3 ms·

One thing that has helped me over the last two years is not watching or reading the news (I've haven't done social media in a decade). I know some people will

by JR1427 2y ago

One thing that has helped me over the last two years is not watching or reading the news (I've haven't done social media in a decade). I know some people will think it is morally wrong of me to not be interested in the world and society. In fact, I used to think as much too, and thought myself terribly clever because I had an Economist subscription. The fact is that I _am_ interested in the world and society, but all I found that keeping up with hour-by-hour events did was stress me out. I don't need to hear about plane crashes, or tedious political events. The only place where I come across news stories now is occasionally on HN, and when talking to other people. Because I am no longer addicted to the news, I am less stressed, and have more time to do the things that make me calm, happy, and fulfilled, rather than stressed. I doubt that my "living under a rock" policy will be permanent - in the future I might develop a better capacity to deal with the stress of current affairs - but for now it is definitely helping me.

konschubert 2y ago
If it helps you that’s good and I might do the same. But two things: a) this is a luxury you can afford because you live in a country where you can trust that your house isn’t going to explode tomorrow. b) If everybody did this, a) would quickly no longer be true…
- JR1427 2y ago
  To clarify, I don't close my ears to everything going on in the outside world. I just don't get my information from news websites or tv stations etc. I still like to talk to people about what is going on. I find that less stressful, maybe because when talking with friends, family, colleagues, we don't tend to use such alarmist language (at least the people I talk to don't). As for point b), I can imagine this might not be true, as long as it really was the case that no-one was informed. Hard to plan and orchestrate bad things without information!
  - konschubert 2y ago
    > As for point b), I can imagine this might not be true, as long as it really was the case that no-one was informed. Hard to plan and orchestrate bad things without information! Sorry, yes. My assumption was that the bad guys will still stay informed, just like the bad guys don't put down their guns because I would prefer us all to be pacifists.
- hnben 2y ago
  > b) If everybody did this, a) would quickly no longer be true… Maybe the spiral goes in the other direction: Because no one does, a) is not true. I.e. because many people are "keeping up with hour-by-hour events", your house may explode tomorrow. If everyone was living under a rock, your house would be safe. Maybe there are two equilibriums. One equilibrium where everyone needs to know about current events because their houses may explode, and another equilibrium where everyone lives under a rock because their houses are save.
- shepherdjerred 2y ago
  > b) If everybody did this, a) would quickly no longer be true… Can you elaborate on why you think this?
refurb 2y ago
> I know some people will think it is morally wrong of me to not be interested in the world and society. Social media and the news are probably the worst way to be “informed” of the world and society. One could even argue you’re worse off using those because it gives you the illusion of being informed, without much substance. You’d be far better off picking up a quality history book (not the popular history books which are a step up from the news), but recognized historical books that are globally recognized as authoritative texts. If you read one book like that a year you would have already exceeded the knowledge from a lifetime of social media and mainstream news.

by JR1427 2y ago

konschubert 2y ago

If it helps you that’s good and I might do the same. But two things: a) this is a luxury you can afford because you live in a country where you can trust that your house isn’t going to explode tomorrow. b) If everybody did this, a) would quickly no longer be true…

JR1427 2y ago
To clarify, I don't close my ears to everything going on in the outside world. I just don't get my information from news websites or tv stations etc. I still like to talk to people about what is going on. I find that less stressful, maybe because when talking with friends, family, colleagues, we don't tend to use such alarmist language (at least the people I talk to don't). As for point b), I can imagine this might not be true, as long as it really was the case that no-one was informed. Hard to plan and orchestrate bad things without information!
- konschubert 2y ago
  > As for point b), I can imagine this might not be true, as long as it really was the case that no-one was informed. Hard to plan and orchestrate bad things without information! Sorry, yes. My assumption was that the bad guys will still stay informed, just like the bad guys don't put down their guns because I would prefer us all to be pacifists.
hnben 2y ago
> b) If everybody did this, a) would quickly no longer be true… Maybe the spiral goes in the other direction: Because no one does, a) is not true. I.e. because many people are "keeping up with hour-by-hour events", your house may explode tomorrow. If everyone was living under a rock, your house would be safe. Maybe there are two equilibriums. One equilibrium where everyone needs to know about current events because their houses may explode, and another equilibrium where everyone lives under a rock because their houses are save.
shepherdjerred 2y ago
> b) If everybody did this, a) would quickly no longer be true… Can you elaborate on why you think this?

refurb 2y ago

> I know some people will think it is morally wrong of me to not be interested in the world and society. Social media and the news are probably the worst way to be “informed” of the world and society. One could even argue you’re worse off using those because it gives you the illusion of being informed, without much substance. You’d be far better off picking up a quality history book (not the popular history books which are a step up from the news), but recognized historical books that are globally recognized as authoritative texts. If you read one book like that a year you would have already exceeded the knowledge from a lifetime of social media and mainstream news.