Disinterest in Current Events

[speiss]

I just don't care.

The fact that I didn't came to me when I was watching a video of Noam Chomsky talk about politics. The man seemed infinitely interesting, but I couldn't hold my attention on what he was saying because I just didn't want to hear anything about the war or the president or the terrorists. I love history, but I just don't care about what's happening now. I'm much more concerned with my own life rather than the lives of people in Iraq, and even though do pity them and their awful situation, I don't think about nor care about it much.

I noticed that INTPs do have a tendency to be impartial towards the world around them and focus on their own thoughts. I don't know, is this for anybody else? I despise talking politics, because for one, I'm not in power to do anything about what I believe will help the world, and I'm not one to gather my beliefs and become some kind of radical that tries to force power onto my myself.

I don't read the newspaper much. I mean I should, some of it I like and is interesting, but things like two men drowning at a beach a couple miles away from me doesn't strike my concern as much as other people. Sometimes I feel like people should just keep their business their own, and stop telling me about it and asking for my opinion, because when asked your opinion about a dire predicament, you're almost always wrong.

 

[Cognisant]

If you can't do anything about it, then is it any of your business?

News & soaps, the effect may be different but the voyeurism is the same.

 

[walfin]

I joined a political party. Doing things like that can sometimes help. Even when you feel you can't change anything, you can try to sow the seeds of change (or die trying - but then you may be a Martyr to the Cause ).

But yes, I find it hard to keep up with current events. There is just so much of it that we get inundated. Part of the reason, I think, is that there are just so many humans. Back then there were less humans, and correspondingly, fewer "important" humans.

 

[telepathink]

I just don't care.
I don't read the newspaper much. I mean I should, some of it I like and is interesting, but things like two men drowning at a beach a couple miles away from me doesn't strike my concern as much as other people.

I don't care about drown people, if I don't know anything about them. Such newspaper articles I call noise.
But perhaps you should care about a war your own country has started. And I mean not just another noise articles about irrelevant issues or misleading in any other way. But rather about the true causes and consequences, something called signal.

 

[Cognisant]

Signal sent by whom?

Half-truths are arguably more dangerous than whole lies.

 

[telepathink]

Signal sent by whom?

Sorry If I am not clear. I borrowed this terminology from Nassim Taleb. I can't find any proper definition but he talks about it in his book http://books.google.com/books?id=DC...ook_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAQ

I will not comment on who sends the signal but rather I will point you to who sends the noise - you can find more about this here: http://www.thedailybell.com/654/Meme.html
...and of course, now I have just touched a specific noise/signal area - but let it serve you as an interesting example - and a hopefully interesting reading material

Half-truths are arguably more dangerous than whole lies.

true true... half-true is sometimes just pure noise because the important information is missing.

This noise I am talking about could be also seen like a 'bad signal' - something which is simply not true, but it appears so.
With the true noise stuff I was reffering to unimportant news which overwhelm the real information, the signal - like 100 stories of death incidents and 1 real story that something is wrong for example with the government.

 

[Cognisant]

My point is that although you can read in the newspaper that there's a war going on, the reasons why it's being fought are rarely explored with any worthwhile depth, that's why I consider any news that isn't in direct relevance to my life to be almost completely irrelevant; I think it's better to be knowingly ignorant than to falsely believe I'm not.

When I want to know what's going on, I search for the information, I don't let someone else come to me with their version of the truth, then believe it at face value for the sake of convenience.

 

[telepathink]

My point is that although you can read in the newspaper that there's a war going on, the reasons why it's being fought are rarely explored with any worthwhile depth, that's why I consider any news that isn't in direct relevance to my life to be almost completely irrelevant; I think it's better to be knowingly ignorant than to falsely believe I'm not.

When I want to know what's going on, I search for the information, I don't let someone else come to me with their version of the truth, then believe it at face value for the sake of convenience.

Common newspaper articles are just propaganda. But with the invention of internet, it isn't that difficult to find the true news sites which do explore with worthwhile depth. Its your choice.

 

[Cognisant]

Links please?

Pre-active thanks.

 

[telepathink]

Links please?

Pre-active thanks.

I already linked thedailybell.com
Chomsky is also an interesting source. And there are many other likeminded people.
Wikileaks perhaps?
I find many information on different forums like this one, Kitco, etc.
News sites like Slashdot.
And its always interesting to look at the mainstream press and see what spin are they trying to put into the stories.

Now you guys tell me what's a good source

 

[Dogod]

I mainly use Google News, and mainly for the Sci/Tech section.
If something big in the US or world section catches my eye, I sometimes read it.

 

[Night Runner]

I used to be a news junkie when I was younger... It got ridiculous at one point. Over the past few years, I've been letting go and trying to do things that actually interest me. In other words, I've been cultivating selective ignorance about a variety of topics. So far so good...

I don't think there's anything wrong with it, as long as you maintain intellectual curiosity about something. There is disinterest in current events, and then there's being a couch potato.

 

[Oblivious]

One of the worst things that could happen in a democracy is for people to stop believing that their voice can make a difference.

 

[lafmeche]

I just don't care.
The fact that I didn't came to me when I was watching a video of Noam Chomsky talk about politics. The man seemed infinitely interesting, but I couldn't hold my attention on what he was saying because I just didn't want to hear anything about the war or the president or the terrorists. I love history, but I just don't care about what's happening now. I'm much more concerned with my own life rather than the lives of people in Iraq, and even though do pity them and their awful situation, I don't think about nor care about it much.

I noticed that INTPs do have a tendency to be impartial towards the world around them and focus on their own thoughts. I don't know, is this for anybody else? I despise talking politics, because for one, I'm not in power to do anything about what I believe will help the world, and I'm not one to gather my beliefs and become some kind of radical that tries to force power onto my myself.

I don't read the newspaper much. I mean I should, some of it I like and is interesting, but things like two men drowning at a beach a couple miles away from me doesn't strike my concern as much as other people. Sometimes I feel like people should just keep their business their own, and stop telling me about it and asking for my opinion, because when asked your opinion about a dire predicament, you're almost always wrong.

I generally don't care either. I'd like the war to end and all that, but I really don't care to discuss it or get involved in any way. I'll occasionally jump into a conversation if I hear people spouting propaganda and lies, but that's more because of my distaste for stupidity/ignorance.

I love reading about history, especially the middle ages and earlier, but what occupies much of my time is the future. I love looking forward, trying to predict what will happen, or trying to figure out what a utopian society might be like. (Unfortunately, I have trouble getting humanity to fit into this...)

My point is that although you can read in the newspaper that there's a war going on, the reasons why it's being fought are rarely explored with any worthwhile depth, that's why I consider any news that isn't in direct relevance to my life to be almost completely irrelevant; I think it's better to be knowingly ignorant than to falsely believe I'm not.

When I want to know what's going on, I search for the information, I don't let someone else come to me with their version of the truth, then believe it at face value for the sake of convenience.

This is one of my big issues with ‘news’. Even when people do try to dig into the issues, I have a hard time believing anything they say because I’ve yet to meet a person who was actually objective about anything, especially the types of issues that are in the news.

I mainly use Google News, and mainly for the Sci/Tech section.
If something big in the US or world section catches my eye, I sometimes read it.

Same here. I also read ArsTechnica and Slashdot. They’re not exactly objective sources, but if you take the time to read, there are sometimes some very insightful comments.

One of the worst things that could happen in a democracy is for people to stop believing that their voice can make a difference.

I agree, but looking around me, I can't help but feel that the ‘reasonable’ people are completely drowned out by the conservative/religiosity types. It’s hard for me to feel like my opinion matters when I’m surrounded by people who actually believe anything Glenn Beck says, who rant about how the US is saving the Middle East, yet can’t even point it out on a map. They criticize Obama solely because of his middle name and complain about ‘communism’, but don’t have a clue who Marx was (I’m not necessarily an Obama fan, but attacking his NAME? REALLY?). The same people who push ‘free economy’, but want to restrict trade with other nations. They – nevermind. I’ll end my rant there.

The people I’m surrounded by don’t even understand the issues they’re voting on. They buy whatever is put in front of them on Fox news and you’re just plain wrong if you disagree with them. And here’s the kicker: at least 45 of the 50ish people I work with are like that. Assuming they WANTED to learn more about the issues, they wouldn’t know where to find the information and don’t have the analytical skills to objectively approach the issues. They don’t know how to THINK anymore. Even if I weren’t an INTP, I don’t know how I’d be motivated to get involved with that mess. I'll just go back to reading the internet and playing my games. News isn't worth it. People aren't worth it.

 

[Ermine]

One of the worst things that could happen in a democracy is for people to stop believing that their voice can make a difference.

I agree, but since when was there true democracy in recent times? Yes, I am an individual with a voice, but ultimately, interest groups and politicians are going to make their own decisions and override the voice of the public. And while I think that democracy is the lesser of the evils, I still don't know if I want all my peers making decisions for the country. It's kinda scary how little some people know.

And responding to the rest of the thread, I don't read news much either except for big science/technology/art headlines. Maybe I'm just too sensitive for my own good, but reading the news makes me depressed. There are too many horrible, scary, and downright stupid things going on, and there is very little I can do to stop it. And when I'm depressed, I am even less empowered to do what little I can do. Really, the only influence I have is over my friends/family. All I can do is do my best in my own life and encourage my peers to do the same. Perhaps there will be a resultant ripple effect that could change the world.

 

[Poprocks311]

I have to say I agree with you, I have almost no care for things like politics because it seems irrelevant, for its not like I can go actually DO something about it

 

[Anthile]

You are mistaken. While we have democracy in in the western hemisphere, we're talking about representative democracy. Depending on your country, you have to choose between several local politicians and the one with the most votes goes to the parliament to represent your home area. This seems like a good idea on the paper because it ensures that the person who represents you is a pro and knows what he does. In reality, however, it results in the situation that you have next to no means to influence the politics because the guy who represents you is free to do whatever he chooses, he can even lie to you and contradict everything he promised to you before you voted him, you have next to no means to get rid of him. The only thing he has to fear is that he doesn't get voted again but that is where lobbies come into play and they'll promise your representative a nice job in case of that. The only ones who could install better control mechanisms are the ones who profit most from having none. The people have pretty much no way of stopping this system because they can only vote who representatives who in turn profit from not-stopping the system. People grow apathetic over time as they realize this, turnouts get lower and lower with each passing election, extreme parties become more popular. Politicians, who perhaps once had honest intentions make place for calculating guys who are only in for the money, cronyism and corruption grow rampant. And maybe, someday, the system may collapse under its own weight.

An alternative would be the Swiss model. It's not perfect but definitely a step in the right direction.

 

[Oblivious]

I agree, but looking around me, I can't help but feel that the ‘reasonable’ people are completely drowned out by the conservative/religiosity types. It’s hard for me to feel like my opinion matters when I’m surrounded by people who actually believe anything Glenn Beck says, who rant about how the US is saving the Middle East, yet can’t even point it out on a map. They criticize Obama solely because of his middle name and complain about ‘communism’, but don’t have a clue who Marx was (I’m not necessarily an Obama fan, but attacking his NAME? REALLY?). The same people who push ‘free economy’, but want to restrict trade with other nations. They – nevermind. I’ll end my rant there.

The people I’m surrounded by don’t even understand the issues they’re voting on. They buy whatever is put in front of them on Fox news and you’re just plain wrong if you disagree with them. And here’s the kicker: at least 45 of the 50ish people I work with are like that. Assuming they WANTED to learn more about the issues, they wouldn’t know where to find the information and don’t have the analytical skills to objectively approach the issues. They don’t know how to THINK anymore. Even if I weren’t an INTP, I don’t know how I’d be motivated to get involved with that mess. I'll just go back to reading the internet and playing my games. News isn't worth it. People aren't worth it.

I agree, but since when was there true democracy in recent times? Yes, I am an individual with a voice, but ultimately, interest groups and politicians are going to make their own decisions and override the voice of the public. And while I think that democracy is the lesser of the evils, I still don't know if I want all my peers making decisions for the country. It's kinda scary how little some people know.

It is exactly people like you, and me, who must never give up. Even if its simply believing in what we think is right.

I probably will never make a good politician or be able to affect politics. However that will not stop me from deciding whether something is right or wrong or in between and talking to people about it. It's something I *can* do.

 

[Night Runner]

In reality, however, it results in the situation that you have next to no means to influence the politics because the guy who represents you is free to do whatever he chooses, he can even lie to you and contradict everything he promised to you before you voted him, you have next to no means to get rid of him. The only thing he has to fear is that he doesn't get voted again but that is where lobbies come into play and they'll promise your representative a nice job in case of that.

This.

See also Diebold "voting" machines and gerrymandering.

 

[Saeros]

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
string GoodAnswer("One of the worst things that could happen in a democracy is for people to stop believing that their voice can make a difference. ");

void main()
{
cout << GoodAnswer;
}

 

[Night Runner]

^
Suuuuuure... Because the voices of American voters made such a huge difference in the 2000 election, the results of which were definitely clear-cut and not subject to the machination by Florida's bureaucrats or nine partisan old geezers on the Supreme Court. Yup, that's democracy all right...

 

[Oblivious]

The answer is not disinterest, but the exact opposite. It is our duty above everyone else to realise the Truth whether or not we can affect it. That is the least we can do.

 

[lafmeche]

It is exactly people like you, and me, who must never give up. Even if its simply believing in what we think is right.

I probably will never make a good politician or be able to affect politics. However that will not stop me from deciding whether something is right or wrong or in between and talking to people about it. It's something I *can* do.

Technically, I'm not giving up because I never tried to do anything in the first place

 

[EditorOne]

"I agree, but since when was there true democracy in recent times?"

Not since many people just like you, with the brains to make a difference, stopped caring and stopped believing they could make a difference.

I'm with Oblivious on this. I agree that the Glenn Beckers out there are annoying, but remember that noise is from an echo chamber: The same thought bouncing off walls around a relatively small and stupid group of people with authoritarian leanings, whether they admit that to even themselves or not.

Meanwhile, this mainstream news "spin" idea makes me laugh. With few exceptions, nobody is twisting things in the average newsroom to fit a party platform. What is happening is more like a vicious circle: News organizations put more resources into whatever type of articles their research and, now, instant online feedback, tells them people want. You're getting more mindless drivel about Lindsay Lohan flapping her boobs because that's what more people want to read. Opting out of current events means you don't click on a story about the Middle East, but Bubba down the road clicks on Lindsay Lohan. The feedback loop closes without your input, and Lindsay Lohan it is, along with stories about animals (individual animals, not species), the misbehavior of celebrities, five ways to please your man/woman, plus close-to-home car wrecks, murders and weird crimes. From experience I can tell you that if I post a story online about an abused animal and a story about the accidental shooting of a dozen Iraqi civilians, the abused animal story will get four to six times as many hits. "Animal abused by cult member with latex fetish" will go eight times as many.
News media are businesses, and giving the customer what the customer wants is what businesses do. And all other sources of information are someone's agenda. Good luck finding truth any place you look.

 

[Thread Killer]

I don't really care, either. Well, I don't care about the specific events but I am interested in trends and speculations and while I am not much for keeping up on the news, I am interested in what certain individuals have to say but feel I need to keep up if I want to know the context for myself but ultimately don't do that, so whichever. I guess if an issue really sparks my interest I will go pooling for info, but otherwise, meh. Or if it's about something I can vote for or against as I like to be politically active at the very minimum, but just knowing what's going on each moment is trite, imo.

 

[Jaico]

I think I have to agree with Oblivious and EditorOne on this one - if (and even if) we weren't able to make a difference, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to keep ourselves informed about current events; after all, if everyone did that, then there wouldn't be anyone to keep those in power in check. We, as voting citizens, should keep up to date with the current affairs, so that we can push forward with concerns/worries/etc. - if not to the politicians themselves (although I know from experience that MPs are usually receptive to letters/meetings), but to people we know (one voice gives rise to many more, after all). And, hell, if nobody's listening, then it's better to know than to live in ignorance, right?

As for the media bias thing - you'll always have bias (regardless of the source), so whenever you read any reports, it's important to read it critically; I know that here in Canada, there's been a lot of news surrounding the Toronto police's handling of the G20 security - there are obviously some parts that are exaggerated, and some parts that are kept quiet...like others have mentioned, alternative news sources to compare information to are almost a necessity nowadays. It's important to not take anything at face value, really - you've always got to go a bit deeper and determine for yourself the validity of each article.

...right, back to the main topic! I, myself, enjoy keeping up on current affairs. Reading the newspaper is something to do when I'm eating breakfast, and like I alluded to above, is a great way to practice critical thinking. I usually don't like reading about mundane events, but reading about politics/crimes where foul play are suspected is enjoyable.

 

[snafupants]

If everyone kept their political opinions to themselves, then perhaps we would have fewer career politicians. By that I mean that if the politicians did not know what to exploit and what wires to pull, then they would possibly strike the wrong tenor with the public; the public that they rely on for votes. People are operating under the delusion that watching the news is a symbiotic interaction, when in fact their amassing information and expressing themselves seems to fuel political doublespeak to attract votes. Here a change, there a change: same politician back in Washington. Personally, I think we also need to adjust the constitution to preclude career politicians.

I am with you though, if I cant change matters, then I dont see the point in obsessively being apprised of them. I only talk politics to rankle people who take it seriously - i.e., making incendiary comments to drive them up a wall.