Live data from Hacker News

News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

m.guardiannews.com

51–60 of 245 posts

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#51

I've come to a similar conclusion. Because news emphasizes the dramatic over the contextual, they're always providing me poor information in an even poorer context. That's just the way the business works. I've done something weird, though: I switched to plaintext commentary. So each day I scan my personal news site, http://newspaper23.com . It only does commentary. I find that by scanning the titles I can see what ne…

http://newspaper23.com looks like a great site. I've been looking for something that just shows headlines and doesn't require launching into an image-heavy site just to read the article.

However, the JavaScript appears to be broken in Chrome. Switching categories doesn't work, for example.

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#52
I gave up my multiple time per day reads of news.google.com. I decided that it didn't improve my life to hear what shooting took place, or what North Korea had done this time, every day. I still read technology news, but the normal day to day stuff I've completely stopped following. It's been a few months since I gave it up and I must say that I'm happy with my change. I did the same thing with reddit. I gave that one up because it was too much of a time sink.

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#53
I went on a 'news fast' a while back and felt amazing after it.

It might be herd vs individual health but watching / reading the news will not make you better off.

I do think concentrating on knowledge of the world is important but I think this is separate from news.

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#54
I would agree to the degree that "News" refers to shallow news reporting. News on TV? Undoubtedly detrimental. Long form journalism? Lots of merit. Sensational coverage of a kidnapping? Waste of your time. Coverage of the political process? Could lead you to a revelation about certain political entities.

Basically, I would not recommend completely dismissing all forms of news. News consumption can lead you to change your mind about something. If you never expose your self to new data, you will find yourself holding onto stale beliefs and opinions. There's something to be said for remaining an informed citizen.

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#55
post #35

This article irks me. Although most "news" has regressed into banal link bait just plain yellow journalism, and the notion of the "news organization" has undergone an inexorable transition towards the likes of Buzzfeed the the Huffington Post, it's absurd to assert that all news is worthless. First, his point that no news can be of value to one's personal situation or decision-making is false. News has impacted my li…

About your last paragraph. It has always puzzled and bothered me that there is this popular notion that to truly understand the world is to be miserable and hopeless - that there exists this trade-off between knowledge and happiness.

For me, the one blinding truth that exists about humanity is its undeniable progress on the grand timescale. You won't find anyone arguing really that we are worse off now than we were 100 years ago. I'm talking about the extremely basic progress indicator of the average quality of life of a human being on Earth (which is of course mostly subjective). Expand the timescale back beyond 100 years, and our progress just becomes more and more clear. We are so much better than we were 500 years ago in every single aspect of living on this planet: health care, wealth distribution, civil rights, freedom, scientific discovery, overall happiness... There is not a single aspect of humanity that was better back then.

I should note that a huge reason our progress is not always as evident within 100 years is this pattern of people's adamant belief that the generation below them is somehow screwing up the world forever. Technology is making people stupid/socially retarded, music these days sucks, no one cares about other people anymore, blah blah blah. I could talk for hours about how much I hate this, but I'll just say that it is incorrect, and aspects of that idea that are true stem from the fact that younger people are generally stupider than older people, because they haven't lived as much. Everyone was once stupid, and "Kids these days" will eventually learn, like everyone does.

If you let yourself become affected by the misery and despair that is definitely still around us on Earth, then in my opinion you are a part of the problem. You may not be Joseph Kony or Kim Jong-Un, but you are contributing just as much to the fear and hopelessness on Earth by becoming a part of it. And you are short-sited. The world is certainly not perfect, but it is also most certainly getting better. The most knowledgeable people on this planet are optimistic. They understand that horrific things are happening across the globe right now, but they also understand the world's natural condition of progress. These are also the people that contribute most to the progress of humanity.

Sorry to rant. I agreed with your comment for the most part aside from that.

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#56

I think Taleb was among the first to hit this tune. " To be completely cured of newspapers, spend a year reading the previous week’s newspapers. " " The best test of whether someone is extremely stupid (or extremely wise) is whether financial and political news makes sense to him. " " There is a certain category of fool—the overeducated, the academic, the journalist, the newspaper reader, the mechanistic "scientist",…

I played with options for a bit. Nearly all the "financial news" is information free. No matter what happens, there'll be an article explaining why. Even decent-seeming publications would join along in the "Stock X moved because of event Y", even though you could flip the predicates around and still have a coherent story.

As Eliezer writes, "If you are equally good at explaining any outcome, you have zero knowledge"[1].

To be fair though, I suppose the real "news" is subtle information and isn't likely to become a simple headline and the people able to make use of it are unlikely to detail the causation afterwards. Although, sometimes I wonder, at least in stocks, if the nonsense "news" ends up driving things more than any fundamental reasons.

1: http://lesswrong.com/lw/if/your_strength_as_a_rationalist/

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#57
post #35

This article irks me. Although most "news" has regressed into banal link bait just plain yellow journalism, and the notion of the "news organization" has undergone an inexorable transition towards the likes of Buzzfeed the the Huffington Post, it's absurd to assert that all news is worthless. First, his point that no news can be of value to one's personal situation or decision-making is false. News has impacted my li…

Being "provoked to action" is not the same "making better decisions".

The relevancy that the author is talking of is of things that you need to decide where the need to decide did not come from news. In other words, if you read no news you would still have many decisions to make, right? The question is - does news help you make better choices in those decisions?

Said another way, how many decisions can you think of that: 1.) the need to make a choice did not arise from reading the news, and 2.) reading the news led to a better decision?

The election is probably closest to these type of decisions. But I like Tim Ferriss's approach to discuss pros and cons of candidates with trusted friends instead of the press.

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#59

I've come to a similar conclusion. Because news emphasizes the dramatic over the contextual, they're always providing me poor information in an even poorer context. That's just the way the business works. I've done something weird, though: I switched to plaintext commentary. So each day I scan my personal news site, http://newspaper23.com . It only does commentary. I find that by scanning the titles I can see what ne…

I'm not certain if the analogy that news is bad for you is true. I've heard this multiple times from multiple people and practiced going on a news diet (temporarily) even though I'm used to being on top of what's happening.

What I ended up realizing was that the news wasn't really affecting me, because, what I was reading was not the crap about celebs, gossip and other nonsense, but actual stuff around me that was having an impact on the world.

I don't know if I could go on without reading about the Arab Spring, or the Nuclear tests in North Korea, even though they don't directly impact me or my daily life.

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that HN is neutral, need to know, or even concise, you're crazy. Though on the subject of neutrality, humans aren't neutral, so expecting their publications to be is itself insane.

Cheers. Crazy, or maybe just misinformed. Thanks for enlightening me. (no sarcasm) Guess I'll think twice before posting something positive about HN from now on.

There are a lot of positive things about HN, without it being "real news". The major value for me is that it is (often) interesting. I learn a lot here that helps me find new ways to think about technology and the web industry.

But it is not:

* neutral: there are some pretty obvious biases, though they aren't consistent

* need-to-know: there's nothing I've learned on HN which has been strictly necessary to me, though there's a lot which was interesting

* concise: the net information density is relatively low, than higher on many other discussion sites. (Low bar, I know...)

Post reply on HN