5 ms·

> 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 Washingto

> 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.

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.