9 ms·

Key points (summarized): > You're drowning in low-quality, pointless content designed to hijack your attention. It's making you distracted, confused, and unabl

Key points (summarized): > You're drowning in low-quality, pointless content designed to hijack your attention. It's making you distracted, confused, and unable to think straight. > Be mindful of what you consume. Spend more time creating, less mindlessly scrolling. > Your mind deserves better than the junk clogging your feed. Cut it out before it rots your brain. That's literally it. I guess the piece is trying to be ironic by using the same style of junk information that it's telling us to watch out for?

jb1991 2y ago
The same occurred to me while reading it.
joemoon 2y ago
While the post didn't particularly speak to me, I think you are being overly reductionist. You can dismissively summarize anything into a few "key points." Just in the first couple of paragraphs alone: - The author discusses the "why" by pointing to research on how new information triggers dopamine pathways. Maybe this is obvious to you but it's not necessarily obvious to everyone. - The author points out that this would have historically been an evolutionary advantage (at least that's my interpretation), but access to modern high-volume, low-nutrient information has made this an addictive unhealthy habit. - For those already familiar with how modern access to high-calorie, low-nutrient food (that triggers the dopamine response), the author is showing that the same mechanisms are at play with information. I think it's actually your comment that contains the tweet-able one liners (as "key points") that are likely to result in head nods and smug self assurances but aren't doing anything to encourage deeper thought.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  Honestly, I like both of your posts. Thanks for the follow-up. Your thoughts are insightful. I hear it a lot that "too much information is ruining us", but what about crap daily newspapers that came in mass around 1900, then radio, then over-air television, then cable television? All of these are about providing large amounts of low quality information. These days, you can get satellite TV with 500 (five hundred!) channels. It must be 99% rubbish content. I guess the difference now is that the web is much more interactive, and our minds can be more easily hooked as a result. Dunno; when I was growing up, the kids who gorged themselves on shitty cable TV weren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. I feel the same now in the Internet era. My point for this post: Each time I hear (paraphrased): "It is different this time.", I try to imagine the world 25 years ago. Then think: Is this really that different? Most of time, I think, "No, it isn't that different." (I use the same mental exercise when I hear people say that "this generation is so different than the last for reason A, B, or C.")
  - usrbinbash 2y ago
    > but what about crap daily newspapers that came in mass around 1900, then radio, then over-air television, then cable television? a) None of these were, first algorithmically, and then using machine learning, optimized to constantly grab attention and maximize interaction time on an individual basis. b) None of them had the interactive effects where peoples interactions with one another are guided and used, to draw them into echo chambers which are, again, designed to maximize interaction time. > Then think: Is this really that different? Yes. It is. Simple example: How do politically motivated troll armies influence an election in a reality where people don't use social media as their primary news source? Answer: They don't. They can (and likely have) bought some space in some low-quality tabloid through strawmen, but that has nowhere near the range and impact of one guy in some government office pretending to be 100000 "Average Joes" halfway across the globe.
    - boomboomsubban 2y ago
      >Simple example: How do politically motivated troll armies influence an election in a reality where people don't use social media as their primary news source? By having one super rich troll run for president and buy hour long slots of evening broadcasting. See Ross Perot.
      - advael 2y ago
        I mean there's a world of difference between "Perhaps millions of people, given motivation and a bit of luck, can pull off a thing" and "A super rich guy can pull off a thing" This is the whole reason people talk about middle-class modern humans of various recent eras "living like kings" in comparison to humans of less recent eras. The thing (Maybe that's "having people from across the world entertain you in your living room", maybe it's "Eating elaborately prepared deserts made out of refined sugar") was possible for some before, but not nearly as many. This is the kind of thing technology tends to change most often. Not best-case capability, but access and scale Like some of those things are mass-produced superstimulus facsimiles and not good in the same way they were for the ultrawealthy of old, but even those genuinely are changes in how the world effectively works
kmarc 2y ago
That's "literally" not it. The piece discusses the neurobiological background, social effects, shows examples, and closes with a recommendation on what to try if you are a victim of doomscrolling. In fact, this writing does have a feel of 10-15y ago blog posts (where you can say, it's too short compared to books written 100-150y ago on a certain topic). I wish some people read this today instead of spending that 8minutes mindlessly scrolling TikTok
- Gualdrapo 2y ago
  Attention has become the currency of our society and being able to captivate it means you have power. So it's possible someone does a TikTok video about this article, pretty much like some woman did a video about how she found out the comment section in Instagram is completely different between a woman's account and a man's account.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > I wish some people read this today instead of spending that 8minutes mindlessly scrolling TikTok No trolling here: I fail to understand the difference between scrolling TikTok and scrolling shitty cable TV in 2000. It's not that different to me.
  - adamrezich 2y ago
    With cable TV, you might click around while finding something to watch, but when you found something to watch, you'd watch it, for multiple minutes, until commercial break. Then, you'd either sit through the commercials, or press JUMP to go back to your "backup channel", with something else you'd want to watch while you estimated the duration of the commercial block on the first channel. The point is, you were being exposed to novel content at a much slower rate than you are when you scroll through your short-video social media feeds. It already wasn't a great situation to begin with, as far as attention spans are concerned, but this new age of short video social media apps has undoubtedly exacerbated the issue.
  - kmarc 2y ago
    I do see some. TV shows are longer. And I don't mean double the length, but literally 100xtimes longer. There is a chance you accidentally find a channel with a program that really triggers your curiosity, and then you stop scrolling. On TikTok, this is not possible, after a couple seconds the mildly interesting content is gone. Good luck finding it again, or even remembering what you found interesting in the morning sitting on the toilet swearing "you'll check out this topic later" Another aspect is the quality of the content, which, chances are, higher. Not all of the programmes, obviously, but, again, you might find a documentary, an art piece (aka movie), etc. On TikTok/instagram/yt/Facebook reels anyone can post any rubbish, without any curation, and it's up to some algorithm to decide if it's shown to you. Not to mention the regimen you create, the ritual if you like, of sitting down in front of the TV at the time your beloved programme is aired. I used to think a lot about the "it's the same as TV / newspaper / books used to be" argument, and I definitely believe it's not. Especially since I dated the "book reader" and the "insta story addict" persons and tried to have conversations with them about topics. Day and night. In fact, I started going back to TV. Not the smartphone-controlled / streaming kind, but using the remote. And scrolling through the handful of channels I added to favorites. I do sometimes stop at a random program (yesterday I just learned that there are venomous beetles in Switzerland!). Sometimes I won't and switch the TV off, and just stare out on the windows. TV doomscrolling is bad (news channels to the front). A bit less worse than "social media" (scrolling addiction). I kinda think the suggested meta observation (10-10-10) is worth to try.
ein0p 2y ago
“To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. [....] The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter.” — Aleister Crowley
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- unraveller 2y ago
  On the other hand he wanted "no law beyond Do what thou wilt" - so he's also the prophet of amoral fame seeking and small mindedness ala tiktok.
- 9dev 2y ago
  I don’t think that’s a universal law. Reading the news to develop an understanding for politics or economics isn’t for naught, I would argue. The less people take time to educate themselves on the political situation, the less they can participate in democracy, until they opt to vote for a lunatic, pathologically lying convict, because he tells them an age-old hero trope. The only Defense against manipulation like that is having read different view points on complex societal concerns, shaping your own opinion. I don’t see how that would be possible without reading the news, and I seriously doubt a 19th century occultist is the best bearer of advice on the subject.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    > The only Defense against manipulation like that is having read different view points on complex societal concerns, shaping your own opinion. I don’t see how that would be possible without reading the news I see this meme repeated all the time, but I have my doubts. First of all, approximately no one does it anyway - one would have to take effort finding out sources from opposite ends of political spectrum (vs. "opposite" but really just the same), and then force themselves to read all of them (vs. just the most enjoyable one or two). It's possible as a form of study It's definitely not what's happening when you see people reading the news with their coffee or on the bus. Secondly, opinions aren't like waves that cancel out. You read a thing in source A and then the opposite of it in source B, it's not like you're left with enlightened lack of opinion. You just expended twice the energy to read twice the amount of lies. Lies which will stay with you and pop into your consciousness when thinking or talking about the topic they pertain to. Human mind has no problem remembering mutually exclusive thoughts, or believing them individually. This recommendation feels like saying, you need to consume a balanced variety of poisoned foods, so the poisons cancel each other out. How about not touching any of that in the first place?
bayindirh 2y ago
Longer storytelling is an instrument for regulating the speed of information you're pumping to the reader. This allows for reader's brain to slowly ingest the information and be comfortable with it. When you remove this element, you get technical reports and scientific papers. If you further do this you lose information. Otherwise you can summarize everything down to a single sentence.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jb1991 2y ago

The same occurred to me while reading it.

joemoon 2y ago

While the post didn't particularly speak to me, I think you are being overly reductionist. You can dismissively summarize anything into a few "key points." Just in the first couple of paragraphs alone: - The author discusses the "why" by pointing to research on how new information triggers dopamine pathways. Maybe this is obvious to you but it's not necessarily obvious to everyone. - The author points out that this would have historically been an evolutionary advantage (at least that's my interpretation), but access to modern high-volume, low-nutrient information has made this an addictive unhealthy habit. - For those already familiar with how modern access to high-calorie, low-nutrient food (that triggers the dopamine response), the author is showing that the same mechanisms are at play with information. I think it's actually your comment that contains the tweet-able one liners (as "key points") that are likely to result in head nods and smug self assurances but aren't doing anything to encourage deeper thought.

throwaway2037 2y ago
Honestly, I like both of your posts. Thanks for the follow-up. Your thoughts are insightful. I hear it a lot that "too much information is ruining us", but what about crap daily newspapers that came in mass around 1900, then radio, then over-air television, then cable television? All of these are about providing large amounts of low quality information. These days, you can get satellite TV with 500 (five hundred!) channels. It must be 99% rubbish content. I guess the difference now is that the web is much more interactive, and our minds can be more easily hooked as a result. Dunno; when I was growing up, the kids who gorged themselves on shitty cable TV weren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. I feel the same now in the Internet era. My point for this post: Each time I hear (paraphrased): "It is different this time.", I try to imagine the world 25 years ago. Then think: Is this really that different? Most of time, I think, "No, it isn't that different." (I use the same mental exercise when I hear people say that "this generation is so different than the last for reason A, B, or C.")
- usrbinbash 2y ago
  > but what about crap daily newspapers that came in mass around 1900, then radio, then over-air television, then cable television? a) None of these were, first algorithmically, and then using machine learning, optimized to constantly grab attention and maximize interaction time on an individual basis. b) None of them had the interactive effects where peoples interactions with one another are guided and used, to draw them into echo chambers which are, again, designed to maximize interaction time. > Then think: Is this really that different? Yes. It is. Simple example: How do politically motivated troll armies influence an election in a reality where people don't use social media as their primary news source? Answer: They don't. They can (and likely have) bought some space in some low-quality tabloid through strawmen, but that has nowhere near the range and impact of one guy in some government office pretending to be 100000 "Average Joes" halfway across the globe.
  - boomboomsubban 2y ago
    >Simple example: How do politically motivated troll armies influence an election in a reality where people don't use social media as their primary news source? By having one super rich troll run for president and buy hour long slots of evening broadcasting. See Ross Perot.
    - advael 2y ago
      I mean there's a world of difference between "Perhaps millions of people, given motivation and a bit of luck, can pull off a thing" and "A super rich guy can pull off a thing" This is the whole reason people talk about middle-class modern humans of various recent eras "living like kings" in comparison to humans of less recent eras. The thing (Maybe that's "having people from across the world entertain you in your living room", maybe it's "Eating elaborately prepared deserts made out of refined sugar") was possible for some before, but not nearly as many. This is the kind of thing technology tends to change most often. Not best-case capability, but access and scale Like some of those things are mass-produced superstimulus facsimiles and not good in the same way they were for the ultrawealthy of old, but even those genuinely are changes in how the world effectively works

kmarc 2y ago

That's "literally" not it. The piece discusses the neurobiological background, social effects, shows examples, and closes with a recommendation on what to try if you are a victim of doomscrolling. In fact, this writing does have a feel of 10-15y ago blog posts (where you can say, it's too short compared to books written 100-150y ago on a certain topic). I wish some people read this today instead of spending that 8minutes mindlessly scrolling TikTok

Gualdrapo 2y ago
Attention has become the currency of our society and being able to captivate it means you have power. So it's possible someone does a TikTok video about this article, pretty much like some woman did a video about how she found out the comment section in Instagram is completely different between a woman's account and a man's account.
throwaway2037 2y ago
> I wish some people read this today instead of spending that 8minutes mindlessly scrolling TikTok No trolling here: I fail to understand the difference between scrolling TikTok and scrolling shitty cable TV in 2000. It's not that different to me.
- adamrezich 2y ago
  With cable TV, you might click around while finding something to watch, but when you found something to watch, you'd watch it, for multiple minutes, until commercial break. Then, you'd either sit through the commercials, or press JUMP to go back to your "backup channel", with something else you'd want to watch while you estimated the duration of the commercial block on the first channel. The point is, you were being exposed to novel content at a much slower rate than you are when you scroll through your short-video social media feeds. It already wasn't a great situation to begin with, as far as attention spans are concerned, but this new age of short video social media apps has undoubtedly exacerbated the issue.
- kmarc 2y ago
  I do see some. TV shows are longer. And I don't mean double the length, but literally 100xtimes longer. There is a chance you accidentally find a channel with a program that really triggers your curiosity, and then you stop scrolling. On TikTok, this is not possible, after a couple seconds the mildly interesting content is gone. Good luck finding it again, or even remembering what you found interesting in the morning sitting on the toilet swearing "you'll check out this topic later" Another aspect is the quality of the content, which, chances are, higher. Not all of the programmes, obviously, but, again, you might find a documentary, an art piece (aka movie), etc. On TikTok/instagram/yt/Facebook reels anyone can post any rubbish, without any curation, and it's up to some algorithm to decide if it's shown to you. Not to mention the regimen you create, the ritual if you like, of sitting down in front of the TV at the time your beloved programme is aired. I used to think a lot about the "it's the same as TV / newspaper / books used to be" argument, and I definitely believe it's not. Especially since I dated the "book reader" and the "insta story addict" persons and tried to have conversations with them about topics. Day and night. In fact, I started going back to TV. Not the smartphone-controlled / streaming kind, but using the remote. And scrolling through the handful of channels I added to favorites. I do sometimes stop at a random program (yesterday I just learned that there are venomous beetles in Switzerland!). Sometimes I won't and switch the TV off, and just stare out on the windows. TV doomscrolling is bad (news channels to the front). A bit less worse than "social media" (scrolling addiction). I kinda think the suggested meta observation (10-10-10) is worth to try.

ein0p 2y ago

“To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. [....] The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter.” — Aleister Crowley

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
unraveller 2y ago
On the other hand he wanted "no law beyond Do what thou wilt" - so he's also the prophet of amoral fame seeking and small mindedness ala tiktok.
9dev 2y ago
I don’t think that’s a universal law. Reading the news to develop an understanding for politics or economics isn’t for naught, I would argue. The less people take time to educate themselves on the political situation, the less they can participate in democracy, until they opt to vote for a lunatic, pathologically lying convict, because he tells them an age-old hero trope. The only Defense against manipulation like that is having read different view points on complex societal concerns, shaping your own opinion. I don’t see how that would be possible without reading the news, and I seriously doubt a 19th century occultist is the best bearer of advice on the subject.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > The only Defense against manipulation like that is having read different view points on complex societal concerns, shaping your own opinion. I don’t see how that would be possible without reading the news I see this meme repeated all the time, but I have my doubts. First of all, approximately no one does it anyway - one would have to take effort finding out sources from opposite ends of political spectrum (vs. "opposite" but really just the same), and then force themselves to read all of them (vs. just the most enjoyable one or two). It's possible as a form of study It's definitely not what's happening when you see people reading the news with their coffee or on the bus. Secondly, opinions aren't like waves that cancel out. You read a thing in source A and then the opposite of it in source B, it's not like you're left with enlightened lack of opinion. You just expended twice the energy to read twice the amount of lies. Lies which will stay with you and pop into your consciousness when thinking or talking about the topic they pertain to. Human mind has no problem remembering mutually exclusive thoughts, or believing them individually. This recommendation feels like saying, you need to consume a balanced variety of poisoned foods, so the poisons cancel each other out. How about not touching any of that in the first place?

bayindirh 2y ago

Longer storytelling is an instrument for regulating the speed of information you're pumping to the reader. This allows for reader's brain to slowly ingest the information and be comfortable with it. When you remove this element, you get technical reports and scientific papers. If you further do this you lose information. Otherwise you can summarize everything down to a single sentence.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]