© Luke MacGregor / Reuters
I stigende grad fylder vi vores sind med lydbidder, den mentale parallel til skidt. Gennem en dag eller endog en uge er forandringerne, ligesom dem der foregår med vores mave, næppe synlige. Hvis vi imidlertid vi udvider vores tidslinje til måneder og år, står vi over for den bekymrende virkelighed, at vi må se ned på en grydemave af uvidenhed.
Hvis du tænker på dit sind som et bibliotek, burde tre ting bekymre dig.
- Informationen du gemmer der, dens nøjagtighed og relevans;
- Din evne til at find, huske denne information efter behov; og
- Til slut din evne til at bruge denne information, når du har brug for det, det vil sige, du ønsker at anvende den. .
Lad os tage et blik på det, du fylder på dit sind.
Kommentar: Delvist oversat af Sott.net fra Pot-belly of ignorance: What you read changes how effectively your mind operates
Der er ingen tvivl om, at vi bliver serveret mange former for data, som ikke har den store betydning på lang sigt, men det er næppe sådan at situationen er ens for alle.
I vores samfund skal børn fx lære læse. På vej til at erhverve denne færdighed, er der en masse skridt som for barnet ikke nødvendigvis giver mening, men som alligevel leder frem til målet, at kunne læse. Denne situation kan beskrives på den måde, at barnet med sin begrænsede viden ikke ved, hvad der vil have værdi i det samfund, det er født ind i og skal indgå i. Desuden forekommer det ofte, at barnet, på vej til at kunne læse, har svært ved at finde og bruge, det som det skal prøve at lære, men selv om der er nogen børn, der her giver lidt op, er det ikke det, der er hensigten.Hensigten er at alle skal kunne læse.
Der er sikkert også mennesker, som har oplevet, at de på et tidspunkt stiftede bekendtskab med et område af viden, som de ikke lærte så godt, men som på et senere tidspunkt i deres liv alligevel fik betydning, enten fordi det gav deres liv en retning, nærede en interesse for et felt, gav ideer til at skabe noget nyt, eller åbnede døre til en anderledes eller ny verden. Når man samler viden, er der ud over viden også de mennesker man kommer i kontakt med, mennesker der som levende biblioteker af viden og erfaring omgiver os.
At Farnam Street, we feel this is massively misunderstood, resulting in people failing to discriminate what you're feeding the "library of your mind". As the saying goes, "Garbage-in equals garbage-out."
If your mental library is inaccurate or plain wrong, you're going to struggle. You probably won't be very productive. Generally speaking, you'll muddle through things and you'll spend a lot of time correcting your own mistakes.
Our minds, like any tool, need to be optimized.
Clickbait media is not a nutritious diet. Most people brush this off and say that it doesn't matter ... that it's just harmless entertainment.
But it's not harmless at all. Worse, it's like cocaine. It causes our brains to light up and feel good. The more of it we consume, the more of it we want. It's a vicious cycle.
Our brain isn't stupid. It doesn't want this crap, so while it's giving you a mild dopamine rush, there's also very little to add to your library. Like alcohol, it's just empty calories. You cannot subsist on a diet of alcohol alone.
Clickbait does not carry much meaning. This is one reason that people re-read an article and don't remember having read it. Their brains determined it was trash and subsequently got rid of it rather than storing it. And that comes at a high opportunity cost - time is limited, you could have spent it more wisely than on an endless chain of mindless soundbites (more on that below).
Over days and weeks this isn't a big problem, but over years and decades it becomes a huge one.
Junk in the library messes with accrual of accurate, relevant information, and gets in the way of effective and efficient use our of brains — it causes us to seek out more rubbish instead. We lose our ability to discern.
And while we probably agree that the quality of what enters our head matters, it's easier said than done.
Not only do we need to filter, but we need to be aware of what filters our information has already been through.
There are filters everywhere.
Consider the CEO with 6 layers of management below them. Something that happens "on the ground floor" of the business, say an interaction between a salesperson and a customer, usually goes through six filters.
There is almost no way that information is as accurate as it should be for a good decision after all that filtering.
Now, the CEO might recognize this, but then they have to do something psychologically hard, which is basically say to their direct reports,"I'm not sure I got the right information from you." They have to go out of their way to seek out more detailed, relevant, independent information from the people close to the problem. (A good assistant will do this for you, but in a political organization they will also be hung out to dry by all parties, the CEO included.)
So not only do we need to filter, but we need to be aware of what filters our information has already been through.
Let's hit on one more related thought.
In our search for wisdom and high quality information to put into our library, we often turn to knowledge nuggets called soundbites. These deceptive fellows, also called surface knowledge, make us sound clever and feel good about ourselves. They are also easy to add to our "mind library".
The problem is surface knowledge is blown away easily, like topsoil. However, most people are operating on the same level of surface knowledge! So, in a twisted bout of game theory, we are rarely if ever called out on our bullshit (because people fear that we'll call them out on theirs.)
The result is that this surface, illusory, knowledge is later retrieved and applied with overconfidence when we're making decisions (often driven by the subconscious) in a variety of contexts, with terrible results.
If you're looking for a quick heuristic you can use for information you're putting into your library, try the two-pronged approach of:
A. Time
B. Detail.
Time meaning how relevant is this historically? How long will it be accurate — what will it look like in ten minutes, ten months, ten years? If it's going to change soon, you can probably filter it out right here.
One way to determine if the information will stand the test of time is by gauging its accuracy by examining the details. They are the small but powerful vitamins of your reading diet.
Details are so important that Elon Musk uses them to tell if people are lying during interviews.
You want to learn from people with a deep, accurate fluency in their area of expertise: The best filter is an intelligent human brain, find someone who has considerately prepared, processed and neatly presented a palatable meal of thought - Michelin over McDonalds.
One of the ways you can assess expertise is through the details people provide. Surface skimming articles are sometimes meant to be readable by the lay public, but more frequently it indicates simply that the author only has surface knowledge! Referenced work also shows you the author is aware of the filters their information came through too. It's like knowing the vegetables on your plate are organic and responsibly sourced.
So be careful. We'd guess that 99.9% of click-bait articles fail both these filters. They're neither detailed nor lasting in importance.
The good thing is that you can raise your standards over time.
Kommentar: Du er hvad du læser: Hvordan fordybelse i læsning er en effektiv hjerneøvelse