Laurence Tratt wrote this interesting article on his blog two days ago. “Choosing what to read” as an article is more than worth your time reading it. It talks about making the best reading and opinion influencing choices in a world where we get overwhelmed with articles about pretty much everything every single day. Two ideas in particular struck me:
“I also noticed how depressing the “news” generally is: as the cliche goes, bad news sells, so that’s what tends to get written about. I realised that not only was I spending hours a week reading about horrible events (murders, corruption, war, etc.) but that I was being heavily influenced by this — I thought the world was a worse place than it really is. Now I skim the news on a daily basis, but I filter out everything that seems “ transitory”, particularly if it’s depressing. Instead, I’m looking to identify and understand longer term trends, not (unless they’re major) one-off events. The most consistent publication I’ve found that matches what I want is the Economist. I understand, and can largely correct for, its biases. Since its writing about areas I know well is consistently good, I am reasonably confident that generalises to those areas I don’t know well and wish to learn more about.”
So, what is he doing here? Instead of being overwhelmed by bad news which gets prioritized by most channels because we as humans have an unhealthy craving for it – much as we have an unhealthy craving for “reality TV” or traffic accidents – Tratt consciously makes the choice to spend his limited reading time on a trusted source which will help him stay aware of general trends, withouh causing the overwhelm. This approach to consciously avoid negative overwhelm is, in hindsight, an obvious choice, but something we just don’t reflect on.
A second paragraph that resonated with me was the following:
“I read a small number of opinion pieces in newspapers and a moderate number of blogs in the same sort of vein. At one point I was carefree in such reading, but I realised that I was in danger of only reading those pieces that confirmed, positively or negatively, my existing world-view. At best this was a waste of my time, and at worse it was making it less likely that I would revise incorrect opinions. These days I select the people I read carefully, but not for their ideology — rather, I’m looking for thoughtful people who can challenge my thinking in a carefully justified way. Not many weeks go by without this causing me, even if only slightly, to adjust an opinion.”
Tratt is aware of the negative effects of getting caught in an echo-chamber, and he makes again a conscious choice to avoid it. Here is conscious choice is essential, as the traditional platforms will prioritize content based on your likes and past reading behaviour. They are pushing you towards your echo-chamber, because their algorithms are optimized to confirm your beliefs.
I know none of this is new, but I am suprised how few people apply these important principles. So, what can we take from this? Really, two great ideas. First, in order to avoid bad news overwhelm, stick with a couple of trusted quality sources. Then, to make sure you are exposed to all opinions, not just those of the people you believe in, make sure you read quality sources across the entire spectrum of opinions. This will not just enhance the quality of your reading, but further the quality of your thinking and your opinions as well. Think about it.
This article appeared first on the blog Exploring The Black Box
Exploring The Black Box 