance of God's law. Of course, this view is shared by every fanatic everywhere, of every faith, such that the jingo "They hate us for our freedom" applies to them, too.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    Japan is even farther from Islamic culture than the United States but they didn't have a 9/11. Why? Because jingoism is subordinate to things that actually matter, like justifying or resenting 50 years of sometimes violent American involvement in the middle east. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be fooled by internally-targeted propaganda from other countries, in a way that's even more embarrassing than being fooled by our own propaganda.
  - nemothekid 4y ago
    >9/11 really was plotted by Islamists who do actually hate us for our freedoms, since to them our freedom amounts to a rejection of God's law, the soul of heresy, for which the punishment is death. Osama Bin Laden's own motivations for 9/11 had more to do with American imperialism in the Middle East and less to do with "rejection of God's Law". This isn't speculation, but from the horse's mouth. The "hate us for our freedom" was propaganda by Bush, and anyone who only looks at that, without studying the history of American imperialism in the middle east, starting from the coup of Iran, ends up in the backwards conclusion that Islam is a violent religion (or at least any more violent than any other Abrahamic religion). Please bear in mind that "rejection of God's law, the soul of heresy, for which the punishment is death" is also a major tenet in all Abrahamic religions. Secondly, there are plenty of Americans who are pining for nuclear war with Russia over Ukrainians; but somehow the blowback of nearly 50 years of foreign intervention by the CIA wouldn't be a motivation for anti-American sentiment in the middle east and instead "they just hate us for our freedom".
8note 4y ago
I recently learned that slavery was abolished in response to pearl harbour[0], which isn't quite a century away. The vestiges of the later slavery are still around too, well, I guess the slavery is too, but now you have to buy their labour from the government, and the government keeps ownership of the slave. Actually, I don't know how that goes for private prisons? But pressuring people to plea guilty to crime, perceptions of black people as violent criminals, the large US prison population, the police, etc. Those are legacies and continuations of practices from slavery. A but more reading on history puts today's problems in better context [0]: https://weeklysift.com/2014/03/31/slavery-lasted-until-pearl-harbor/ https://weeklysift.com/2014/03/31/slavery-lasted-until-pearl...