Last week's post was pretty darn depressing wasn't it? Well, at least it depressed me. I can't stand the idea that I might be narcotizing myself, and I certainly don't want to fool myself into thinking I'm being "part of the solution" or "becoming informed" when really I'm just lulling myself (and worse, those around me) into inaction and complacency.
The only course of action is to take action--and so today's post is an attempt to offer solutions that readers (and I) can use to avoid, subvert and beat the problem of narcotizing dysfunction.
Four things:
1) Eliminate the narcotic. What I mean by this, obviously, is stop consuming media. And for good measure, stop all news, all broadcast media, all social media, and most importantly, stop consuming peoples' rage-driven posts about any issue you care about. These things narcotize you and lull you into apathy, while fooling you into thinking you're doing something about the issue. Embrace a low-information, zero-media diet.
2) Read less about the specific issue that's important to you. Not more, less! Admittedly, this seems counter-intuitive. We all like to think we're missing out on being informed when we read less about an issue, but remember, we're up against a media that has interests that differ substantially from our own. In other words, the information made accessible to us through media isn't the information we want. Which brings us to the next solution...
3) While reading less, go directly to the source for your subject or issue information, do not use media or social media intermediaries that distort or impose (their) narratives on the information reaching you. Thus, read books or papers by genuine experts in the subject--and then read an oppositional book by opposing experts to make sure your own brain doesn't impose its own narrative on you either. I'll share an example in the domain of personal investing: I go directly to company quarterly earnings report transcripts (they are free at SeekingAlpha.com) and never read analyst reports or financial media reports telling me their interpretation of what happened. I don't want the intermediary's perception! I want to shape my own.
4) Be aware of the phenomenon itself, always. If you can remind yourself that "this information I'm seeing about issue X (or this discussion I'm having about topic Y) is likely displacing or supplanting action I would rather be taking" you are far less likely to be lulled into narcotized complacency.
5) Take specific action. Fricking actually do something about the thing. And no, once again, posting rubbish on social media does not count. True action involves putting your own skin in the game: If you want to do something about the pay gap, hire a woman. If you want to do something about wealth inequality, teach people how to invest. If you want to do something about XYZ political issue, run for office. If you want to write a novel... write a novel. Do not talk about it or consume media about it unless you wish to be narcotized and made inert and impotent. See how that works?
To summarize:
Eliminate media consumption.
Read less about the issue.
Go directly to source documents; never use informational intermediaries.
Be aware of the phenomenon: you are always at risk of being narcotized.
Take action.
***************************
You can help support the work I do here at Casual Kitchen by visiting Amazon via any link on this site. Amazon pays a small commission to me based on whatever purchase you make on that visit, and it's at no extra cost to you. Thank you!
And, if you are interested at all in cryptocurrencies, yet another way you can help support my work here is to use this link to open up your own cryptocurrency account at Coinbase. I will receive a small affiliate commission with each opened account. Once again, thank you for your support!
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Narcotizing Dysfunction
Narcotizing dysfunction is a theory that as mass media inundates us on a particular issue, we become increasingly apathetic to that issue.
Worse, we find ourselves substituting factoids and other ersatz knowledge about that issue in place of taking action to help.
As an example, everybody knows about the gender pay gap, and most of us know specific ersatz information about the issue--like the standard factoid women get paid 23% less than men.
But do you know anyone who's actually put their own skin in the game to do anything specific to ameliorate this pay gap? Me neither. And no, posting something about it on social media doesn't count. More on that in a minute.
I used the phrase ersatz knowledge earlier on purpose, because it begs the question whether it's even in our interests at all to know this kind of information. If you really think about it, the "23%" factoid appears to persuade us of something, but at the same time it lulls us into not doing a darn thing about it. It results in people talking rather than doing. Or worse: complaining rather than doing. And just to make sure readers don't get wrapped around the axle about the pay gap as an issue (see the postscript below), we could substitute many other issues in many other domains just as easily, including issues like obesity, saving money and financial independence, the alleged high cost of healthy food, etc.
There's another psychological phenomenon called "sense of completion," by which talking about something--merely talking about it--produces a tiny squirt of dopamine in your brain. That squirt of dopamine, and the small blurt of satisfaction it produces in your mind, is a miniature replica of the genuine sense of satisfaction you'd get if you'd actually completed the task.
Thus we talk about writing a novel, or post something on Twitter/Faceborg about writing a novel, but our talking produces a "miniature replica of satisfaction" that fools us into a feeling of taking action when we haven't. And we end up not writing a novel.
Everyone thinks they don't do this of course. But the truth is, talking is far, far easier than doing, and our brains take the easy route: we talk about doing stuff, we post online about doing stuff, and we don't actually do the stuff. We settle for a mental simulacrum of accomplishment rather than the accomplishment itself.
So now we have two psychological phenomena: sense of completion and narcotizing dysfunction. Both help explain why people are full of natters and they don't do shit. To put it crudely.
Talking, debating, quoting ersatz factoids about "the issues," consuming mass media, and (perhaps worst of all) consuming social media: It all narcotizes us.
If you start to think about these mechanisms, it starts to make you a bit suspicious about what you think, why you think it, and who's giving it to you to think. And, exposure, repeated exposure, to the very factoids you "know" about an issue seem only to keep you inactive. To keep things just as they are.
Call me crazy, but if you wanted to run a gigantic nationwide experiment on how to impose complacency on a society.... this might be how you'd do it.
Once I finally wrapped my mind around these concepts, my desire to debate politics--in fact, my desire to debate most issues, certainly over social media--instantly died.
READ NEXT: How to Use Ersatz Knowledge For YOUR Benefit, Not Theirs
AND: A Terrible Paradox for Locavores
Postscript: A discussion of the gender pay gap is obviously far beyond the scope of this blog and far outside my circle of competence, and as a result I don't have the credibility to offer an opinion on it. Furthermore, keep in mind that this post isn't about the pay gap per se, but about our complacency about any important issue even after we're persuaded.
What's even more intriguing is how there are other types of "gaps" that we never hear about that actually favor women, and in some cases monstrously favor women (examples: workplace deaths, workplace injuries, pay gaps for workers younger than 30). It begs the same questions: why do we all "know" (and are relentlessly fed) the "23% less" factoid, but not the others? And why would we even want to "know" this, then, if the result seems to be nothing more than our complacency? It bakes your noodle just to think about it.
*****************
You can help support the work I do here at Casual Kitchen by visiting Amazon via any link on this site. Amazon pays a small commission to me based on whatever purchase you make on that visit, and it's at no extra cost to you. Thank you!
And, if you are interested at all in cryptocurrencies, yet another way you can help support my work here is to use this link to open up your own cryptocurrency account at Coinbase. I will receive a small affiliate commission with each opened account. Once again, thank you for your support!
Worse, we find ourselves substituting factoids and other ersatz knowledge about that issue in place of taking action to help.
As an example, everybody knows about the gender pay gap, and most of us know specific ersatz information about the issue--like the standard factoid women get paid 23% less than men.
But do you know anyone who's actually put their own skin in the game to do anything specific to ameliorate this pay gap? Me neither. And no, posting something about it on social media doesn't count. More on that in a minute.
I used the phrase ersatz knowledge earlier on purpose, because it begs the question whether it's even in our interests at all to know this kind of information. If you really think about it, the "23%" factoid appears to persuade us of something, but at the same time it lulls us into not doing a darn thing about it. It results in people talking rather than doing. Or worse: complaining rather than doing. And just to make sure readers don't get wrapped around the axle about the pay gap as an issue (see the postscript below), we could substitute many other issues in many other domains just as easily, including issues like obesity, saving money and financial independence, the alleged high cost of healthy food, etc.
There's another psychological phenomenon called "sense of completion," by which talking about something--merely talking about it--produces a tiny squirt of dopamine in your brain. That squirt of dopamine, and the small blurt of satisfaction it produces in your mind, is a miniature replica of the genuine sense of satisfaction you'd get if you'd actually completed the task.
Thus we talk about writing a novel, or post something on Twitter/Faceborg about writing a novel, but our talking produces a "miniature replica of satisfaction" that fools us into a feeling of taking action when we haven't. And we end up not writing a novel.
Everyone thinks they don't do this of course. But the truth is, talking is far, far easier than doing, and our brains take the easy route: we talk about doing stuff, we post online about doing stuff, and we don't actually do the stuff. We settle for a mental simulacrum of accomplishment rather than the accomplishment itself.
So now we have two psychological phenomena: sense of completion and narcotizing dysfunction. Both help explain why people are full of natters and they don't do shit. To put it crudely.
Talking, debating, quoting ersatz factoids about "the issues," consuming mass media, and (perhaps worst of all) consuming social media: It all narcotizes us.
If you start to think about these mechanisms, it starts to make you a bit suspicious about what you think, why you think it, and who's giving it to you to think. And, exposure, repeated exposure, to the very factoids you "know" about an issue seem only to keep you inactive. To keep things just as they are.
Call me crazy, but if you wanted to run a gigantic nationwide experiment on how to impose complacency on a society.... this might be how you'd do it.
Once I finally wrapped my mind around these concepts, my desire to debate politics--in fact, my desire to debate most issues, certainly over social media--instantly died.
READ NEXT: How to Use Ersatz Knowledge For YOUR Benefit, Not Theirs
AND: A Terrible Paradox for Locavores
Postscript: A discussion of the gender pay gap is obviously far beyond the scope of this blog and far outside my circle of competence, and as a result I don't have the credibility to offer an opinion on it. Furthermore, keep in mind that this post isn't about the pay gap per se, but about our complacency about any important issue even after we're persuaded.
What's even more intriguing is how there are other types of "gaps" that we never hear about that actually favor women, and in some cases monstrously favor women (examples: workplace deaths, workplace injuries, pay gaps for workers younger than 30). It begs the same questions: why do we all "know" (and are relentlessly fed) the "23% less" factoid, but not the others? And why would we even want to "know" this, then, if the result seems to be nothing more than our complacency? It bakes your noodle just to think about it.
*****************
You can help support the work I do here at Casual Kitchen by visiting Amazon via any link on this site. Amazon pays a small commission to me based on whatever purchase you make on that visit, and it's at no extra cost to you. Thank you!
And, if you are interested at all in cryptocurrencies, yet another way you can help support my work here is to use this link to open up your own cryptocurrency account at Coinbase. I will receive a small affiliate commission with each opened account. Once again, thank you for your support!
Policing Warren Buffett’s Diet
I was struck by this article that tries (and mostly fails) to criticize both Warren Buffett's diet and his investments in Coca-Cola:
Warren Buffett will not apologize for his junk food addiction
Like most media news, it produces a sort of ersatz knowledge: it takes something that's technically true (in this case that Buffett has an unhealthy diet) and uses that fact to impose a narrative on the reader (essentially: did you know Buffett drinks Coke and invests in Coke and won't apologize for it at all? What about the children!?!?!).
The reader is left with a totally inaccurate perception of reality and, sadly, becomes measurably dumber after reading the article.
Interestingly, the article is correct about one thing. A few years ago I attended a Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, and Buffett did exactly what the article describes: when the meeting started at 9:00 am, he promptly poured himself a can of Coca-Cola, and throughout the meeting both he and Charlie Munger (Buffett's 94-year-old (!) business partner) snacked absently from a box of See's Candy peanut brittle[1] on the table between them.
But back to this article and the narrative it imposes on us: the spurious idea that some journalist, somewhere, has the right to police the diet of somebody else just because he's rich, famous, or both. Or in a broader sense, on how people passively-aggressively try to control others by asking them to justify and explain their diets, their opinions, their position on political issues, even their investments.
By the way, it's not just the media doing this: we do this to the people around us too.
And don't get me wrong, I'm in no way advocating a diet like Buffett's. Just because I criticize someone for criticizing someone else doesn't mean I advocate the thing being criticized in the first place. If you follow me. What I have a problem with is the passive-aggressive idea that somebody else's diet ought to be policed.
Buffett feels zero need to apologize for how he eats--or how he invests. Nor should you.
Recommended reading:
1) Alice Schroeder's excellent biography of Buffett: The Snowball
2) Janet Lowe's useful biography of Charlie Munger: Damn Right!
[1] What was unintentionally hilarious: the microphones in front of them picked up their crunching. It was oddly hypnotizing to hear Buffett crunching violently on peanut brittle while Munger answered a shareholder's question, and then to hear Munger do the same as Buffett shared his thoughts.
***********************
You can help support the work I do here at Casual Kitchen by visiting Amazon via any link on this site. Amazon pays a small commission to me based on whatever purchase you make on that visit, and it's at no extra cost to you. Thank you!
And, if you are interested at all in cryptocurrencies, yet another way you can help support my work here is to use this link to open up your own cryptocurrency account at Coinbase. I will receive a small affiliate commission with each opened account. Once again, thank you for your support!
Warren Buffett will not apologize for his junk food addiction
Like most media news, it produces a sort of ersatz knowledge: it takes something that's technically true (in this case that Buffett has an unhealthy diet) and uses that fact to impose a narrative on the reader (essentially: did you know Buffett drinks Coke and invests in Coke and won't apologize for it at all? What about the children!?!?!).
The reader is left with a totally inaccurate perception of reality and, sadly, becomes measurably dumber after reading the article.
Interestingly, the article is correct about one thing. A few years ago I attended a Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, and Buffett did exactly what the article describes: when the meeting started at 9:00 am, he promptly poured himself a can of Coca-Cola, and throughout the meeting both he and Charlie Munger (Buffett's 94-year-old (!) business partner) snacked absently from a box of See's Candy peanut brittle[1] on the table between them.
But back to this article and the narrative it imposes on us: the spurious idea that some journalist, somewhere, has the right to police the diet of somebody else just because he's rich, famous, or both. Or in a broader sense, on how people passively-aggressively try to control others by asking them to justify and explain their diets, their opinions, their position on political issues, even their investments.
By the way, it's not just the media doing this: we do this to the people around us too.
And don't get me wrong, I'm in no way advocating a diet like Buffett's. Just because I criticize someone for criticizing someone else doesn't mean I advocate the thing being criticized in the first place. If you follow me. What I have a problem with is the passive-aggressive idea that somebody else's diet ought to be policed.
Buffett feels zero need to apologize for how he eats--or how he invests. Nor should you.
Recommended reading:
1) Alice Schroeder's excellent biography of Buffett: The Snowball
2) Janet Lowe's useful biography of Charlie Munger: Damn Right!
[1] What was unintentionally hilarious: the microphones in front of them picked up their crunching. It was oddly hypnotizing to hear Buffett crunching violently on peanut brittle while Munger answered a shareholder's question, and then to hear Munger do the same as Buffett shared his thoughts.
***********************
You can help support the work I do here at Casual Kitchen by visiting Amazon via any link on this site. Amazon pays a small commission to me based on whatever purchase you make on that visit, and it's at no extra cost to you. Thank you!
And, if you are interested at all in cryptocurrencies, yet another way you can help support my work here is to use this link to open up your own cryptocurrency account at Coinbase. I will receive a small affiliate commission with each opened account. Once again, thank you for your support!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
