3 ms·

Well the first one only works if you balance it with some variety. My point isn't to stop reading different stuff, but consciously choose what you want to read.

Well the first one only works if you balance it with some variety. My point isn't to stop reading different stuff, but consciously choose what you want to read. Yeah, "fall in love" isn't that concrete, I know. But again, it works for me if I manage to rotate the types of content I consume. About the last topic, I give you that. But I'll choose reading a good article to watching trash TV or gossip news any time of the day. Anyway thanks for taking to time to deconstruct some of the ideas I wrote. I think this topic has too few people writing and thinking about it.

claudius 14y ago
> My point isn't to stop reading different stuff, but consciously choose what you want to read. Thanks – the first point is the important one, the latter ideally should be a no-brainer. :)[0] > But I'll choose reading a good article to watching trash TV or gossip news any time of the day. Of course, the heuristics that icebraining mentioned come into play here, in a validity to the extent that it is generally safe to assume little to no information on trash TV. However, heuristics are still heuristics and there are – in my experience – always sufficiently many borderline cases where heuristics will fail and the love-it-or-leave-it attitude makes you stick to one particular newspaper[1], leading you to become uninformed about the arguments of the ‘other side’. [0] If someone could make a rule please about the relative position of emoticons and punctuation… [1] Granted, the internet alleviated that issue somewhat, but just the choosing of news Google delivers to you based on your past reading might act somewhat like that, recreating the bubble that was formerly built by newspapers.
- restreitinho 14y ago
  True. That's my issue with online filters, anyway. It kinda gets philosophical too because filters only act according to what we choose to filter. So a filter for the other side would be kind of a never-ending journey (but a very important one to achieve, regardless). About emoticons and punctuation, I deal with that on a daily basis too. Ugh.

claudius 14y ago

> My point isn't to stop reading different stuff, but consciously choose what you want to read. Thanks – the first point is the important one, the latter ideally should be a no-brainer. :)[0] > But I'll choose reading a good article to watching trash TV or gossip news any time of the day. Of course, the heuristics that icebraining mentioned come into play here, in a validity to the extent that it is generally safe to assume little to no information on trash TV. However, heuristics are still heuristics and there are – in my experience – always sufficiently many borderline cases where heuristics will fail and the love-it-or-leave-it attitude makes you stick to one particular newspaper[1], leading you to become uninformed about the arguments of the ‘other side’. [0] If someone could make a rule please about the relative position of emoticons and punctuation… [1] Granted, the internet alleviated that issue somewhat, but just the choosing of news Google delivers to you based on your past reading might act somewhat like that, recreating the bubble that was formerly built by newspapers.

restreitinho 14y ago
True. That's my issue with online filters, anyway. It kinda gets philosophical too because filters only act according to what we choose to filter. So a filter for the other side would be kind of a never-ending journey (but a very important one to achieve, regardless). About emoticons and punctuation, I deal with that on a daily basis too. Ugh.