NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, it's an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/20/ST2008032002026.html) written by a humorist, but it still has some good stuff. (Besides, he won a Pulitzer.)
The entire article is fun, but the theme can be summed up in the fourth paragraph (...which I'm including with the third paragraph, as it is funnier):
The best informed person I ever knew was a friend of my grandfather's back in the Bronx, where I grew up. Every morning of every day of his life, this elderly man -- his name, as I recall, was Boris -- would dress impeccably in a suit and waistcoat and shuffle to the public library, where more than a dozen of the day's local and out-of-town newspapers were threaded through bamboo poles and hung from racks. One by one, Boris would read them all, front to back; at dusk, he would walk home alone. This daily pilgrimage was conducted with ecclesiastic solemnity, a quiet, dignified homage to the majesty of knowledge. Even as a little boy, in that intuitive if primitive way that children comprehend important things, I understood the fundamental truth that Boris was, in some clear but compelling way, a douche bag.

It is possible to know too much. It is possible to care too much. Hunger for information can become gluttony.
The US presidential election is starting to make me feel that way. I'm too young to remember what elections were like before 2000, but even then it seemed it was harder to be informed about every little thing, 24/7. The phrase "news junkie" seems less and less to be a witty metaphor, and more a person who is literally psychologically addicted to information.

Thoughts? Is the increased availability of information a democratization of elections, or does it just make it easier to miss the forest for the trees?

EDIT: I've realized I posted a thread about this same article back in March. Oops.

Want to find out if you're addicted to information, go without internet or TV for about three days. You'll pull your damned hair out in frustration.

No cell phones either.

Want to find out if you're addicted to information, go without internet or TV for about three days. You'll pull your damned hair out in frustration.

No cell phones either.

I have no doubt that I am, which is why I suspect it may be unhealthy. And I'm far from being the biggest addict here.

Very few people seem to agree with me but I simply can't agree that it's possible to know too much. That article, whether meant humourously or not, is a little disturbing to me. It seems to be suggesting that learning/knowing things is somehow inherently undesireable with its "(I) understood the fundamental truth that Boris was, in some clear but compelling way, a douche bag" comment, and that's an attitude that I simply cannot understand.

I'm a self-confessed information junkie. I read voraciously across a vast range of subjects (admittedly, mainly scientific disciplines), and I just can't get enough. I was bad enough before it came along, but the advent of the Internet has punted me onto a whole new level of random learning, and I love it.

It all depends on the nature of the knowledge that you're accumulating, of course. I see little value in keeping up to date on the minutiae of what musicians and actors are up to, nor in slavishly following inconsequential political point-scoring (which, let's face it, is not something that's confined to these interminable U.S. election campaigns) but there is 'real' news out there, and it's worth reading up on, from my point of view.

Want to find out if you're addicted to information, go without internet or TV for about three days. You'll pull your damned hair out in frustration.

No cell phones either.

Strangely I have no problem with this. I can go camping for days and not care a jot about what is happening in the real world.

Strangely I have no problem with this. I can go camping for days and not care a jot about what is happening in the real world.

It really bothers me, the inability to look up maps, facts about things, names, definitions. It's like losing a part of your brain.

It really bothers me, the inability to look up maps, facts about things, names, definitions. It's like losing a part of your brain.

Being able to switch off is nice, it lets some of that buzzing in my mind dissapate so I can start again with the random crap build-up.

Information is important; without it, feedback ceases to be. An abundance of information can be filtered and ignored at an individual level until we find only that which is relevant, and I think we as a society need to learn how to do that better. But a shortage of information can only result in stagnancy and corruption, and it is foolishness and arrogance to assume that our world can ever progress to the point where feedback and growth is unnecessary.

I try to find a balance. I have a hungry-head, that just sucks up information from all kinds of places (not necessarily what I want it to know...), and I am active in always trying to find things out.

But, at the same time, I also try to find ways to let my brain just relax from time to time. While gaining new information is admirable, it's processing it that's really important, and we don't always allow enough time for that.

I suspect most people are the same... which is where the cliche of coming up with good ideas on the toilet comes from.

Want to find out if you're addicted to information, go without internet or TV for about three days. You'll pull your damned hair out in frustration.

No cell phones either.

I couldn't do it for more than a day, maybe two. I'd get antsy about email first, and then if I didn't actually have a cell phone handy I'd probably go nutso.

I can't even drive comfortably without the radio on.

Always was a current affairs junkie. When I was about 4 years old and near RAF Brise Norton (sp?) with the family on a walk, saw a helicopter flying and supposedly shouted "MUM, MUM, IT'S THE BOSNIAN SERBS!" which supposedly made everyone else on the same path as us rather worried :D

Yes, it's an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/20/ST2008032002026.html) written by a humorist, but it still has some good stuff. (Besides, he won a Pulitzer.)
The entire article is fun, but the theme can be summed up in the fourth paragraph (...which I'm including with the third paragraph, as it is funnier):

The US presidential election is starting to make me feel that way. I'm too young to remember what elections were like before 2000, but even then it seemed it was harder to be informed about every little thing, 24/7. The phrase "news junkie" seems less and less to be a witty metaphor, and more a person who is literally psychologically addicted to information.

Thoughts? Is the increased availability of information a democratization of elections, or does it just make it easier to miss the forest for the trees?

http://interocitor.com/images/johnny5.jpg

INPUT! INPUT! MORE INPUT!!!

http://interocitor.com/images/johnny5.jpg

INPUT! INPUT! MORE INPUT!!!

I remember seeing that film when I was about 5... it was AMAZING!!! :tongue:

I remember seeing that film when I was about 5... it was AMAZING!!! :tongue:

Yup, I used to "manufacture" tons of Johnny 5s as a kid with k'nex and legos after watching that film. :tongue:

Yup, I used to "manufacture" tons of Johnny 5s as a kid with k'nex and legos after watching that film. :tongue:

:$ I didn't have the right lego bricks to make Johnny 5s.

Want to find out if you're addicted to information, go without internet or TV for about three days. You'll pull your damned hair out in frustration.

No cell phones either.
That's one of the reasons why, when I go out to California, I drive. I took three days coming back, but the trip out there, I stretched it to four by pausing in the Rockies to hike.

Thoughts? Is the increased availability of information a democratization of elections, or does it just make it easier to miss the forest for the trees?

I suppose the snotty-but-true answer is "yes". Increased availability of information -- particularly the two-way flow that Weingarten is talking about, where more people can speak as well as listen -- is more democratic in that citizens have more of a voice in the public discourse. It also results in a very low wheat-to-chaff ratio.

I'd like to say that the decrease in the ratio isn't an inevitable consequence of the absolute volume of <agricultural metaphor> available, but I think it is. The more information that we have available, the quicker we desire to process it, and that leads us to select information that is quicker to process. This is even more the case for those who feel called upon to respond in some way, whether it's because they're a professional pundit or because they have a blog or because they want people to respond to their NSG post. Simple, concrete information that triggers emotional responses as well as rational ones is quicker to process than complicated, abstract, cerebral information, so the simple emotional stuff ends up on top of the pile of our collective consciousness. It then generates a series of responses, which people then respond to. The chaff creates its own chaff, muddying my original metaphor still further. All of a sudden one gets the sense that Sarah Palin's mothering abilities are more important than what either party's candidate plans to do about healthcare.

This is, I think, The Colbert Report's major aim: to show the utter silliness that emerges when the news stories are reactions and analyses of previous news stories, and how the media attempt (not always consciously) to influence reality.

Very few people seem to agree with me but I simply can't agree that it's possible to know too much. That article, whether meant humourously or not, is a little disturbing to me. It seems to be suggesting that learning/knowing things is somehow inherently undesireable with its "(I) understood the fundamental truth that Boris was, in some clear but compelling way, a douche bag" comment, and that's an attitude that I simply cannot understand.

I'm a self-confessed information junkie. I read voraciously across a vast range of subjects (admittedly, mainly scientific disciplines), and I just can't get enough. I was bad enough before it came along, but the advent of the Internet has punted me onto a whole new level of random learning, and I love it.

It all depends on the nature of the knowledge that you're accumulating, of course. I see little value in keeping up to date on the minutiae of what musicians and actors are up to, nor in slavishly following inconsequential political point-scoring (which, let's face it, is not something that's confined to these interminable U.S. election campaigns) but there is 'real' news out there, and it's worth reading up on, from my point of view.

I don't think that the essay disagrees with you. Weingarten says "it is possible to know too much," but his experiment doesn't involve gathering raw facts, but trying to process the onslaught of instapunditry that makes up the media cycle. I think he's just overgeneralizing a bit for dramatic effect.

I'm not so sure I'm an information junkie so much as I have a compulsion to read.

I read cornflake packets, I'll go out of my way to read notices, a bonus side effect is that I have lots of information but I don't think it's the information alone that moves me to read.

I'm not so sure I'm an information junkie so much as I have a compulsion to read.

I read cornflake packets, I'll go out of my way to read notices, a bonus side effect is that I have lots of information but I don't think it's the information alone that moves me to read.

I'm the same way. I'll be halfway through something before I've decided whether it's worth reading or not. This causes me no end of irritation with stupid newspaper columnists, as they've already ruined my day before I can remember to not read them. Also, The Family Circus: "it's always there, in the lower right hand corner, just waiting to suck."

I'm the same way. I'll be halfway through something before I've decided whether it's worth reading or not. This causes me no end of irritation with stupid newspaper columnists, as they've already ruined my day before I can remember to not read them. Also, The Family Circus: "it's always there, in the lower right hand corner, just waiting to suck."

Indeed, I have the cartoon with the short-arse tyrant king that is simply so unfunny I wonder how it's syndicated so much.

Very few people seem to agree with me but I simply can't agree that it's possible to know too much. That article, whether meant humourously or not, is a little disturbing to me. It seems to be suggesting that learning/knowing things is somehow inherently undesireable with its "(I) understood the fundamental truth that Boris was, in some clear but compelling way, a douche bag" comment, and that's an attitude that I simply cannot understand.
I'm pretty sure he's joking there. (I hope so. Calling his grandfather's old friend a douche bag? That's horrible.)

I'm a self-confessed information junkie. I read voraciously across a vast range of subjects (admittedly, mainly scientific disciplines), and I just can't get enough. I was bad enough before it came along, but the advent of the Internet has punted me onto a whole new level of random learning, and I love it.
Ah, I think I start to see where you're coming from, and I probably should have been more clear. The author of the article spent 24 hours listening non-stop to punditry of all kind, and his message is that it is possible to know and analyze too much about every detail of politics or current events. Just generally wanting to know as much as possible, curiosity, I doubt he has a problem with.

I suppose the snotty-but-true answer is "yes". Increased availability of information -- particularly the two-way flow that Weingarten is talking about, where more people can speak as well as listen -- is more democratic in that citizens have more of a voice in the public discourse. It also results in a very low wheat-to-chaff ratio.

I wonder if it really is more democratic. Giving people more information in theory makes it easier for them to make informed decisions, but it is just as easy to mislead people in the type of information you spew out as it is to mislead them by withholding information. It's kind of like if the emperors of Rome printed the recipe for the bread they served at the circuses, and let the people debate it on a municipal level.

Want to find out if you're addicted to information, go without internet or TV for about three days. You'll pull your damned hair out in frustration.

No cell phones either.

That's why I love radio (NPR). Just enough information to get you current without overwhelming you, then switching topics to, say, The Splendid Table or Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me or This American Life.