Hi friends and fans of Theory Gang, thanks for listening. As usual, excellent prompts, Natasha. I've gone ahead and marked up this post with all my answers/related thoughts: addressing the dangers of labeling, of evolving "truth", of who watches the Watchmen, and more. Just like our conversations, I got carried away and added quite a bit :) You can see the article-within-an-article here: https://readocracy.com/reads/ID/630f8eca333aed6b6d071223
Mario, this is wonderful thank you. Also I let out a pretty good chuckle at "Big Helio". 🤣 I think time will tell how people will do with media nutrition labels. Overall, this feels like a big step in a positive direction, and I'm curious to see how people react. Whether they can trust it, whether they can live vibe with the "low dopamine" news and activities as my friend @Halwalkermusic says.
The Highlight function seems much neater than others I've seen. I like that it almost creates an article of its own. Do we get "credit" for reading someone's highlights?
Sorry to be slow -- life with littles makes me a sporadic conversation partner online! I like your idea for this new podcast. As a father to daughters, the obesity metaphors aren't my favorite. And I am categorically opposed to Fitbit (though I exercise 5-6 days a week, and pretty intensely). So I was a resistant listener out of the gate. But this notion of privileging engagement with quality information is intriguing. We have a real problem with information literacy. I suppose as an old-school thinker, I'd prefer to tackle the problem with more resources for fact checking and less badges and monetization for digital content, since I feel like monetizing web traffic inherently corrupts the integrity of media (clickbait, etc.). I actually hate that part of promoting my own Substack, trying to think of titles that make people click through rather than the more concise metaphorical titles that I'd typically choose for literary work. So I'm not sure I came away convinced about Readocracy, but I like how you're tackling these big questions.
Asynchronous communication be like that! You know I thought the same thing about the Infobesity idea... but I don't have a problem with it. I figured a lot of people would, though. The problem is that like "junk" media, the problem is bigger than understanding what's "bad" for us. The problem is, we really like ice cream and TikToks. And TikToks about ice cream. I think labeling media, like food is probably a good thing because at least then you can make an informed choice about it.
We can debate how dangerous obsesity is, but the medical data are clear: poor diet and sedentary lifestyle contribute to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, arthritis, I mean a crap ton of comorbidities. Being body positive has to start including being "health" positive over being "thin", but being morbidly obese has health implications. In fact, this is *part* of the information literacy problem!
Thanks for sharing your honest feedback, Josh. Really great stuff. Would love to carry on this conversation.
Think you hit the nail on the head RE: junk being inherently bad, it's more about being equipped to be more mindful and intentional about your junk consumption. The reality is that there is a reason people are spending over 10 hours a day with media right now: it's completely frictionless, by design. How many times have we heard somebody lament — or ourselves done so — "I don't know where my time goes. I open [popular app], and 3 hours are gone when I look up." It's also why screen time is not an effective measure. You could spend 3 hours going down the most fascinating rabbit hole on something that is becoming your life's passion... or you could spend those 3 hours on increasingly salacious or outrageous celebrity tabloid clickbait. Analysis of the informational aspect helps define that.
I do think it's interesting how the term "infobesity" itself can make people defensive, just the same way the credits system can. Fascinating convos when you unpack that thoroughly.
This is a great point. You are definitely adding friction to the system not only with your infobesity metaphor, but by making people aware of what they are consuming. A lot of people are perfectly content with Doritos and mountain dew. In fact Hot Cheetos is bigger than ever has its own clothing line pretty much 🤣 .
I hope my writing can be somewhat of a quest bar or you know those protein chips? Like feels kind of good when you're consuming it, but packed with protein. 🌽
Totally agree about the potential contradictions within body positivity. But as a literary writer I do care about my metaphors, and the obesity one is unfortunate because obesity stats in the U.S. are grossly inflated by crass measures like BMI. I'll spare you the whole tangent on that.
I suppose I feel about information the same I do about other life choices. Diet culture is built on shaming, which typically produces temporary changes in behavior. See the latest Atlantic essay on alcohol consumption in the U.S. People lurch between Dry January and binge drinking. Wellness programs that offer monthlong weight loss challenges, but do not seem to care about long-term data (like running and cycling mileage on Strava) are laughable. I once had a wellness person tell me during an annual checkup that I ought to consider taking up some kind of cardiovascular activity. I'd just finished a half marathon two days earlier with an average pace of 8:20 per mile. She was purely basing that on my height and weight. We need better measures if we're going to assess reading habits.
I'm curious about what kind of metaphor you might offer from your neuroscience training for how we approach information. I'm an atheist, but I was raised Pentecostal and sometimes religious metaphors still resonate with me. Calvinists often talk about how the "motion of the heart" must change, and while I think that's bullshit in literal spiritual terms, it's an interesting analogue to how I think about my reading habits. What is the natural motion of my heart when it comes to information? Is there a way to change those natural habits for the long-term? I, personally, am not going to do that because of digital badges.
I don't know enough about the obesity epidemic to comment on whether it is overestimated, but I can agree that it's not my favorite metaphor. Of course, it's not *my* metaphor, it's Mario's. I think he's trying to visualize our information diet, but it's not really for me to speak on.
I think the mental health impact of our information diet is probably the most important effect, but there's controversy around mental health as well. Psychological flexibility and tolerance for the unknown are probably the best skills we can cultivate at this point for mental well-being. In that space, the first step is understanding our own emotions, so we can let go of emotions that aren't service us. I think self-awareness around what kinds of media we consume can help us in the first step.
Lately, there's been a very pervasive existential angst and not a whole lot we can control. If our media diet is very heavily skewed in one direction especially one where we cannot effect change or move towards better real world outcomes for ourselves (negative news, political bias, celebrity entertainment, etc.) it's going to have a negative effect on our mental health.
Thanks for your thoughts, Josh. And kudos on the half-marathon. Running is the devil.
Hi Josh, thanks for listening and the honest feedback!
A couple of comments/thoughts:
- We can debate the way obesity stats are calculated, but what I would expect isn't debatable are the ample studies showing the significant negative health outcomes of the rising rates of obesity on both young and old (or unhealthy eating, if we don't want to label it or associate it with specific definitions). Whatever we want to call it, there is a problem. The most fundamental step in habit change is awareness of a need to change i.e. a problem (which current information environment and tools equip us very poorly to do, if at all). Next, is the motivation to do so. Which brings me to your point, which I strongly agree with:
- I completely agree on shaming being the worst way to affect any sort of change. Whether it's dieting or convincing people to be better to our planet. I think it's a major reason so much of our progress on issues related to us "being better" get stuck in the mud. Guilt is not a realistic or sustainable motivator, especially in such an overwhelmed world. It doesn't gain a mental foothold. RE: Readocracy, there is no part of it that relies on shaming — even when we flag a source of misinformation, we do so in a very tempered way that gives the person the benefit of the doubt. The entire *point* of what we're trying to do with Readocracy is to counter solutions to the information crisis that rely exclusively on guilt and personal responsibility. We're trying to do that with positive motivation and rewards instead: can we turn your commitment to great information into upward economic mobility (via Linkedin upgrades, resume upgrades, etc)? Or improved social recognition and satisfaction (being elevated in discussion groups by being the most committed to the subject of the group)? These are the questions and answers we want to prompt and provide.
- We absolutely need better measures if we're going to assess reading habits! I'll save you the need to scroll, but as I mentioned to Natasha: The reality is that there is a reason people are spending over 10 hours a day with media right now: it's completely frictionless, by design. How many times have we heard somebody lament — or ourselves done so — "I don't know where my time goes. I open [popular app], and 3 hours are gone when I look up." It's also why screen time is not an effective measure, nor or simple quantification of articles or books, or blind measurement of time. You could spend 3 hours going down the most fascinating rabbit hole on something that is becoming your life's passion... or you could spend those 3 hours on increasingly salacious or outrageous celebrity tabloid clickbait. Knowing the difference is the key, and the difference between helpful feedback, or the informational equivalent of blindly telling you to "take up some cardiovascular activity".
- Infobesity is just one of the metaphors we've used. We've leaned into it because it seems to resonate with people the most and helps clarify the nebulous or unidentifiable problem for them. How we feed our body vs how we feed our mind. Quantity vs quality. Mindful vs. mindless. Simple. That said, we have also used a couple of others, if you're curious:
-> Environmental Pollution (the finite physical environment we rely on to live and be healthy, being compromised) vs. Information Pollution (the infinite information commons we share, which we need to interrogate with finite attention, being compromised — in a way that actively incentivizes flooding it with high quantity noise not high quality signal)
-> Road Safety/Laws (wielding powerful, easily life-threatening machines in a shared environment, what was done to do so coherently and safely) vs. Internet Safety/Laws (wielding powerful, easily life-threatening machines in a shared informational environment, what are we doing to make it coherent and safe? What is the equivalent of drivers licences or bare minimum road safety tests? Road signs? Standards of safe navigation? etc.)
Hi friends and fans of Theory Gang, thanks for listening. As usual, excellent prompts, Natasha. I've gone ahead and marked up this post with all my answers/related thoughts: addressing the dangers of labeling, of evolving "truth", of who watches the Watchmen, and more. Just like our conversations, I got carried away and added quite a bit :) You can see the article-within-an-article here: https://readocracy.com/reads/ID/630f8eca333aed6b6d071223
Mario, this is wonderful thank you. Also I let out a pretty good chuckle at "Big Helio". 🤣 I think time will tell how people will do with media nutrition labels. Overall, this feels like a big step in a positive direction, and I'm curious to see how people react. Whether they can trust it, whether they can live vibe with the "low dopamine" news and activities as my friend @Halwalkermusic says.
The Highlight function seems much neater than others I've seen. I like that it almost creates an article of its own. Do we get "credit" for reading someone's highlights?
-Pseudo Rabble-Rouser
Getting credit for reading someone's highlights (great question!) : not yet, but imminently yes!
Sorry to be slow -- life with littles makes me a sporadic conversation partner online! I like your idea for this new podcast. As a father to daughters, the obesity metaphors aren't my favorite. And I am categorically opposed to Fitbit (though I exercise 5-6 days a week, and pretty intensely). So I was a resistant listener out of the gate. But this notion of privileging engagement with quality information is intriguing. We have a real problem with information literacy. I suppose as an old-school thinker, I'd prefer to tackle the problem with more resources for fact checking and less badges and monetization for digital content, since I feel like monetizing web traffic inherently corrupts the integrity of media (clickbait, etc.). I actually hate that part of promoting my own Substack, trying to think of titles that make people click through rather than the more concise metaphorical titles that I'd typically choose for literary work. So I'm not sure I came away convinced about Readocracy, but I like how you're tackling these big questions.
Asynchronous communication be like that! You know I thought the same thing about the Infobesity idea... but I don't have a problem with it. I figured a lot of people would, though. The problem is that like "junk" media, the problem is bigger than understanding what's "bad" for us. The problem is, we really like ice cream and TikToks. And TikToks about ice cream. I think labeling media, like food is probably a good thing because at least then you can make an informed choice about it.
We can debate how dangerous obsesity is, but the medical data are clear: poor diet and sedentary lifestyle contribute to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, arthritis, I mean a crap ton of comorbidities. Being body positive has to start including being "health" positive over being "thin", but being morbidly obese has health implications. In fact, this is *part* of the information literacy problem!
Thanks for sharing your honest feedback, Josh. Really great stuff. Would love to carry on this conversation.
Think you hit the nail on the head RE: junk being inherently bad, it's more about being equipped to be more mindful and intentional about your junk consumption. The reality is that there is a reason people are spending over 10 hours a day with media right now: it's completely frictionless, by design. How many times have we heard somebody lament — or ourselves done so — "I don't know where my time goes. I open [popular app], and 3 hours are gone when I look up." It's also why screen time is not an effective measure. You could spend 3 hours going down the most fascinating rabbit hole on something that is becoming your life's passion... or you could spend those 3 hours on increasingly salacious or outrageous celebrity tabloid clickbait. Analysis of the informational aspect helps define that.
I do think it's interesting how the term "infobesity" itself can make people defensive, just the same way the credits system can. Fascinating convos when you unpack that thoroughly.
This is a great point. You are definitely adding friction to the system not only with your infobesity metaphor, but by making people aware of what they are consuming. A lot of people are perfectly content with Doritos and mountain dew. In fact Hot Cheetos is bigger than ever has its own clothing line pretty much 🤣 .
I hope my writing can be somewhat of a quest bar or you know those protein chips? Like feels kind of good when you're consuming it, but packed with protein. 🌽
As they say, the best education is entertaining, and the best entertainment educational :)
Totally agree about the potential contradictions within body positivity. But as a literary writer I do care about my metaphors, and the obesity one is unfortunate because obesity stats in the U.S. are grossly inflated by crass measures like BMI. I'll spare you the whole tangent on that.
I suppose I feel about information the same I do about other life choices. Diet culture is built on shaming, which typically produces temporary changes in behavior. See the latest Atlantic essay on alcohol consumption in the U.S. People lurch between Dry January and binge drinking. Wellness programs that offer monthlong weight loss challenges, but do not seem to care about long-term data (like running and cycling mileage on Strava) are laughable. I once had a wellness person tell me during an annual checkup that I ought to consider taking up some kind of cardiovascular activity. I'd just finished a half marathon two days earlier with an average pace of 8:20 per mile. She was purely basing that on my height and weight. We need better measures if we're going to assess reading habits.
I'm curious about what kind of metaphor you might offer from your neuroscience training for how we approach information. I'm an atheist, but I was raised Pentecostal and sometimes religious metaphors still resonate with me. Calvinists often talk about how the "motion of the heart" must change, and while I think that's bullshit in literal spiritual terms, it's an interesting analogue to how I think about my reading habits. What is the natural motion of my heart when it comes to information? Is there a way to change those natural habits for the long-term? I, personally, am not going to do that because of digital badges.
I don't know enough about the obesity epidemic to comment on whether it is overestimated, but I can agree that it's not my favorite metaphor. Of course, it's not *my* metaphor, it's Mario's. I think he's trying to visualize our information diet, but it's not really for me to speak on.
I think the mental health impact of our information diet is probably the most important effect, but there's controversy around mental health as well. Psychological flexibility and tolerance for the unknown are probably the best skills we can cultivate at this point for mental well-being. In that space, the first step is understanding our own emotions, so we can let go of emotions that aren't service us. I think self-awareness around what kinds of media we consume can help us in the first step.
Lately, there's been a very pervasive existential angst and not a whole lot we can control. If our media diet is very heavily skewed in one direction especially one where we cannot effect change or move towards better real world outcomes for ourselves (negative news, political bias, celebrity entertainment, etc.) it's going to have a negative effect on our mental health.
Thanks for your thoughts, Josh. And kudos on the half-marathon. Running is the devil.
Hi Josh, thanks for listening and the honest feedback!
A couple of comments/thoughts:
- We can debate the way obesity stats are calculated, but what I would expect isn't debatable are the ample studies showing the significant negative health outcomes of the rising rates of obesity on both young and old (or unhealthy eating, if we don't want to label it or associate it with specific definitions). Whatever we want to call it, there is a problem. The most fundamental step in habit change is awareness of a need to change i.e. a problem (which current information environment and tools equip us very poorly to do, if at all). Next, is the motivation to do so. Which brings me to your point, which I strongly agree with:
- I completely agree on shaming being the worst way to affect any sort of change. Whether it's dieting or convincing people to be better to our planet. I think it's a major reason so much of our progress on issues related to us "being better" get stuck in the mud. Guilt is not a realistic or sustainable motivator, especially in such an overwhelmed world. It doesn't gain a mental foothold. RE: Readocracy, there is no part of it that relies on shaming — even when we flag a source of misinformation, we do so in a very tempered way that gives the person the benefit of the doubt. The entire *point* of what we're trying to do with Readocracy is to counter solutions to the information crisis that rely exclusively on guilt and personal responsibility. We're trying to do that with positive motivation and rewards instead: can we turn your commitment to great information into upward economic mobility (via Linkedin upgrades, resume upgrades, etc)? Or improved social recognition and satisfaction (being elevated in discussion groups by being the most committed to the subject of the group)? These are the questions and answers we want to prompt and provide.
- We absolutely need better measures if we're going to assess reading habits! I'll save you the need to scroll, but as I mentioned to Natasha: The reality is that there is a reason people are spending over 10 hours a day with media right now: it's completely frictionless, by design. How many times have we heard somebody lament — or ourselves done so — "I don't know where my time goes. I open [popular app], and 3 hours are gone when I look up." It's also why screen time is not an effective measure, nor or simple quantification of articles or books, or blind measurement of time. You could spend 3 hours going down the most fascinating rabbit hole on something that is becoming your life's passion... or you could spend those 3 hours on increasingly salacious or outrageous celebrity tabloid clickbait. Knowing the difference is the key, and the difference between helpful feedback, or the informational equivalent of blindly telling you to "take up some cardiovascular activity".
- Infobesity is just one of the metaphors we've used. We've leaned into it because it seems to resonate with people the most and helps clarify the nebulous or unidentifiable problem for them. How we feed our body vs how we feed our mind. Quantity vs quality. Mindful vs. mindless. Simple. That said, we have also used a couple of others, if you're curious:
-> Environmental Pollution (the finite physical environment we rely on to live and be healthy, being compromised) vs. Information Pollution (the infinite information commons we share, which we need to interrogate with finite attention, being compromised — in a way that actively incentivizes flooding it with high quantity noise not high quality signal)
-> Road Safety/Laws (wielding powerful, easily life-threatening machines in a shared environment, what was done to do so coherently and safely) vs. Internet Safety/Laws (wielding powerful, easily life-threatening machines in a shared informational environment, what are we doing to make it coherent and safe? What is the equivalent of drivers licences or bare minimum road safety tests? Road signs? Standards of safe navigation? etc.)
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!