3 ms·

> It all sounds fine and you think it's great right up to the point it's on a topic you know /anything/ at all about. Suddenly every single time, just on the to

> It all sounds fine and you think it's great right up to the point it's on a topic you know /anything/ at all about. Suddenly every single time, just on the topics you know just something of it has no depth These are related facts -- journalism for general audiences will always come off shallow to experts. Experts are better off seeking niche publications catering to their expertise, and just supplementing that with some general audience material. Even the experts recognize they layperson vs expert audience distinction -- if you look at Andrew Gelman's five book recommendations, none of them are going to transform you into an expert. At best they are the 5 books that got him excited about the _idea_ statistics.

harry8 3y ago
You're conflating two things and that is probably my fault. The list of books here is shallow. Asking a few investment professionals would have got them to a better list, IMHO. If they don't care about investment, why write it? Separate to that. The economist is flipping terrible. Beyond, shallow, actually very, very wrong in obvious ways on anything you know about - that kind of lack of depth of understanding. Someone here asked me why I think the economist worse than other news and I guess its because I take it more personally how messed up they are because in the broadest possible sense they accord to similar politics and ideology to myself. A lefty friend of mine, who is intelligent and sensible put me onto it with respect their incessant drum beating for every possible war. Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq - all of them and more. It was suggested to me to look at one current event in a small amount of depth, the kind you'd expect a journalist to be able to match. Eg, join twitter [1], follow some people who seem to know things, read their links critically, anything good you find, follow the author, cull that list of anyone you later decide is not up to much. Then go read the economist on it with a view to just finding the number of salient and important facts that you would use yourself to form a view and think it ridiculous to leave out that the economist somehow manages not to note at all. It didn't make me a lefty but I sure changed my ideas on the economist dramatically. Try it yourself one day. There's shallow because depth is impossible in x hundreds words and there's deeply misleading in beautiful language. Pick A.I. or Microchips fabs, or Julian Assange, or Electric Vehicles or end to end encryption or anything you want to know a little more about. Do the work for a few evenings first then go to the economist's take. YMMV of course it may. Mine sure suddenly did. [1] Never post, delete the a/c when you're done - keep it focused on finding things out.

harry8 3y ago

You're conflating two things and that is probably my fault. The list of books here is shallow. Asking a few investment professionals would have got them to a better list, IMHO. If they don't care about investment, why write it? Separate to that. The economist is flipping terrible. Beyond, shallow, actually very, very wrong in obvious ways on anything you know about - that kind of lack of depth of understanding. Someone here asked me why I think the economist worse than other news and I guess its because I take it more personally how messed up they are because in the broadest possible sense they accord to similar politics and ideology to myself. A lefty friend of mine, who is intelligent and sensible put me onto it with respect their incessant drum beating for every possible war. Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq - all of them and more. It was suggested to me to look at one current event in a small amount of depth, the kind you'd expect a journalist to be able to match. Eg, join twitter [1], follow some people who seem to know things, read their links critically, anything good you find, follow the author, cull that list of anyone you later decide is not up to much. Then go read the economist on it with a view to just finding the number of salient and important facts that you would use yourself to form a view and think it ridiculous to leave out that the economist somehow manages not to note at all. It didn't make me a lefty but I sure changed my ideas on the economist dramatically. Try it yourself one day. There's shallow because depth is impossible in x hundreds words and there's deeply misleading in beautiful language. Pick A.I. or Microchips fabs, or Julian Assange, or Electric Vehicles or end to end encryption or anything you want to know a little more about. Do the work for a few evenings first then go to the economist's take. YMMV of course it may. Mine sure suddenly did. [1] Never post, delete the a/c when you're done - keep it focused on finding things out.