Live data from Hacker News

News is bad for you

theguardian.com

151–160 of 239 posts

Re: News is bad for you

#151

I was raised on NPR and have used/use it as my main source for general news and find it very informative. Although it is not perfect, NPR seems to focus on the delivery of information in a balanced (if that is possible) way allowing me to draw my own conclusions. My problem with the big news outlets (cnn, msnbc, fox, etc) is that they are clearly a business and focused on profitability (I have much empathy for them a…

Yes, clearly mainstream news has been turned into an entertainment product. Agree that NPR delivers the news in depth without all of the cynicism and noise that makes mainstream news so depressing, except on environmental issues, that's a topic where the NPR coverage will suggest you should have a bunker in the mountains.

Re: News is bad for you

#152

Whether news is bad for you or not probably depends more than a little on what the source is. I don't watch television—for years our TV was in a box in a closet, brought out mostly just for watching the Olympics. But I do look at Google News and try to train it to give me mostly long-form suggestions about science and world issues from diverse sources with professional reporting and editing. That helps. The claim tha…

Why would you expect there to be medical evidence that speaks to being happier after giving up reading news?

I don't think you are entitled to expect that. Medical studies don't tend to focus on the happiness of healthy people. Even if they did, I would be surprised if a good study giving us data on happiness on reading news already exist at a scale that would represent the range of population behaviour.

I don't disagree with you wanting good scientific evidence - that's commendable.

I disagree with calling baloney on a sensible hypothesis ('reading news as a typical Westerner does is detrimental to overall happiness for most people') just because that scientific evidence does not yet exist and this opinion piece does not yet provide it.

Bias alert: I'm pretty sure I read to much news, and am solidifying this meme in my mind to try to improve that.

Re: News is bad for you

#153
post #20

While I agree with the sentiment, Rolf Dobelli himself is a plagiarist. This whole reasoning is basically stolen from Nassim Taleb. http://fooledbyrandomness.com/dobelli.htm http://blog.chabris.com/2013/09/similarities-between-rolf-do... EDIT: For another take on not reading the news, see http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews

How can he be a plagiarist when this should be general knowledge?

Re: News is bad for you

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think there's a difference between isolated anecdotes and two dozen paragraphs with very similar content? Not to mention the fact that Dobelli reviewed Taleb's book, and that other authors have noticed similarities. Also this paragraph: Note that correspondence of content doesn't imply plagiarism. There is a book EXTREMELY similar to Fooled by Randomness called The Drunkard's Walk. Yet not a shade of plagia…

I said Dobelli should be embarassed. He certainly should be embarassed by several of those examples. But Taleb's page is also embarassing to Taleb. He's presenting many of these as his original ideas when, well, they're simply not.

I don't think Taleb is presenting many of these as his original ideas, he's merely (in the original context - his book) using them as examples to drive his other ideas.

If you ask Taleb himself, he would say that he's only had one idea - the rest are just derivations (his or someone else's), and using already observed phenomena and anecdotes to explain it and its consequences.

The only purpose of that article is to expose Dobelli, nothing else.

As to the specific quote Taleb basically reads as a reorganized and edited version of this last quote. - isn't it possible that he has had a very similar experience?

Re: News is bad for you

#155

Yeah, ignorance is bliss, but, while the premise is fundamentally flawed, I'll direct you to Idiocracy about what happens with an uneducated populace.

Pssst. Here's what idiocratic actually means :-) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+idiocratic&oq=defin...

Re: News is bad for you

#156
Of course. The news are depressing in the declining empire of the USA, how not to get depressed watching them? It's not like things are going into the right direction and each year is better than the previous one. The things goes in wrong direction and things are worse every year than they used to be. And pretending it is not happening by just simply turning off the news is exactly what NSA and the USG want you to do.

Re: News is bad for you

#157
post #101

The biggest problem with news is that it's about newness and rarity. Whereas what we actually need to know is mostly not new. Eg, "man eaten by alligator" is a billion times less important than "decades of data say you will likely get heart disease." Another serious problem with news is its schedule. A daily paper must publish something every day, even if nothing important has happened. An hourly newscast is worse. M…

News in the UK has several problems. News papers are either horrible - I cannot describe just how vile much of the UK news press industry is. The decent newspapers have tiny distribution figures. The Guardian, for example, has a circulation of under 300,000 people. Obviously, more people read it, but still, that's a tiny figure. UK news allows the agenda[1] to be set by spin doctors. We frequently has stories about h…

Not to dump on UK, but I also find the UK newspapers to be very mean spirited. US tabloids gawk at celebrities, but UK tabloids are out to get them. I would not want to be famous in the UK.

Re: News is bad for you

#159
I am often frustrated by news and think much of it is worth ignoring, but many of the points are not very well-supported.

"News has no explanatory power": I'm not going to argue that most mainstream news is even that good, but to suggest that "the accumulation of facts" is inconsistent with forming deeper knowledge is too sweeping. Readers of news can observe patterns, which hopefully they will check against more in-depth research.

Much of news' task to not the "how?" but the "what?" and on that measure, it does a decent, if inconsistent job: http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/.

"News is toxic to your body": The author cites a case study involving the limbic system that doesn't mention media or news at all. It may well be that "Panicky stories spur the release of cascades of glucocorticoid" but do they do so at noticeable or unhealthy levels? I'm not convinced.

"News increases cognitive errors": News is not an ideal way of challenging biases, but it seems much better than not reading news and getting information about filtered through friends with similar biases to you. (Reading carefully filtered news and books is probably best of all.)

"News inhibits thinking": This section only applies if you read news intermittently and let notifications interrupt you. Concentrating on a newspaper (or news site) for 30 minutes would not have the same effect. But continually leaving work for chatting co-workers would.

"News works like a drug": This section is one of the most plausible, but once again, it doesn't cite any evidence. Cal Newport has a similar line of reasoning, but he actually has research to back it up: http://calnewport.com/blog/2010/06/10/is-allowing-your-child.... (It's about Facebook, but the same principle of distracting activities ruining focus applies.)

"News wastes time": This is all about habits and boundaries. Like "News inhibits thinking," this problem could emerge with any activity engaged in on a whim during working hours.

"News kills creativity": The theory that younger mathematicians are more productive is actually unfounded. See http://www.slate.com/articles/life/do_the_math/2003/05/is_ma... or http://privacyink.org/pdf/myth.pdf. And this last part is pure argument by anecdote:

"I don't know a single truly creative mind who is a news junkie – not a writer, not a composer, mathematician, physician, scientist, musician, designer, architect or painter. On the other hand, I know a bunch of viciously uncreative minds who consume news like drugs."

The points about most news being irrelevant to day-to-day life and story bias are worth pondering, but otherwise this article overreaches. It is a series of interesting conjectures about the effect of news, but often presumes a certain way of reading or watching news. The evidence for each point is slim. I'm forced to conclude his warnings of "panicky" news with "no explanatory power" are hypocritical.

Re: News is bad for you

#160
post #65

Whether news is bad for you or not probably depends more than a little on what the source is. I don't watch television—for years our TV was in a box in a closet, brought out mostly just for watching the Olympics. But I do look at Google News and try to train it to give me mostly long-form suggestions about science and world issues from diverse sources with professional reporting and editing. That helps. The claim tha…

You've entirely missed the point. News is bad because it focuses on the sensational and misses the actionable. Ie bitcoin articles focus on the speculative aspect and not that it's a more useful, less friction method of payment. Business shows focus on day to day movement instead of broad sweeping trends that are game changers. The medium is partly the problem.

> Ie bitcoin articles focus on the speculative aspect and not that it's a more useful, less friction method of payment.

... what if bitcoin, currently, _is_ only about the speculative aspect, and is not actually more useful with less friction?

Post reply on HN