Forums > Social Discussion > are we over stimulated with news&information?
Login/Join to Participatemember
37 posts
37 posts
Posted:
The punk rocker with flowers in your hair thread made me think of something I often think about.
would we be better off a little bit less informed.
i think a lot of apathy today may be derived from the fact that if you live an average life style, watching lots of tv, reading lots of news papers, and having lots of discussions around the water cooler, that world events, and topics of social and enviromental justice, becomes an irritant. After all, we are bombarded with it everywheres. I think we probably absorb a lot more information on world events then most people can process. Perhaps if it was the 60,s, and we only had 6 or 7 crisis around the world that we actually knew about to be uppitity about, intead of 20-30 or more, we would see a lot more people out protesting and trying to make a change. Maybe people in the 60s werent hopelessly overwhealmed with information.
an example is if you take someone from the country and put them in the city, they care very much about all the tragedies and politics going on in that city. But the people who grew up their, are more or less sick of hearing about it everyday, and ontop of that they are desensitived.
Maybe more information isnt better? I would hate to think that, but sometimes you wonder when people dont give a
about anything.
EDITED_BY: astar2 (1151495799)
The punk rocker with flowers in your hair thread made me think of something I often think about.
would we be better off a little bit less informed.
i think a lot of apathy today may be derived from the fact that if you live an average life style, watching lots of tv, reading lots of news papers, and having lots of discussions around the water cooler, that world events, and topics of social and enviromental justice, becomes an irritant. After all, we are bombarded with it everywheres. I think we probably absorb a lot more information on world events then most people can process. Perhaps if it was the 60,s, and we only had 6 or 7 crisis around the world that we actually knew about to be uppitity about, intead of 20-30 or more, we would see a lot more people out protesting and trying to make a change. Maybe people in the 60s werent hopelessly overwhealmed with information.
an example is if you take someone from the country and put them in the city, they care very much about all the tragedies and politics going on in that city. But the people who grew up their, are more or less sick of hearing about it everyday, and ontop of that they are desensitived.
Maybe more information isnt better? I would hate to think that, but sometimes you wonder when people dont give a
about anything.EDITED_BY: astar2 (1151495799)
BRONZE Member
compfuzzled
1,182 posts
Location: hastings, England (UK)
compfuzzled
1,182 posts
Location: hastings, England (UK)
Posted:
i dont think if u actually counted up the people who are protesting and taking part in direct action today theres probably alot more coordinated movements going on than in the 60's
which was simply a case of a lot of media coverage for things that werent on the same scale as protests and actions we've had today
think bout the february 12th anti-iraq war actions where jus in london alone we had 2million,
rio 10/12 million
new york city 6/7 mill
those r jus big numbers, think bout every city n town everywhere having some kind of action
i dont think if u actually counted up the people who are protesting and taking part in direct action today theres probably alot more coordinated movements going on than in the 60's
which was simply a case of a lot of media coverage for things that werent on the same scale as protests and actions we've had today
think bout the february 12th anti-iraq war actions where jus in london alone we had 2million,
rio 10/12 million
new york city 6/7 mill
those r jus big numbers, think bout every city n town everywhere having some kind of action
"the geeks have got you" - Gayle
GOLD Member
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
Posted:
Yes
Yes
"I used to want to change the world, now I just wanna leave the room with a little dignity..." - Lotus Weinstock
GOLD Member
organic creation
246 posts
Location: earth, Wales (UK)
organic creation
246 posts
Location: earth, Wales (UK)
Posted:
i find that the quality of my life has increased due to the cessation of television. i am no longer subjected to the bias information and no longer tempted to shut off my mind (as often) and lay on the couch. im not saying television is all bad, it can be used in a educational and positive way, but i remember watching more crap than non-crap. also, i don't agree with the television as a babysitter approach one bit. i do watch movies tho.
i don't think less information is the answer i think more correct and balanced information without such an emphasis on negetivity and scandal-mongering sensationalism would help.
i find that the quality of my life has increased due to the cessation of television. i am no longer subjected to the bias information and no longer tempted to shut off my mind (as often) and lay on the couch. im not saying television is all bad, it can be used in a educational and positive way, but i remember watching more crap than non-crap. also, i don't agree with the television as a babysitter approach one bit. i do watch movies tho.
i don't think less information is the answer i think more correct and balanced information without such an emphasis on negetivity and scandal-mongering sensationalism would help.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
No, actually. See, we forget all this extra information just as fast as we're exposed to it. The real challenge is sorting out what's "real", what's hype, and what's just a plain old paranoid conspiracy theory.
What ever happened to the hole on the ozone layer anyway? 10 years ago, this, not global warming was going to be the instrument that radically alters " life as we know it" What's next? Spice Girls reunion?
No, actually. See, we forget all this extra information just as fast as we're exposed to it. The real challenge is sorting out what's "real", what's hype, and what's just a plain old paranoid conspiracy theory.
What ever happened to the hole on the ozone layer anyway? 10 years ago, this, not global warming was going to be the instrument that radically alters " life as we know it" What's next? Spice Girls reunion?
GOLD Member
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
Posted:
well the hole in the ozone was gonna lead to global warming. Now global warming has 'actually happened' with pretty catastrophic results, it's pretty much a moot point now...
well the hole in the ozone was gonna lead to global warming. Now global warming has 'actually happened' with pretty catastrophic results, it's pretty much a moot point now...
"I used to want to change the world, now I just wanna leave the room with a little dignity..." - Lotus Weinstock
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Was it really going to add to global warming? Or was it going to cause mass starvation by burning all our crops?
Was it really going to add to global warming? Or was it going to cause mass starvation by burning all our crops?
SILVER Member
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Posted:
That's the wrong was round. A greater temperature favours the reactions that break ozone down into oxygen, so global warming leads to a bigger hole in the atmosphere.
Ozone cuts out UV, that's the other end of the spectrum to heat. Any "burning crops" would be due to UV, so it would be whatever the plant equivalent of sunburn - not that that wouldn't be catastrophic.
Now that I think about it UV also damages/kills micro-organisms in the sea which act as a large sink or CO2/producer or O2. I guess it means that ozone depleation and golbal warming could fit into a positive feedback loop, not funky.
Some good news, apparently there is some evidence that ozone levels are returning to normal, but it's a slow process.
That's the wrong was round. A greater temperature favours the reactions that break ozone down into oxygen, so global warming leads to a bigger hole in the atmosphere.
Ozone cuts out UV, that's the other end of the spectrum to heat. Any "burning crops" would be due to UV, so it would be whatever the plant equivalent of sunburn - not that that wouldn't be catastrophic.
Now that I think about it UV also damages/kills micro-organisms in the sea which act as a large sink or CO2/producer or O2. I guess it means that ozone depleation and golbal warming could fit into a positive feedback loop, not funky.
Some good news, apparently there is some evidence that ozone levels are returning to normal, but it's a slow process.
Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
"Lest you doubt the left's pieties are now a religion, try this experiment: go up to an environmental activist and say "Hey, how about that ozone hole closing up?" or "Wow! The global warming peaked in 1998 and it's been getting cooler for almost a decade. Isn't that great?" and then look at the faces. As with all millenarian doomsday cults, good news is a bummer."
~Mark Steyn
"Lest you doubt the left's pieties are now a religion, try this experiment: go up to an environmental activist and say "Hey, how about that ozone hole closing up?" or "Wow! The global warming peaked in 1998 and it's been getting cooler for almost a decade. Isn't that great?" and then look at the faces. As with all millenarian doomsday cults, good news is a bummer."
~Mark Steyn
GOLD Member
organic creation
246 posts
Location: earth, Wales (UK)
organic creation
246 posts
Location: earth, Wales (UK)
Posted:
i would say "great news about the ozone but... "In the IPCC Third Assessment Report, the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, it was concluded that based on the balance of all available evidence and even considering uncertainties and areas lacking adequate research, the earth is undergoing a rapid warming trend that is outside the likely bounds of natural variations and this climate change is likely to have been due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning."
This statement has been explicitly endorsed by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
i hope mark isn't trying to compare an environmental activist to a millenarian doomsday cultist because that would just be silly.
i would say "great news about the ozone but... "In the IPCC Third Assessment Report, the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, it was concluded that based on the balance of all available evidence and even considering uncertainties and areas lacking adequate research, the earth is undergoing a rapid warming trend that is outside the likely bounds of natural variations and this climate change is likely to have been due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning."
This statement has been explicitly endorsed by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
i hope mark isn't trying to compare an environmental activist to a millenarian doomsday cultist because that would just be silly.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
So then this raises an interesting question: is it *POSSIBLE* to over-bombard someone with news and information if it isn't imperative that said person respond to it all? Maybe they just shut out the excess and we label that as "apathy."
What you call "apathy" may not be apathy at all. Perhaps that very "over-bombardment" produces the appearance of apathy because we aren't really capable of dealing with it all, and so we cease to care about 99% of it. Perhaps long ago, people only had to deal with 1% of what we deal with today and then they weren't seen as apathetic because they could deal with it all.
Interesting idea...
Written by: astar2
i think a lot of apathy today may be derived from the fact that if you live an average life style, watching lots of tv, reading lots of news papers, and having lots of discussions around the water cooler, that world events, and topics of social and enviromental justice, becomes an irritant. After all, we are bombarded with it everywheres. I think we probably absorb a lot more information on world events then most people can process.
So then this raises an interesting question: is it *POSSIBLE* to over-bombard someone with news and information if it isn't imperative that said person respond to it all? Maybe they just shut out the excess and we label that as "apathy."
What you call "apathy" may not be apathy at all. Perhaps that very "over-bombardment" produces the appearance of apathy because we aren't really capable of dealing with it all, and so we cease to care about 99% of it. Perhaps long ago, people only had to deal with 1% of what we deal with today and then they weren't seen as apathetic because they could deal with it all.
Interesting idea...
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Actually I agree. I read a study a long while back which found that people who are consistant news readers/watchers also tend to suffer from elevated levels of stress. People with elevated levels of stress usually also have elevated levels of aggression and/or apathy from overload.
Dr. Andrew Weil, if you've ever read any of his stuff, has a book that is "8 Weeks to perfect health", or some such title. One of the things he says to do is to begin to cut news out of your life. Slowly at first but essentially weening yourself off. He suggests it because it lowers stress.
It's the only thing I actually did out of that book, and it worked.
I look at papers online only for what I want. If I see/hear a discussion, I'll read up on the topic to be informed but I no longer watch the news, purchase papers or any such and I am not nearly as sensitive as I used to be.
Written by: astar2
The punk rocker with flowers in your hair thread made me think of something I often think about.
would we be better off a little bit less informed.
i think a lot of apathy today may be derived from the fact that if you live an average life style, watching lots of tv, reading lots of news papers, and having lots of discussions around the water cooler, that world events, and topics of social and enviromental justice, becomes an irritant. After all, we are bombarded with it everywheres. I think we probably absorb a lot more information on world events then most people can process. Perhaps if it was the 60,s, and we only had 6 or 7 crisis around the world that we actually knew about to be uppitity about, intead of 20-30 or more, we would see a lot more people out protesting and trying to make a change. Maybe people in the 60s werent hopelessly overwhealmed with information.
an example is if you take someone from the country and put them in the city, they care very much about all the tragedies and politics going on in that city. But the people who grew up their, are more or less sick of hearing about it everyday, and ontop of that they are desensitived.
Maybe more information isnt better? I would hate to think that, but sometimes you wonder when people dont give a
Actually I agree. I read a study a long while back which found that people who are consistant news readers/watchers also tend to suffer from elevated levels of stress. People with elevated levels of stress usually also have elevated levels of aggression and/or apathy from overload.
Dr. Andrew Weil, if you've ever read any of his stuff, has a book that is "8 Weeks to perfect health", or some such title. One of the things he says to do is to begin to cut news out of your life. Slowly at first but essentially weening yourself off. He suggests it because it lowers stress.
It's the only thing I actually did out of that book, and it worked.
I look at papers online only for what I want. If I see/hear a discussion, I'll read up on the topic to be informed but I no longer watch the news, purchase papers or any such and I am not nearly as sensitive as I used to be.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
activist for HoPper liberation.
1,643 posts
Location: ffidrac
1,643 posts
Location: ffidrac
Posted:
It's an interesting theory, but i don't watch the news and rarely read a paper besides the free one that i occasionally find on a train. Nevertheless i am stressed about a wide range of global issues, maybe i read too many books, but maybe it has also to do with the fact that it is so obviously apparent that not all is well when you're walking through a smog filled concrete jungle, and eating plastic food.... Compare that to say being in a woodland miles away from towns or villages and being surrounded by other creatures, is that not enough to make you think that something may have gone amiss?
Back on topic though, yes, i think there can be too much information around, but no, i also think that there isn't. Depends how you tackle it, there's a lot of utterly useless and misleading information, yes, but with the right filters and by asking the right questions it can be useful to you....
The information age is brilliant for activism, there are so many movements and organisations that are able to raise their voice through the web, when their views might otherwise be supressed by big media production companies. Here's something i found just today that literally encourages people to share information, to discuss it and create their own views and do something... Dropping Knowledge
I'm much happier having access to masses of information, i don't want to feel like i'm in Nineteen Eightyfour 
Written by: PeleWritten by: astar2
The punk rocker with flowers in your hair thread made me think of something I often think about.
would we be better off a little bit less informed.
i think a lot of apathy today may be derived from the fact that if you live an average life style, watching lots of tv, reading lots of news papers, and having lots of discussions around the water cooler, that world events, and topics of social and enviromental justice, becomes an irritant. After all, we are bombarded with it everywheres. I think we probably absorb a lot more information on world events then most people can process. Perhaps if it was the 60,s, and we only had 6 or 7 crisis around the world that we actually knew about to be uppitity about, intead of 20-30 or more, we would see a lot more people out protesting and trying to make a change. Maybe people in the 60s werent hopelessly overwhealmed with information.
an example is if you take someone from the country and put them in the city, they care very much about all the tragedies and politics going on in that city. But the people who grew up their, are more or less sick of hearing about it everyday, and ontop of that they are desensitived.
Maybe more information isnt better? I would hate to think that, but sometimes you wonder when people dont give a
Actually I agree. I read a study a long while back which found that people who are consistant news readers/watchers also tend to suffer from elevated levels of stress. People with elevated levels of stress usually also have elevated levels of aggression and/or apathy from overload.
Dr. Andrew Weil, if you've ever read any of his stuff, has a book that is "8 Weeks to perfect health", or some such title. One of the things he says to do is to begin to cut news out of your life. Slowly at first but essentially weening yourself off. He suggests it because it lowers stress.
It's the only thing I actually did out of that book, and it worked.
I look at papers online only for what I want. If I see/hear a discussion, I'll read up on the topic to be informed but I no longer watch the news, purchase papers or any such and I am not nearly as sensitive as I used to be.
It's an interesting theory, but i don't watch the news and rarely read a paper besides the free one that i occasionally find on a train. Nevertheless i am stressed about a wide range of global issues, maybe i read too many books, but maybe it has also to do with the fact that it is so obviously apparent that not all is well when you're walking through a smog filled concrete jungle, and eating plastic food.... Compare that to say being in a woodland miles away from towns or villages and being surrounded by other creatures, is that not enough to make you think that something may have gone amiss?
Back on topic though, yes, i think there can be too much information around, but no, i also think that there isn't. Depends how you tackle it, there's a lot of utterly useless and misleading information, yes, but with the right filters and by asking the right questions it can be useful to you....
The information age is brilliant for activism, there are so many movements and organisations that are able to raise their voice through the web, when their views might otherwise be supressed by big media production companies. Here's something i found just today that literally encourages people to share information, to discuss it and create their own views and do something... Dropping Knowledge
I'm much happier having access to masses of information, i don't want to feel like i'm in
Nineteen Eightyfour Aurinko freedom agreement reached 10th Sept 2006
if it makes no sense that's because it's NOn-sense.
SILVER Member
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Posted:
I know a lot of people avoid news for that reason - but I have to say, to me it sounds like just putting your head in the sand or your fingers in your ears, and singing tingalingaloo...
it would be far more effective to have a system of sorting the information that comes into our life, and being able to ignore the crap and keep the good (of which I think news is an important part).
Written by: Pele
Actually I agree. I read a study a long while back which found that people who are consistant news readers/watchers also tend to suffer from elevated levels of stress. People with elevated levels of stress usually also have elevated levels of aggression and/or apathy from overload.
Dr. Andrew Weil, if you've ever read any of his stuff, has a book that is "8 Weeks to perfect health", or some such title. One of the things he says to do is to begin to cut news out of your life. Slowly at first but essentially weening yourself off. He suggests it because it lowers stress.
It's the only thing I actually did out of that book, and it worked.
I look at papers online only for what I want. If I see/hear a discussion, I'll read up on the topic to be informed but I no longer watch the news, purchase papers or any such and I am not nearly as sensitive as I used to be.
I know a lot of people avoid news for that reason - but I have to say, to me it sounds like just putting your head in the sand or your fingers in your ears, and singing tingalingaloo...
it would be far more effective to have a system of sorting the information that comes into our life, and being able to ignore the crap and keep the good (of which I think news is an important part).
enthusiast
255 posts
Location: Melbourne - home of pirates
255 posts
Location: Melbourne - home of pirates
Posted:
I think its entirely possible for us to be overbombarded with information. We have so many outlets for news and knowledge of all descriptions (not just world events/issues) and our brains, although wonderful and adaptable, have simply not evolved to cope with the amount of information that's available to us through new media, and its hardly surprising, considering that much of the development has been in the past 150 years...
My theory.. Feel free to pick holes in it.
I think its entirely possible for us to be overbombarded with information. We have so many outlets for news and knowledge of all descriptions (not just world events/issues) and our brains, although wonderful and adaptable, have simply not evolved to cope with the amount of information that's available to us through new media, and its hardly surprising, considering that much of the development has been in the past 150 years...
My theory.. Feel free to pick holes in it.
"You've gone from Loey the Wonder Lesbian to everyone wondering if you are a lesbian." - Shadowman
Yesterday is yesterday. If we try to recapture it, we will only lose tomorrow.
activist for HoPper liberation.
1,643 posts
Location: ffidrac
1,643 posts
Location: ffidrac
Posted:
that's one argument, but then on the other hand, our brains are always bombarded with information and have been since.. well forever.... every sight and sound contains information of some sort, and humans have always had to simplify to understand.... I read one philosophy book that described that concept very well... it use some example to do with ravens, but i can't remember it.... so really we have always been overbombarded with information. Just the nature of it changes, and now we rely more on other people to relay the information than to find it ourselves... i think... maybe.
that's one argument, but then on the other hand, our brains are always bombarded with information and have been since.. well forever.... every sight and sound contains information of some sort, and humans have always had to simplify to understand.... I read one philosophy book that described that concept very well... it use some example to do with ravens, but i can't remember it.... so really we have always been overbombarded with information. Just the nature of it changes, and now we rely more on other people to relay the information than to find it ourselves... i think... maybe.
Aurinko freedom agreement reached 10th Sept 2006
if it makes no sense that's because it's NOn-sense.
enthusiast
255 posts
Location: Melbourne - home of pirates
255 posts
Location: Melbourne - home of pirates
Posted:
I don't get that..
In a hunter-gatherer society, there is only so much information you are subjected to. The information of your world is about survival skills, such as where the food/game/water/shelter is, interaction within your own tribe/family, and trying to make sense of the world (religion/folklore).
That's what our brains evolved for.. Mind you, its capable of much more, and time has proven that. But I feel that we are entering an age where we are forcing our brains to deal with more information that it can readily cope with.
I don't get that..
In a hunter-gatherer society, there is only so much information you are subjected to. The information of your world is about survival skills, such as where the food/game/water/shelter is, interaction within your own tribe/family, and trying to make sense of the world (religion/folklore).
That's what our brains evolved for.. Mind you, its capable of much more, and time has proven that. But I feel that we are entering an age where we are forcing our brains to deal with more information that it can readily cope with.
"You've gone from Loey the Wonder Lesbian to everyone wondering if you are a lesbian." - Shadowman
Yesterday is yesterday. If we try to recapture it, we will only lose tomorrow.
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com