4 ms·

You the reader should only read the second last paragraph, which I copied here for your convenience: To return to information overload: this means treating you

by baxtr 4y ago

You the reader should only read the second last paragraph, which I copied here for your convenience: To return to information overload: this means treating your "to read" pile like a river (a stream that flows past you, and from which you pluck a few choice items, here and there) instead of a bucket (which demands that you empty it). After all, you presumably don't feel overwhelmed by all the unread books in the British Library – and not because there aren't an overwhelming number of them, but because it never occurred to you that it might be your job to get through them all.

stcroixx 4y ago
Eliminate the waste in your 'to read' pile by populating it the same way he suggests selecting from it - pluck a few choice items here and there from the river that is the British Library.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
dmix 4y ago
I asked GPT4 to summarize the article's most important information into bullet points, which I find more useful than one paragraph summaries: > 1) The initial belief that technology would help filter out irrelevant information and prevent overload has not come to fruition; instead, people are overwhelmed by content they genuinely want to read. > 2) The problem lies in the fact that our filters are too successful, causing us to face a daily influx of interesting content (referred to as "haystack-sized piles of needles"). > 3) Many aspects of life also involve "too many needles," where we struggle to allocate our limited time and attention to numerous important tasks or interests. > 4) Conventional productivity advice, which emphasizes efficiency, organization, and prioritization, falls short in addressing the challenge of having too many significant priorities. > 5) The proposed solution is to treat the to-read pile as a river, selectively choosing items to engage with while accepting the inherent impossibility of clearing the entire backlog, thus leading to a more liberating and realistic approach to information overload. The downside of doing the above is it's more generic and loses the punch of the prose. Always the main issue with skipping the reading to get to the meat. Obviously easier for non-fiction than fiction.
- petersellers 4y ago
  I tried several times and it seemed to miss the point of the article every time.

by baxtr 4y ago

stcroixx 4y ago

Eliminate the waste in your 'to read' pile by populating it the same way he suggests selecting from it - pluck a few choice items here and there from the river that is the British Library.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

dmix 4y ago

I asked GPT4 to summarize the article's most important information into bullet points, which I find more useful than one paragraph summaries: > 1) The initial belief that technology would help filter out irrelevant information and prevent overload has not come to fruition; instead, people are overwhelmed by content they genuinely want to read. > 2) The problem lies in the fact that our filters are too successful, causing us to face a daily influx of interesting content (referred to as "haystack-sized piles of needles"). > 3) Many aspects of life also involve "too many needles," where we struggle to allocate our limited time and attention to numerous important tasks or interests. > 4) Conventional productivity advice, which emphasizes efficiency, organization, and prioritization, falls short in addressing the challenge of having too many significant priorities. > 5) The proposed solution is to treat the to-read pile as a river, selectively choosing items to engage with while accepting the inherent impossibility of clearing the entire backlog, thus leading to a more liberating and realistic approach to information overload. The downside of doing the above is it's more generic and loses the punch of the prose. Always the main issue with skipping the reading to get to the meat. Obviously easier for non-fiction than fiction.

petersellers 4y ago
I tried several times and it seemed to miss the point of the article every time.