What do you think?
Rate this book
Arta de a trăi fără ştiri
Într-o lume în care suntem tot mai informați, dar știm tot mai puțin, drogul știrilor ni se strecoară în minte și pune stăpânire pe tot ce înseamnă viață. Povești anoste sau triviale, atrocități și dulcegării cu animăluțe pufoase, fotografii țipătoare și reclame isterice, fake fame și fapte senzaționale și plictisuri expirate – toate se aliniază alert să cotropească mintea și să amorțească simțurile. V-ați gândit vreodată că știrile sunt ca zahărul? Da, pentru că au același efect asupra minții cum are zahărul asupra organismului. Ce părere aveți despre această știre?
Un pod s-a prăbușit în timp ce o mașină trecea pe el. Toată presa s-a concentrat asupra detaliilor picante din viața șoferului și nimeni nu a mai găsit timp să se oprească asupra defectelor de proiectare a structurii de rezistență.
Noi, oamenii, suntem un dezastru în materie de receptare a știrilor. Ne temem de terorism, dar nu avem nicio problemă să ne facem selfie pe marginea prăpastiei.
Indiferent cât de multe știri citești, capacitatea creierului de acumulare şi prelucrare a informației rămâne constantă.
Un pod s-a prăbușit în timp ce o mașină trecea pe el. Toată presa s-a concentrat asupra detaliilor picante din viața șoferului și nimeni nu a mai găsit timp să se oprească asupra defectelor de proiectare a structurii de rezistență.
Noi, oamenii, suntem un dezastru în materie de receptare a știrilor. Ne temem de terorism, dar nu avem nicio problemă să ne facem selfie pe marginea prăpastiei.
Indiferent cât de multe știri citești, capacitatea creierului de acumulare şi prelucrare a informației rămâne constantă.
192 pages, Paperback
First published September 2, 2019
270 people are currently reading
4462 people want to read
About the author
Rolf Dobelli
66 books1,108 followersRolf Dobelli is a Swiss author and businessman. He began his writing career as a novelist in 2002, but he is best known internationally for his bestselling non-fiction The Art of Thinking Clearly (2011, English 2013), for which The Times has called him "the self-help guru the Germans love".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 564 reviews
October 2, 2024
I’ve significantly reduced my intake of news over the past couple of decades, though I haven’t entirely kicked the habit, as this book advocates I should. Some of the author’s conclusions are the same as I had reached independently. That of course makes me vulnerable to confirmation bias in assessing this book, ironically one of the very things the author warns us about.
I gave up reading daily newspapers over 20 years ago, as even though I read the UK’s “quality” broadsheets, I kept encountering factual errors. The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was an article I read profiling Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who at the time was a Dutch citizen and not well-known in the UK. The author obviously assumed she was male as the article continually referred to her using “his/he/him”. Every now and again I see references on the Internet to similar howlers from newspapers and TV news, and this leads to one of the author’s main arguments. Newspaper journalists work to unrealistic deadlines and are asked to write about things of which they have no prior knowledge. Under those circumstances it is not surprising they get the facts wrong. Also he argues that TV news items are necessarily short and are thus a brutal simplification of the issue being presented. I agree.
After I gave up newspapers I continued to watch the TV news, but to use the author’s own words “I realised that all it was doing was getting me riled up, and that I couldn’t do anything to change the situation.” The news provokes “Fear, annoyance, jealousy, anger and self-pity.” Why get so upset about things you can’t control?
Another of the book’s main arguments is that the events covered in the news are irrelevant to an ordinary person’s life. I agree with him on this up to a point. I just had a look at the BBC news website. There are about 25 lead news items on the homepage today. Most are tragic and one can only imagine the pain of the people affected, but if truth be told none have any direct impact on me. That said, I feel that a proportion of the news is about things that affect me directly. It’s worth mentioning that this book was written before the COVID pandemic.
To the extent that I do read the news, I tend to read long form articles in current affairs magazines, and of course books. I imagined the author would criticise these as well, but he is OK with those formats as he says they are much better researched. I think though his argument about relevancy must still apply.
The author comments that in avoiding the news he is criticised for being heartless about what’s happening in the world, but he counters by arguing that those who watch catastrophes unfold on TV are engaging in a sort of “disaster porn”. Of course some people react to what they see by donating money or volunteering to help. Dobelli argues that people would be better making regular donations to the aid organisations that provide disaster relief, but I feel that’s an “ideal world” solution. The reality is that many people are motivated to respond by what they see on their TV screens.
One reason I do keep an interest is that I firmly believe politicians should be accountable to their electorate, and that there is thus an onus on citizens to keep ourselves informed. Dobelli accepts this too although he argues there are other ways of doing it. Again I feel his solutions were “perfect world” ideas.
I probably agree with about 70% of what’s in this book, but I don’t completely go along with the author. Where I (and I imagine most of us on GR) would agree with him is in arguing that books are a more valuable source of wisdom than the news. In my opinion, our great writers tell us much more about the world than news reports do.
I gave up reading daily newspapers over 20 years ago, as even though I read the UK’s “quality” broadsheets, I kept encountering factual errors. The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was an article I read profiling Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who at the time was a Dutch citizen and not well-known in the UK. The author obviously assumed she was male as the article continually referred to her using “his/he/him”. Every now and again I see references on the Internet to similar howlers from newspapers and TV news, and this leads to one of the author’s main arguments. Newspaper journalists work to unrealistic deadlines and are asked to write about things of which they have no prior knowledge. Under those circumstances it is not surprising they get the facts wrong. Also he argues that TV news items are necessarily short and are thus a brutal simplification of the issue being presented. I agree.
After I gave up newspapers I continued to watch the TV news, but to use the author’s own words “I realised that all it was doing was getting me riled up, and that I couldn’t do anything to change the situation.” The news provokes “Fear, annoyance, jealousy, anger and self-pity.” Why get so upset about things you can’t control?
Another of the book’s main arguments is that the events covered in the news are irrelevant to an ordinary person’s life. I agree with him on this up to a point. I just had a look at the BBC news website. There are about 25 lead news items on the homepage today. Most are tragic and one can only imagine the pain of the people affected, but if truth be told none have any direct impact on me. That said, I feel that a proportion of the news is about things that affect me directly. It’s worth mentioning that this book was written before the COVID pandemic.
To the extent that I do read the news, I tend to read long form articles in current affairs magazines, and of course books. I imagined the author would criticise these as well, but he is OK with those formats as he says they are much better researched. I think though his argument about relevancy must still apply.
The author comments that in avoiding the news he is criticised for being heartless about what’s happening in the world, but he counters by arguing that those who watch catastrophes unfold on TV are engaging in a sort of “disaster porn”. Of course some people react to what they see by donating money or volunteering to help. Dobelli argues that people would be better making regular donations to the aid organisations that provide disaster relief, but I feel that’s an “ideal world” solution. The reality is that many people are motivated to respond by what they see on their TV screens.
One reason I do keep an interest is that I firmly believe politicians should be accountable to their electorate, and that there is thus an onus on citizens to keep ourselves informed. Dobelli accepts this too although he argues there are other ways of doing it. Again I feel his solutions were “perfect world” ideas.
I probably agree with about 70% of what’s in this book, but I don’t completely go along with the author. Where I (and I imagine most of us on GR) would agree with him is in arguing that books are a more valuable source of wisdom than the news. In my opinion, our great writers tell us much more about the world than news reports do.
August 18, 2020
Un po' boomer in alcuni punti ma ben strutturato e persino spassoso
May 9, 2021
Don’t judge a book by its cover. The cover was the best part about this book.
On the whole, this book feels like it was written on a dare - rapidly and thoughtlessly, and with no proper grounding in research.
Dobelli has some good arguments, but because they aren’t met by what the majority of the world still believes and argues for it just sounds like a kid in a high school debate, throwing points at you that no one ever claimed were untrue in the first place. He also repeats his arguments over and over, making it seem like he’s saying something new when he’s really not.
The main problem is the extremity of his stance. Dobelli argues that we shouldn’t read the news at all because there’s so much fake news out there, but if you just read reliable news sources - the legacy media, for instance, that don’t include FoxNews or the Sun - fake news is largely eradicated. You don’t have to stop reading all news just because there’s some bad outlets out there. Even more annoyingly is that he repeats this point over and over, drilling it into your brain like a wrongly fitted screw. “It’s not just ninety per cent of all literature that’s crap but ninety per cent of everything” (107). So, again, just read the ten per cent that’s worth your time. Even the “crap” articles are more so than this book is.
Dobelli jumps to conclusions like an untrained monkey at a snack and throws around argumentative fallacies like they're his primate turds. His overzealous confrontations with the public and dramatic usherings are nothing but annoying, and sound like he’s attacking his audience: “My year still has twelve months, while yours (if you consume the news) only has eleven. Why would you do that to yourself? What do you really have to show for all this lost time? Do you understand the world better? Have you expanded your circle of competence? Do you make better decisions? Has your concentration improved? Do you have more peace of mind?” (48). Jeez, Rolf, just calm down.
It gets better, believe it or not. “If you consume the news, just be aware that you’re unintentionally supporting terrorism” (117). Excuse me? That’s like saying that by adopting a cat, I am unintentionally advertising that being scratched is healthy. After half this book, I was already sick of Dobelli telling me what to do and repeating that “[o]ur brains are full.” His appears to be full of shit.
I will admit that some of his arguments, if deradicalized a bit, would be good. For instance, in one chapter, Dobelli contends that the news does not report enough on the prevention of disasters – it just provides us with a constant stream of horrible things that did happen. He even miraculously, when you remember that this book was published last year, to some extent predicts a virus breaking out. He writes, in a list of things that have not happened but could have, “the absence of a statistically likely worldwide pandemic” (70). At least if the writing career track doesn’t work out for him, he could always take on a job as a prophet.
I’ll give him one other thing - he uses a few good metaphors (e.g. p. 51, 52). It’s just too bad that these are all overshadowed by his endless rambling for a point he could’ve outlined on a single page.
He keeps trying to make us recall news events out of nothing from several years back. That’s not how memory works, despite his throwing around knowledge trying to prove he knows all about it. Sometimes, your memory is sparked by something you come across by chance. Of course I can’t remember every article I’ve read in the last year, as much as I can’t remember every meal I’ve eaten. But when I smell or taste or even see a meal again, I can recall the memory and circumstances of that memory just fine.
More frustratingly to me is the fact that his use of “dear reader” isn’t as endearing as he may think. It just makes him sound like me when I was 13 years old and had “aspiring author” as my twitter bio. If this man calls me “dear reader” one more time, I will do the unthinkable and cross the words right out of the book, leaving Dobelli’s manifesto a series of squibbles and lines similar to that on the front of it. Who knows, maybe that was a prophecy, too.
Conveniently, the book is 160 pages. However, they are tiny pages with little information per page, and in those 160 pages each chapter is only about 5. That means there’s a lot of blank space - entire blank pages, at times - between those chapters that are also counted into the 160. Essentially, if you also consider the constant repetition of everything he says, the book needed only consist of 50 pages max. Dobelli is writing motivational ceramic tiles, not chapters.
In those 160 pages, he generalizes like mad (e.g. p. 31); uses Trumpian language to convince his readers aggressively (p. 79: “[the news] literally brainwashes us”); employs fear tactics (p. 142: “Get our while you still have the strength. Time is running out.”); and quite frankly could’ve used a better editor. Not just for little technical errors (e.g. p. 108: “there are an increasing number of media outlets”), but also to remove superfluous and non-relatable examples that reach no actual point and to shape the few paragraphs where a solid point is being made into something more well-spoken.
And this one thing he keeps saying - that the more an agency emphasises something, the less important it is - is obviously total crap. I agree with him, at least, that news corporations have too much of a focus on what’s new rather than what’s relevant. That said, these corporations do have some morals to uphold - not to mention a mission statement - and those are being scrutinised daily by the entire world.
His evidence in research is scarce, and he often quotes the same people twice throughout the book, making it seem like there are more sources than there are. In addition, these sources are relevant figures of history who said something about the media once. Dobelli extracts these statements and makes it sound like the whole professional world is backing him up. In reality, it’s cherry-picking.
Hilariously, Dobelli, near the end of the book – after 131 pages of telling us why we need to stop reading any news to save our lives – suddenly claims that the world does actually need two types of journalism after all, and that you can read those if you want.
What this book is, as Dobelli’s background in business management suggests, is a business proposal for a way of life. A self-help book full of demands and obligations. Unfortunately for Dobelli, it’s not appealing in any way or argued effectively until the very end - when he actually proposes an idea for a “news lunch” that isn’t half bad. If you ask me, Dobelli can go back to the business world from here on out. I think I’ll keep reading the news. I urge you, though, “dear reader,” to stop reading Dobelli.
On the whole, this book feels like it was written on a dare - rapidly and thoughtlessly, and with no proper grounding in research.
Dobelli has some good arguments, but because they aren’t met by what the majority of the world still believes and argues for it just sounds like a kid in a high school debate, throwing points at you that no one ever claimed were untrue in the first place. He also repeats his arguments over and over, making it seem like he’s saying something new when he’s really not.
The main problem is the extremity of his stance. Dobelli argues that we shouldn’t read the news at all because there’s so much fake news out there, but if you just read reliable news sources - the legacy media, for instance, that don’t include FoxNews or the Sun - fake news is largely eradicated. You don’t have to stop reading all news just because there’s some bad outlets out there. Even more annoyingly is that he repeats this point over and over, drilling it into your brain like a wrongly fitted screw. “It’s not just ninety per cent of all literature that’s crap but ninety per cent of everything” (107). So, again, just read the ten per cent that’s worth your time. Even the “crap” articles are more so than this book is.
Dobelli jumps to conclusions like an untrained monkey at a snack and throws around argumentative fallacies like they're his primate turds. His overzealous confrontations with the public and dramatic usherings are nothing but annoying, and sound like he’s attacking his audience: “My year still has twelve months, while yours (if you consume the news) only has eleven. Why would you do that to yourself? What do you really have to show for all this lost time? Do you understand the world better? Have you expanded your circle of competence? Do you make better decisions? Has your concentration improved? Do you have more peace of mind?” (48). Jeez, Rolf, just calm down.
It gets better, believe it or not. “If you consume the news, just be aware that you’re unintentionally supporting terrorism” (117). Excuse me? That’s like saying that by adopting a cat, I am unintentionally advertising that being scratched is healthy. After half this book, I was already sick of Dobelli telling me what to do and repeating that “[o]ur brains are full.” His appears to be full of shit.
I will admit that some of his arguments, if deradicalized a bit, would be good. For instance, in one chapter, Dobelli contends that the news does not report enough on the prevention of disasters – it just provides us with a constant stream of horrible things that did happen. He even miraculously, when you remember that this book was published last year, to some extent predicts a virus breaking out. He writes, in a list of things that have not happened but could have, “the absence of a statistically likely worldwide pandemic” (70). At least if the writing career track doesn’t work out for him, he could always take on a job as a prophet.
I’ll give him one other thing - he uses a few good metaphors (e.g. p. 51, 52). It’s just too bad that these are all overshadowed by his endless rambling for a point he could’ve outlined on a single page.
He keeps trying to make us recall news events out of nothing from several years back. That’s not how memory works, despite his throwing around knowledge trying to prove he knows all about it. Sometimes, your memory is sparked by something you come across by chance. Of course I can’t remember every article I’ve read in the last year, as much as I can’t remember every meal I’ve eaten. But when I smell or taste or even see a meal again, I can recall the memory and circumstances of that memory just fine.
More frustratingly to me is the fact that his use of “dear reader” isn’t as endearing as he may think. It just makes him sound like me when I was 13 years old and had “aspiring author” as my twitter bio. If this man calls me “dear reader” one more time, I will do the unthinkable and cross the words right out of the book, leaving Dobelli’s manifesto a series of squibbles and lines similar to that on the front of it. Who knows, maybe that was a prophecy, too.
Conveniently, the book is 160 pages. However, they are tiny pages with little information per page, and in those 160 pages each chapter is only about 5. That means there’s a lot of blank space - entire blank pages, at times - between those chapters that are also counted into the 160. Essentially, if you also consider the constant repetition of everything he says, the book needed only consist of 50 pages max. Dobelli is writing motivational ceramic tiles, not chapters.
In those 160 pages, he generalizes like mad (e.g. p. 31); uses Trumpian language to convince his readers aggressively (p. 79: “[the news] literally brainwashes us”); employs fear tactics (p. 142: “Get our while you still have the strength. Time is running out.”); and quite frankly could’ve used a better editor. Not just for little technical errors (e.g. p. 108: “there are an increasing number of media outlets”), but also to remove superfluous and non-relatable examples that reach no actual point and to shape the few paragraphs where a solid point is being made into something more well-spoken.
And this one thing he keeps saying - that the more an agency emphasises something, the less important it is - is obviously total crap. I agree with him, at least, that news corporations have too much of a focus on what’s new rather than what’s relevant. That said, these corporations do have some morals to uphold - not to mention a mission statement - and those are being scrutinised daily by the entire world.
His evidence in research is scarce, and he often quotes the same people twice throughout the book, making it seem like there are more sources than there are. In addition, these sources are relevant figures of history who said something about the media once. Dobelli extracts these statements and makes it sound like the whole professional world is backing him up. In reality, it’s cherry-picking.
Hilariously, Dobelli, near the end of the book – after 131 pages of telling us why we need to stop reading any news to save our lives – suddenly claims that the world does actually need two types of journalism after all, and that you can read those if you want.
What this book is, as Dobelli’s background in business management suggests, is a business proposal for a way of life. A self-help book full of demands and obligations. Unfortunately for Dobelli, it’s not appealing in any way or argued effectively until the very end - when he actually proposes an idea for a “news lunch” that isn’t half bad. If you ask me, Dobelli can go back to the business world from here on out. I think I’ll keep reading the news. I urge you, though, “dear reader,” to stop reading Dobelli.
February 12, 2024
i was just going to do a one sentence review like ‘no one tell my university lecturers that i read this’ (which stills stands) but as we all know, i’m very opinionated and like to share my in-depth thoughts about books, even if no one cares about them. but THIS book was quite the frustrating read because i did agree with some parts, but not with some others, so buckle up because i have a lot to say:
the positives/parts i agree with:
- over-consumption of the news is harmful and anxiety-inducing, and constantly scrolling through news headlines isn’t healthy nor a good use of your time
- his critique of the news becoming entertainment (incl. the increase of infotainment) and how digitalisation has kind of eroded journalistic integrity due to journalists being under pressure to constantly churn out eye-catching headlines for clicks at the expense of truth and accuracy i.e. churnalism (if you do a media/journalism degree, you’ll definitely have a few lectures on this)
- how anything that grabs attention is deemed newsworthy now
- the tendency of the news to focus on garish, shocking, and negative stories (this is a valid criticism but it’s how news values work unfortunately - news is a business after all)
- we spend so much time stressing out about news stories that we don’t really have the power to change
- the news and the culture around news reinforces the idea that we need to have an opinion on everything, even though we’re not an expert and probably know very little about the subject. sometimes it’s ok to say “i don’t know enough about that to have an opinion on it.”
now for the negatives (the fun part of rant reviews):
- broadly, his argument to stop reading ANY news and go cold turkey is quite extreme, and also very idealistic. his main point could be fair, but it gets lost in his quite patronising and morally superior tone.
- unless you’re a proper news junkie who can’t get anything else done because you spend hours reading the news (like this author apparently was), it’s probably just best to limit your consumption to a healthier amount, rather than give it up completely, and also read from different sources and question things. critical thinking, not cold turkey.
- for some chapters he just rambles for 2 pages and then ends it with ‘stop reading the news, i’m right and you’re wrong!’ which became very repetitive and annoying. stop telling me what to do, this is why i don’t read self help books.
- he’s right in that you don’t need to overwhelm yourself with the news, but i feel like you DO need to be up to date with some things happening in the world otherwise you’re just going to be a bit ignorant???
- the author encourages us to read long-form articles and books instead of the news, including social media news. however, social media provides an opportunity for us to hear marginalised voices which are often left out of the mainstream media (also the books thing - publishing has its own issues with diversity so the diversity in worldview would probably be lacking too. his argument here definitely comes from a place of privilege)
- he says ‘most breaking news won’t be relevant to your life’ - with this it was clear that this book was written pre-covid, because during the pandemic most ‘breaking news’ was literally government briefings about whether we could leave the house or not, which is pretty relevant to our lives. also just because something isn’t ‘relevant’ to our own life doesn’t mean it’s not important??? again, the privilege rears its ugly head with this argument.
- pro tip: telling the reader that if they consume the news they’re basically supporting terrorism isn’t a way to win them over or make them listen to you.
- obviously we can’t change a lot of the tragic events or issues that we see in the news, but if everyone just ignored these issues and said ‘well i can’t change it so who cares’ then nothing would ever change. complacency and ignorance is dangerous, and it kind of feels like the author just wants us to bury our heads in the sand.
- the author claims that not reading the news will be fine because other people in our lives can still keep us up to date with important current events…..1) why are you being annoying and relying on other people for news and 2) if your book is successful and everyone stops reading the news, then who is going to tell us the important parts?
petty reasons why i didn’t like it:
- the author constantly brings up the past and seems to be one of those people who reminisce about the ‘good old days’. i think he’d prefer to live in a time before the printing press was invented.
- his constant use of ‘dear reader’….sir this is not jane eyre
- can he stop telling me to read textbooks???
final verdict: read this if you want, it has some good points but nothing groundbreaking. i basically dug out most of the good/valid arguments so you’re welcome.
the positives/parts i agree with:
- over-consumption of the news is harmful and anxiety-inducing, and constantly scrolling through news headlines isn’t healthy nor a good use of your time
- his critique of the news becoming entertainment (incl. the increase of infotainment) and how digitalisation has kind of eroded journalistic integrity due to journalists being under pressure to constantly churn out eye-catching headlines for clicks at the expense of truth and accuracy i.e. churnalism (if you do a media/journalism degree, you’ll definitely have a few lectures on this)
- how anything that grabs attention is deemed newsworthy now
- the tendency of the news to focus on garish, shocking, and negative stories (this is a valid criticism but it’s how news values work unfortunately - news is a business after all)
- we spend so much time stressing out about news stories that we don’t really have the power to change
- the news and the culture around news reinforces the idea that we need to have an opinion on everything, even though we’re not an expert and probably know very little about the subject. sometimes it’s ok to say “i don’t know enough about that to have an opinion on it.”
now for the negatives (the fun part of rant reviews):
- broadly, his argument to stop reading ANY news and go cold turkey is quite extreme, and also very idealistic. his main point could be fair, but it gets lost in his quite patronising and morally superior tone.
- unless you’re a proper news junkie who can’t get anything else done because you spend hours reading the news (like this author apparently was), it’s probably just best to limit your consumption to a healthier amount, rather than give it up completely, and also read from different sources and question things. critical thinking, not cold turkey.
- for some chapters he just rambles for 2 pages and then ends it with ‘stop reading the news, i’m right and you’re wrong!’ which became very repetitive and annoying. stop telling me what to do, this is why i don’t read self help books.
- he’s right in that you don’t need to overwhelm yourself with the news, but i feel like you DO need to be up to date with some things happening in the world otherwise you’re just going to be a bit ignorant???
- the author encourages us to read long-form articles and books instead of the news, including social media news. however, social media provides an opportunity for us to hear marginalised voices which are often left out of the mainstream media (also the books thing - publishing has its own issues with diversity so the diversity in worldview would probably be lacking too. his argument here definitely comes from a place of privilege)
- he says ‘most breaking news won’t be relevant to your life’ - with this it was clear that this book was written pre-covid, because during the pandemic most ‘breaking news’ was literally government briefings about whether we could leave the house or not, which is pretty relevant to our lives. also just because something isn’t ‘relevant’ to our own life doesn’t mean it’s not important??? again, the privilege rears its ugly head with this argument.
- pro tip: telling the reader that if they consume the news they’re basically supporting terrorism isn’t a way to win them over or make them listen to you.
- obviously we can’t change a lot of the tragic events or issues that we see in the news, but if everyone just ignored these issues and said ‘well i can’t change it so who cares’ then nothing would ever change. complacency and ignorance is dangerous, and it kind of feels like the author just wants us to bury our heads in the sand.
- the author claims that not reading the news will be fine because other people in our lives can still keep us up to date with important current events…..1) why are you being annoying and relying on other people for news and 2) if your book is successful and everyone stops reading the news, then who is going to tell us the important parts?
petty reasons why i didn’t like it:
- the author constantly brings up the past and seems to be one of those people who reminisce about the ‘good old days’. i think he’d prefer to live in a time before the printing press was invented.
- his constant use of ‘dear reader’….sir this is not jane eyre
- can he stop telling me to read textbooks???
final verdict: read this if you want, it has some good points but nothing groundbreaking. i basically dug out most of the good/valid arguments so you’re welcome.
January 5, 2024
Update 2021-01-09:
Just because a piece of information makes the news does not make it into knowledge and certainly not understanding. Just because it’s “urgent” does not make it important. Over time you can develop understanding and knowledge of a subject by reading books - not news.
This book presents at least 22 arguments against the consumption of the news. Who is the author?
Rolf Dobelli is a Swiss author and businessman. He began his writing career as a novelist in 2002, but he is best known internationally for his bestselling non-fiction The Art of Thinking Clearly.
Born in 1966 in Lucerne, Switzerland, he obtained an MBA in 1991 from the University of St. Gallen and a PhD in economic philosophy in 1995. In 1999, he co-founded “getAbstract” a publisher of book summaries and article abstracts.
Dobelli is founder of the "World Minds" foundation.
Four trends:
• The torrent of news increase exponentially
• The news is all around us, all the time
• Algorithms are getting better all the time at understanding us
• The news is drifting further and further from the truth
Arguments:
1. News is irrelevant
2. News is outside your circle of competence
3. News gets risk assessment all wrong
4. News is a waste of time
5. News obscure the big picture
6. News is toxic to your body
7. News confirms our mistakes
8. News reinforces hindsight bias
9. News enforces availability bias
10. News keeps the opinion volcano bubbling
11. News inhibits thoughts
12. News rewires our brain
13. News produces fake fame
14. News makes us smaller than we really are
15. News makes us passive
16. News is invented by journalists
17. News is manipulative
18. News kills creativity
19. News encourages crap: sturgeons law
20. News gives us the illusion of empathy
21. News encourages terrorism
22. News destroys our peace of mind
Quotes:
“News is to the mind what sugar is to the body: appetizing, easily digestible and extremely damaging. The media is feeding us tidbits that taste palatable but do nothing to satisfy our hunger for knowledge. Unlike books and well-researched long-form articles, the news cannot satiate us… a healthy diet is important for the body, but good psychological nutrition is equally crucial.” 16-17
“Astronauts are overplayed, nurses are downplayed. Shark attacks are overplayed, ocean acidification is downplayed. Plane crashes are overplayed, antibiotic-resistant bacteria are downplayed. Changes in tax laws are overplayed, changes in interest rates are downplayed . Politicians are overplayed, teachers are downplayed. Heads of states are overplayed, diplomats are underplayed. Opinions are overplayed, actions are downplayed.” 45
Some of the most powerful arguments IMHO;
• It’s about events you have no control over
• Wasting time
• In your past month what were the most important news? How did they change your life?
• It’s too short to give any background or understanding big subjects or philosophical questions
• It’s full of biases which enhance our own biases - like negativity bias. This makes you afraid of the world
• Proactive action and heroic deeds are non existent in news
How to implement?
Of course abstain from the news. Focus on books.
A golden idea from the book: before you read a book think: what do I know about the subject or what are my deepest thoughts about this I’m about to read? Maybe take some notes. Then start reading.
In summary my key takeaway to remember is “the dog that didn’t bark”. There is a Sherlock Holmes story where the key is the dog that didn’t bark during the night. What isn’t discussed in the news is important to focus on. What is not trending? What is not cool? What events are not flashy. What person really knows something? How do I develop curiosity? How do I increase perspective and knowledge of the world? Maybe a person slowly and daily building and grinding away at mastery of his craft. It’s not sexy, but it’s rewarding and important and what changes the world in the end. The best inventions and ideas and heroic deeds rarely, if ever, find their way into the news. Taking action towards something big requires abstaining from the news.
Just because a piece of information makes the news does not make it into knowledge and certainly not understanding. Just because it’s “urgent” does not make it important. Over time you can develop understanding and knowledge of a subject by reading books - not news.
This book presents at least 22 arguments against the consumption of the news. Who is the author?
Rolf Dobelli is a Swiss author and businessman. He began his writing career as a novelist in 2002, but he is best known internationally for his bestselling non-fiction The Art of Thinking Clearly.
Born in 1966 in Lucerne, Switzerland, he obtained an MBA in 1991 from the University of St. Gallen and a PhD in economic philosophy in 1995. In 1999, he co-founded “getAbstract” a publisher of book summaries and article abstracts.
Dobelli is founder of the "World Minds" foundation.
Four trends:
• The torrent of news increase exponentially
• The news is all around us, all the time
• Algorithms are getting better all the time at understanding us
• The news is drifting further and further from the truth
Arguments:
1. News is irrelevant
2. News is outside your circle of competence
3. News gets risk assessment all wrong
4. News is a waste of time
5. News obscure the big picture
6. News is toxic to your body
7. News confirms our mistakes
8. News reinforces hindsight bias
9. News enforces availability bias
10. News keeps the opinion volcano bubbling
11. News inhibits thoughts
12. News rewires our brain
13. News produces fake fame
14. News makes us smaller than we really are
15. News makes us passive
16. News is invented by journalists
17. News is manipulative
18. News kills creativity
19. News encourages crap: sturgeons law
20. News gives us the illusion of empathy
21. News encourages terrorism
22. News destroys our peace of mind
Quotes:
“News is to the mind what sugar is to the body: appetizing, easily digestible and extremely damaging. The media is feeding us tidbits that taste palatable but do nothing to satisfy our hunger for knowledge. Unlike books and well-researched long-form articles, the news cannot satiate us… a healthy diet is important for the body, but good psychological nutrition is equally crucial.” 16-17
“Astronauts are overplayed, nurses are downplayed. Shark attacks are overplayed, ocean acidification is downplayed. Plane crashes are overplayed, antibiotic-resistant bacteria are downplayed. Changes in tax laws are overplayed, changes in interest rates are downplayed . Politicians are overplayed, teachers are downplayed. Heads of states are overplayed, diplomats are underplayed. Opinions are overplayed, actions are downplayed.” 45
Some of the most powerful arguments IMHO;
• It’s about events you have no control over
• Wasting time
• In your past month what were the most important news? How did they change your life?
• It’s too short to give any background or understanding big subjects or philosophical questions
• It’s full of biases which enhance our own biases - like negativity bias. This makes you afraid of the world
• Proactive action and heroic deeds are non existent in news
How to implement?
Of course abstain from the news. Focus on books.
A golden idea from the book: before you read a book think: what do I know about the subject or what are my deepest thoughts about this I’m about to read? Maybe take some notes. Then start reading.
In summary my key takeaway to remember is “the dog that didn’t bark”. There is a Sherlock Holmes story where the key is the dog that didn’t bark during the night. What isn’t discussed in the news is important to focus on. What is not trending? What is not cool? What events are not flashy. What person really knows something? How do I develop curiosity? How do I increase perspective and knowledge of the world? Maybe a person slowly and daily building and grinding away at mastery of his craft. It’s not sexy, but it’s rewarding and important and what changes the world in the end. The best inventions and ideas and heroic deeds rarely, if ever, find their way into the news. Taking action towards something big requires abstaining from the news.
July 2, 2024
Dobelli starts with an accurate premise: reading the news does indeed cause unhappiness. The media emphasizes negative events over positive events in a way that creates a misleading and gloomy picture of the world.
But his solution---stop reading the news---goes too far. Most people who read the news consistently can't just stop.
A better way: read the news, but not too much, and with a skeptical eye. Oh, and mix in big doses of great books!
All in all, it's a valuable book because it illuminates a widespread problem: over-consumption of news, which can decrease productivity, fulfillment, and intellectual clarity. Well worth reading.
But his solution---stop reading the news---goes too far. Most people who read the news consistently can't just stop.
A better way: read the news, but not too much, and with a skeptical eye. Oh, and mix in big doses of great books!
All in all, it's a valuable book because it illuminates a widespread problem: over-consumption of news, which can decrease productivity, fulfillment, and intellectual clarity. Well worth reading.
November 14, 2023
همونطور که از اسم کتاب مشخصه، رلف دوبلی در این کتاب سعی میکنه با ارائهی دلایل مختلف خواننده رو قانع کنه که دنبال کردن خبر کار بیهوده و حتی اشتباهیه. اگر کتاب معروف این نویسنده «هنر شفاف اندیشیدن» رو خونده باشید، اکثر دلایلی که ذکر میشه براتون آشناست. فقط اینبار ارتباط خطاها و سوگیریهای فکری با خبر بررسی شده
به طور کلی این کتاب خلاصهای از حداقل پنج کتابی بود که من خوندم و محتوای خیلی جدیدی نداشت. اما اینکه تمام دلایل در کنار هم در یک کتاب کوتاه قرار گرفته بودند واقعا خوب بود. مخصوصاً برای کسی که کتابهای طولانی مرجع این کتاب رو نخونده
من خیلی وقته که دیگه خودم به سراغ خبر خوندن نمیرم، اما خبر همیشه از طریق شبکههای اجتماعی راهش رو به زندگیم پیدا میکنه و الان حس میکنم باید حتی آگاهانهتر از اونجا هم حذفش کنم. اما در مورد دنبال کردن خبر مشکلی دارم که جوابش رو اینجا هم نگرفتم چون نویسنده کتاب رو برای آنچه میشناخته نوشته: زندگی در دموکراسی و جهان توسعه یافته
برای ما چی؟ آیا خوندن خبر برای ما که در میانهی درد و تشنج زندگی میکنیم مهمه؟ آیا دانستن ما اصلاً کمکی میکنه؟
شاید برای ما هم خبر با چیزی که دوبلی توصیف میکنه فرقی نداره: استرسزا، مغرضانه، موثر در ایجاد توهم همدلی ولی در واقع فلجکننده
کانال تلگرام ریویوها و دانلود کتابها و صوتیشون
Maede's Books
۱۴۰۲/۸/۲۳
به طور کلی این کتاب خلاصهای از حداقل پنج کتابی بود که من خوندم و محتوای خیلی جدیدی نداشت. اما اینکه تمام دلایل در کنار هم در یک کتاب کوتاه قرار گرفته بودند واقعا خوب بود. مخصوصاً برای کسی که کتابهای طولانی مرجع این کتاب رو نخونده
من خیلی وقته که دیگه خودم به سراغ خبر خوندن نمیرم، اما خبر همیشه از طریق شبکههای اجتماعی راهش رو به زندگیم پیدا میکنه و الان حس میکنم باید حتی آگاهانهتر از اونجا هم حذفش کنم. اما در مورد دنبال کردن خبر مشکلی دارم که جوابش رو اینجا هم نگرفتم چون نویسنده کتاب رو برای آنچه میشناخته نوشته: زندگی در دموکراسی و جهان توسعه یافته
برای ما چی؟ آیا خوندن خبر برای ما که در میانهی درد و تشنج زندگی میکنیم مهمه؟ آیا دانستن ما اصلاً کمکی میکنه؟
شاید برای ما هم خبر با چیزی که دوبلی توصیف میکنه فرقی نداره: استرسزا، مغرضانه، موثر در ایجاد توهم همدلی ولی در واقع فلجکننده
کانال تلگرام ریویوها و دانلود کتابها و صوتیشون
Maede's Books
۱۴۰۲/۸/۲۳
August 28, 2020
در ابتداي كتاب لحن نويسنده و نتيجه گيري هاي نويسنده كمي عجولانه و بي پايه به نظر مي رسيد.
رفته رفته بخش هاي كتاب به خواننده (به طور كامل و قابل درك) دليل مسموم بودن غذاي اخبارى رو توضيح مي داد.
فساد در رسانه ها به عنوان تريبوني كه به تك تك خانه ها راه داره رو امرى كاملا غير قابل انكار توضيح داده بود و از اين نظر بسيار با نويسنده موافق بودم و نظراتش مفيد بود.
تاثير رسانه در گسترش تروريسم ، تاثير رسانه در خورد كردن اعتماد به نفس و آرامش مخاطب ، تاثير نامرئي مخاطب در گسترش و پخش اخبار بي اهميت (تروريسم، سلبريتي ها و ...) و ...
مواردي بود كه در كتاب بهشون اشاره شده بود.
در كل كتاب خوبى بود و خوندنش به خصوص در اين برهه ي زماني براى من جزو واجبات بود.
در بخش انتهايي كتاب نويسنده اخبار رو به شكل يك تابو براي مخاطب معرفي ميكنه ، و ترس مخاطب رو از كنار گذاشتنِ اين عادت نوعي تابو شكنى قلمداد ميكنه ، براي اين موضوع مثال خيلي خوبي ميزنه ، اعدام چارلز اول در سال ١٦٤٩ ، پادشاهي كه براي اولين بار اعدام ميشد ، مردم همگي از سرزمين بدون پادشاه هراس داشتند به نوعي براي پادشاهِ گناهكار هم حس پرستش و تقدس قائل بودن اما بعد از بريده شدن سر پادشاه ، زندگي ادامه داشت ، چيزي عوض نشد.
مشابه همين مثال رو براي اخبار ميزنه ، با اينكه ميدونيم اخبار هيچ وقت به زندگي ما كمكي نكرده ، اما زندگي بدون اون رو نميتونيم براي خودمون متصور بشيم
در كتاب ارجاعاتي به دو كتاب قبلي خود نويسنده (هنر خوب زيستن، هنر شفاف انديشيدن) شده بود كه به نظرم به نوعي نقض نظر نويسنده درباره تبليغات و لينك هاي پي در پي رسانه اي بود كه اين كار نويسنده رو دوست نداشتم ، ترجيح ميدادم يك كتاب مستقل بخونم.
رفته رفته بخش هاي كتاب به خواننده (به طور كامل و قابل درك) دليل مسموم بودن غذاي اخبارى رو توضيح مي داد.
فساد در رسانه ها به عنوان تريبوني كه به تك تك خانه ها راه داره رو امرى كاملا غير قابل انكار توضيح داده بود و از اين نظر بسيار با نويسنده موافق بودم و نظراتش مفيد بود.
تاثير رسانه در گسترش تروريسم ، تاثير رسانه در خورد كردن اعتماد به نفس و آرامش مخاطب ، تاثير نامرئي مخاطب در گسترش و پخش اخبار بي اهميت (تروريسم، سلبريتي ها و ...) و ...
مواردي بود كه در كتاب بهشون اشاره شده بود.
در كل كتاب خوبى بود و خوندنش به خصوص در اين برهه ي زماني براى من جزو واجبات بود.
در بخش انتهايي كتاب نويسنده اخبار رو به شكل يك تابو براي مخاطب معرفي ميكنه ، و ترس مخاطب رو از كنار گذاشتنِ اين عادت نوعي تابو شكنى قلمداد ميكنه ، براي اين موضوع مثال خيلي خوبي ميزنه ، اعدام چارلز اول در سال ١٦٤٩ ، پادشاهي كه براي اولين بار اعدام ميشد ، مردم همگي از سرزمين بدون پادشاه هراس داشتند به نوعي براي پادشاهِ گناهكار هم حس پرستش و تقدس قائل بودن اما بعد از بريده شدن سر پادشاه ، زندگي ادامه داشت ، چيزي عوض نشد.
مشابه همين مثال رو براي اخبار ميزنه ، با اينكه ميدونيم اخبار هيچ وقت به زندگي ما كمكي نكرده ، اما زندگي بدون اون رو نميتونيم براي خودمون متصور بشيم
در كتاب ارجاعاتي به دو كتاب قبلي خود نويسنده (هنر خوب زيستن، هنر شفاف انديشيدن) شده بود كه به نظرم به نوعي نقض نظر نويسنده درباره تبليغات و لينك هاي پي در پي رسانه اي بود كه اين كار نويسنده رو دوست نداشتم ، ترجيح ميدادم يك كتاب مستقل بخونم.
January 12, 2021
ببینید، کتاب خوبی بود ولی برای من شاید خیلییی مفید نبود. چون خیلی از کارهایی که برای دوری از اخبار میگفت رو مدتها پیش انجام دادم. اما فکرهام دربارهی اخبار مرتبتر شد. کلا حس میکنم این نویسنده شیوهی بیانش اینطوریه که یه سری مسائلی که خودمون بارها دیدیم و بهش فکر کردیم رو دستهبندی شده و پشت سر هم بیان میکنه و این کمک میکنه یه بار درست به موضوعاتی که مطرح میکنه فکر کنیم.
July 9, 2022
«اخبار را پیگیری نکنید» تقریبا تمام حرفش رو توی اسم کتاب زده. اگه شما همون اول قبول کنید یا هم عقیده باشید که دنبال کردن اخبار سودی نداره، لازم نیست اصلا کتاب رو بخونید ولی به هر حال ما در دنیایی هستیم که مورد هجوم شدید اخبار قرار گرفتیم که مقدار زیادی از اونها اشتباه، با مقاصد خاص، جهت سوق دادن شما به سمتی از قبل تعیین شده و ... هستند. در کل با حرفهای نویسنده موافقم با این تبصره که افرادی خاص و افرادی با مشاغل خاص نیازمند پیگیری اخبار هستند و اونها رو از عموم مردم باید جدا کرد. به نظرم این کتاب برای پدرها مناسب باشه که صبح تا شب اخبار میبینند یا میخونند. :))ه
January 29, 2020
As someone who used to enjoy going through the newspapers back in secondary school, this was an interesting read. While I cannot say that I am entirely convinced in giving up news completely, I do agree with certain points brought forward by the author.
Back when I used to read newspapers almost everyday, I do sometimes feel a sense of hopelessness over what I see as a bleak future. Headlines would predominantly feature tragedy after tragedy, followed by grim forecasts about the environment/world politics etc should nothing change.
I do now realise that today's news are rarely accurate representations of the world's happenings. There is a bias to report sensational news, a competition to see who can deliver breaking news the fastest, sometimes at the cost of truth and accuracy. The era of the internet also means that the line between what's true and what's fake are often blurry, making it difficult to judge something correctly. The urgency to seek news all the time also shapes our ever shortening attention span.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the author's message, I believe this book will give a new perspective on the current era of "news", and hopefully enable one to make better decisions about one's time and attention.
Back when I used to read newspapers almost everyday, I do sometimes feel a sense of hopelessness over what I see as a bleak future. Headlines would predominantly feature tragedy after tragedy, followed by grim forecasts about the environment/world politics etc should nothing change.
I do now realise that today's news are rarely accurate representations of the world's happenings. There is a bias to report sensational news, a competition to see who can deliver breaking news the fastest, sometimes at the cost of truth and accuracy. The era of the internet also means that the line between what's true and what's fake are often blurry, making it difficult to judge something correctly. The urgency to seek news all the time also shapes our ever shortening attention span.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the author's message, I believe this book will give a new perspective on the current era of "news", and hopefully enable one to make better decisions about one's time and attention.
April 9, 2021
ثلث اول کتاب خیلی بهتره به نظرم و مابقی همون مطالب کتاب ای دیگه ی رولف دوبلی هستش! و مطالب حالت تکراری پیدا میکنه..
March 27, 2021
من روزانه حدود یکساعت اخبار اجتماعی و سیاسی و ... و تحلیل های خبری رو از طریق سایت های خبری و یوتیوب و سایر رسانه ها پیگیری میکنم. یه جورایی اعتیاد دارم به دنبال کردن اخبار سیاسی. این باعث استرس و اضطراب به صورت ناخودآگاه میشه.
این کتاب در واقع یک مقاله بوده که بعدا" شرح و بسط پیدا کرده و در قالب یک کتاب ارایه شده. مجموعه ای از دستورالعمل ها و دلایلی که چرا نباید اخبار رو دنبال کرد.
کتاب متاسفانه اخبار رو دسته بندی نکرده و به صورت افراطی توصیه کرده هیچ اخباری رو دنبال نکنید. اما به یک موضوع توجه نکرده: مردم از دنبال کردن اخبار ورزشی و علمی و هنری لذت میبرند و یک سرگرمیه. موضوعاتی که میشه با دوستان در باره اونها گفتگو کرد.
اما اخبار حوادث و سیاسی و اجتماعی و دنبال کردن اخبار زرد مثل سلبریتی ها به نظر من هم آسیب زاست و هیچ فایده ای نداره
خوندن کتاب خالی از لطف نیست.
این کتاب در واقع یک مقاله بوده که بعدا" شرح و بسط پیدا کرده و در قالب یک کتاب ارایه شده. مجموعه ای از دستورالعمل ها و دلایلی که چرا نباید اخبار رو دنبال کرد.
کتاب متاسفانه اخبار رو دسته بندی نکرده و به صورت افراطی توصیه کرده هیچ اخباری رو دنبال نکنید. اما به یک موضوع توجه نکرده: مردم از دنبال کردن اخبار ورزشی و علمی و هنری لذت میبرند و یک سرگرمیه. موضوعاتی که میشه با دوستان در باره اونها گفتگو کرد.
اما اخبار حوادث و سیاسی و اجتماعی و دنبال کردن اخبار زرد مثل سلبریتی ها به نظر من هم آسیب زاست و هیچ فایده ای نداره
خوندن کتاب خالی از لطف نیست.
May 9, 2024
نسبت به کتابهای قبلی از همین نویسنده خیلی ضعیف بود.
ریویو قدیمی:
فقط یه سوییسی میتونه اخبار رو دنبال نکنه و خوشحال باشه واسه خودش
کجا دانند حال ما سبکساران ساحلها
ریویو قدیمی:
فقط یه سوییسی میتونه اخبار رو دنبال نکنه و خوشحال باشه واسه خودش
کجا دانند حال ما سبکساران ساحلها
February 23, 2020
This had such a narrow scope? Like yes I agree with the premise and a few of his arguments but it was just very much written for a business man who is ADDICTED... like ADDICTED to the news (over 90 mins a day). And it was very much written with the same snobby middle aged white man style as the subtle art of not giving a fuck. Disappointed
May 25, 2022
خوانش: ۵ خرداد ۰۱
ساعت: ۰۱:۲۰
امتیاز: ۵ از ۵
با صدای عادل فردوسی پور، عجیب بهم این کتاب چسبید..♡
ساعت: ۰۱:۲۰
امتیاز: ۵ از ۵
با صدای عادل فردوسی پور، عجیب بهم این کتاب چسبید..♡
January 1, 2022
LESEEMPFEHLUNG | 4/5 ⭐️
Wieder sehr informativ & inspirierend, wobei manche Aussagen des Autors etwas übertrieben und überheblich wirken.
Trotzdem eine Empfehlung!
Wieder sehr informativ & inspirierend, wobei manche Aussagen des Autors etwas übertrieben und überheblich wirken.
Trotzdem eine Empfehlung!
February 7, 2023
زمانی شروعش کردم و نیمهکاره رهاش کردم. شاید بیشتر از یک سال گذشته و نرفتم سراغش، پس احتمالا قرار نیست بعد از این هم برم سراغش. هرچند نیمهکاره رها کردن یک کتاب مثل یک زالو میچسبه به یه حفره تنگ و تاریک در اعماق مغزم و پروندهی بازش هیچوقت یادم نمیره. برای همین بعید نیست که باز یه روز برم سراغش تا تمومش کنم و اون زالو رو بفرستم خونهش.
به نظرم تمام حرف کتاب یک چیز بود که به شکلهای مختلف میگفتش و از یه جایی به بعد چیز جدیدی نداشت. ترکیبی از تمام صحبتهایی که توی کتابهایی مثل
اینترنت با مغز ما چه میکند؟
که از کتابهای مورد علاقه من هم هست- وجود داره و توش میبینیم که چطور اینترنت و تکنولوژیها-
جدید حوصلهی ما رو کوتاه میکنن و از این قبیل مسائل.
توی این کتاب هم میگفت که چطور تمرکزمون از خبرهای مهم کم میشه (به علت زیاد بودن خبرها)، چطور اخبار بر اتفاقات بدتمرکز میکنن و ما رو دچار خطای شناختی میکنن و چطور از وقتمون بهتر استفاده کنیم. البته که حرفهای غلطی نیستن، اما کمی برای من زیادهگویی داشت و بابت همین کتاب رو کامل نکردم.
در نهایت نمیگم که کتاب بدیه، اما به علت تکراریگویی خوندنش حوصله میخواد.
از طرفی عیب دیگه کتاب اینه که وقتی این حرفها رو میزنه، به نظر درست و منطقی میان اما این کافی نیست. اگر داره به صورت علمی از روان انسان و شیوهی تفکر اون صحبت میکنه، انتظار دارم بر تحقیقاتی که در این زمینه انجام شده اتکا کنه و برای حرفهاش -هرچند که منطقی به نظر بیان- مدرک ارائه کنه. کمی هم لحنش غیرعلمی و هیجانی بود. انگار یه شخصیت پوپولیست داره این حرفها رو میزنه و این باعث میشد خوشم نیاد از نویسنده.
به نظرم تمام حرف کتاب یک چیز بود که به شکلهای مختلف میگفتش و از یه جایی به بعد چیز جدیدی نداشت. ترکیبی از تمام صحبتهایی که توی کتابهایی مثل
اینترنت با مغز ما چه میکند؟
که از کتابهای مورد علاقه من هم هست- وجود داره و توش میبینیم که چطور اینترنت و تکنولوژیها-
جدید حوصلهی ما رو کوتاه میکنن و از این قبیل مسائل.
توی این کتاب هم میگفت که چطور تمرکزمون از خبرهای مهم کم میشه (به علت زیاد بودن خبرها)، چطور اخبار بر اتفاقات بدتمرکز میکنن و ما رو دچار خطای شناختی میکنن و چطور از وقتمون بهتر استفاده کنیم. البته که حرفهای غلطی نیستن، اما کمی برای من زیادهگویی داشت و بابت همین کتاب رو کامل نکردم.
در نهایت نمیگم که کتاب بدیه، اما به علت تکراریگویی خوندنش حوصله میخواد.
از طرفی عیب دیگه کتاب اینه که وقتی این حرفها رو میزنه، به نظر درست و منطقی میان اما این کافی نیست. اگر داره به صورت علمی از روان انسان و شیوهی تفکر اون صحبت میکنه، انتظار دارم بر تحقیقاتی که در این زمینه انجام شده اتکا کنه و برای حرفهاش -هرچند که منطقی به نظر بیان- مدرک ارائه کنه. کمی هم لحنش غیرعلمی و هیجانی بود. انگار یه شخصیت پوپولیست داره این حرفها رو میزنه و این باعث میشد خوشم نیاد از نویسنده.
January 15, 2021
""اخبار در تقابل با درک جهان است چون این باور را القا می کند که هیچ چیزی جز رخدادها وجود ندارند؛رخدادهایی بدون زمینه!!!!"
انقدری واسم جذاب و به شدت مفید بود که سه روز وقتم رو صرفش کنم و تمومش کنم ! کتابی که یک هفته از چاپش مےگذره ، یک کتاب فوق العاده مختصر و مفید ، و به نظرم بهترین اثر رولف دوبلی هستش ، بعید بدونم آثار قبلیش به پای "پےگیر اخبار نباشید" برسه و حتی بعید بدونم بتونه بعدا هم به خوبی و کارآمدیِ این بنویسه !!
خلاصه بگم ، این کتاب درست دست گذاشته روی چیزی که جامعه امروز و مخصوصا جامعه ما بهش احتیاج داره ، جامعه ای که غرق یک مشت اخبار روزانه و فوریِ لحظه به لحظه شده و مثل خوره زمان ارزشمندِ مارو به فنا میده!!!
و بالاتر از اون آرامش روان خودمون رو فدای این اطلاعات بی ارزش کردیم !!!
و دوبلی جسورانه به نقد عقلانی این اخبار روزانه (به قول خودش تفاله های بی ارزش) پرداخته!
معمولا من کتاب های به اصطلاح گیشه ای رو نمی پسندم چون بیش از حد کلیشه ای و گول زننده هستند ، این کتاب اما به شدت ، به شدت به عنوان هیجان انگیز و جذابی پرداخته و نویسنده با دیدی بسیار باز و موشکافانه حرف هاش رو به قلم نگارش درآورده !!
این کتاب رو به اونها که اهل مطالعه نیستن هم توصیه کنید ، به شدت !!
💚💚💚📚✒
انقدری واسم جذاب و به شدت مفید بود که سه روز وقتم رو صرفش کنم و تمومش کنم ! کتابی که یک هفته از چاپش مےگذره ، یک کتاب فوق العاده مختصر و مفید ، و به نظرم بهترین اثر رولف دوبلی هستش ، بعید بدونم آثار قبلیش به پای "پےگیر اخبار نباشید" برسه و حتی بعید بدونم بتونه بعدا هم به خوبی و کارآمدیِ این بنویسه !!
خلاصه بگم ، این کتاب درست دست گذاشته روی چیزی که جامعه امروز و مخصوصا جامعه ما بهش احتیاج داره ، جامعه ای که غرق یک مشت اخبار روزانه و فوریِ لحظه به لحظه شده و مثل خوره زمان ارزشمندِ مارو به فنا میده!!!
و بالاتر از اون آرامش روان خودمون رو فدای این اطلاعات بی ارزش کردیم !!!
و دوبلی جسورانه به نقد عقلانی این اخبار روزانه (به قول خودش تفاله های بی ارزش) پرداخته!
معمولا من کتاب های به اصطلاح گیشه ای رو نمی پسندم چون بیش از حد کلیشه ای و گول زننده هستند ، این کتاب اما به شدت ، به شدت به عنوان هیجان انگیز و جذابی پرداخته و نویسنده با دیدی بسیار باز و موشکافانه حرف هاش رو به قلم نگارش درآورده !!
این کتاب رو به اونها که اهل مطالعه نیستن هم توصیه کنید ، به شدت !!
💚💚💚📚✒
October 9, 2020
Interessante! Più che un libro lo definirei un saggio, si legge in un'oretta. Condivido pienamente ciò che dice l'autore. Purtroppo le notizie flash ci "rubano" tanto, troppo tempo al giorno. Personalmente non farò un taglio drastico sulla fruizione delle stesse, anche se sto cercando di leggere più libri e meno notizie e devo dire che i gli aspetti positivi sono notevoli!
September 13, 2021
مدتهاست خبر نمیخونم و گوش نمیدم. منی که منتظر اخبار بی بی سی و حتی بیست و سی بودم همیشه وهر روز روزنامه میخوندم . وقتی دیدم نویسنده هم قبلا اینجوری بوده خوشحال شدم و ادامه دادم. این کتاب کمکم میکنه در برابر دیگرانی که به چیزهایی همچون بی سوادی ، عدم کنشگری اجتماعی و ... محکومم میکنن از خودم دفاعیه مستدل تری داشته باشم. البته واقعا با نویسنده هم عقیده ام و خوندن اون حجم خبر کمکی به تغییری نمیکنه، صرفا مقالات بلند و تحلیلی خبری باید خونده بشن! و جالب تر اصرارش به خوندن کتاب و عمیق شدن تو حوزه کاری مشخص بود . نمیشه گفت کتاب مفصلی بود ولی مقاله بلندی بود که خوندنش خالی از لطف نیست.
March 22, 2020
This book deserves more than 5 stars! ❤️
Will share the full review soon.
Will share the full review soon.
March 26, 2021
اخبار :
ما را منفعل می کند . وقتی مغز ما فجایعی را در سراسر دنیا میبیند در حالی که فرد ، هیچ تاثیری نمی تواند روی آن وقایع بگذارد ، به تدریج خود را در نقش یک قربانی منفعل می بیند
اخبار خوراکی ایده آل برای مصرف بدون فکر است که تقریبا همواره به سطحی ترین لایه یک موضوع اشاره می کند و امکان تفکر عمیق و متمرکز شدن را از شما میگیرد
به دلیل حجم کوتاه و تنوع زیاد ، یکی از عوامل مهم حواس پرتی به شمار می آیند
عموما تک بعدی به مسائل نگاه می کند و شما را از داشتن تحلیلی جامع محروم می کند
این که قدرت نقد یک پدیده فراگیر را نداشته باشیم و تنها به نفی کردن بدون استدلال آن قناعت کنیم ، باعث بال و پر دادن بیشتر به آن پدیده می شویم و در واقع به شکل کاملا غیرارادی در حال تبلیغ آن هستیم . صفحات ابتدایی کتاب به قدری ضعیف بود که ابتدا قصد رها کردن آن را داشتم اما از منصرف شذن و ادامه دادن خودم ، بسیار خوشحالم . در ابتدای کتاب گویا دوبلی پیش فرض خود را روی این موضوع قرار می دهد که قرار است مخاطبینی که به وسیله کتاب های گذشته خود جذب کرده است ، مجددا این کتاب را مطالعه کنند و این موضوع سبب شده است که مدام نویسنده دستورهایی را صادر کند و از خوانندگان خود انتظار انجام دادن بدون هیچ قید و شرطی را داشته باشد . غلط بودن این فرضیه به مرور و با خواندن کتاب تا به انتها ، بر من ثابت شد و دقیقا همان فرمتی که در ذهن داشتم ، جز به جز در کتاب مشاهده کردم . ابتدا دوبلی حرف خود را بدون نیاز داشتن به ارائه سند و یا مدرکی بیان می کند و بعد از آن با انبوهی از دلایلی مواجهه می شویم که علی رغم این که با ترتیب آن ها مخالفم ( در کتاب بر اساس شدت اثر ، از کم به زیاد ترتیب بندی شده است اما شخصا بهترین روش را قابل مشاهده و لمس پذیر بودن اثرات اخبار میدانم ) اما برخلاف ترتیب بندی ، در دلایلی که ارائه می دهد از ابزارهایی که در دست دارد به شیوه ی درستی استفاده میکند که نشان از پخته تر شدن نویسنده ی�� شاید هم مدت زمانی است که او برای نوشتن این کتاب صرف کرده است
موضوعی که در کتاب به شدت نظرم را جلب کرد ، تیترهای قدرتمند ، جنجالی و در ابتدا احمقانه ی این کتاب است . "اخبار مشوق تروریسم است" ، "اخبار مزخرفات را ترویج می دهد" ، "اخبار خلاقیت را می کشد" ، "اخبار فریبنده است" و چند نمونه دیگر . طبیعتا وقتی در تیتر خود با چنین قاطعیتی صحبت میکنید ، انتظار می رود که به همان میزان هم بتوانید دلایل قانع کننده ای در این زمینه داشته باشید . تا چه حد دوبلی توانسته این انتظارات را برآورده کند ؟ باید اقرار کرد که ویژگی مثبت این کتاب آوردن دلایلی منطقی برای ادعاهای خود است که خواننده را مجاب به پذیرش حقیقت می کند . دوبلی برخلاف کتاب های گذشته خود به شدت کمتر از تمثیل و داستان سرایی استفاده میکند که نقطه قوت بزرگی برای آن محسوب می شود و به این وسیله می توان این کتاب را جدی تر از سایر کتاب های او در نظر گرفت
در مقدمه کتاب اخبار را نوعی سرگرمی در نظر گرفته است ، اما در هیچ کجای کتاب توضیحی برای این سخن خود ندارد و به هیچ عنوان با توجه به محتوای ادامه کتاب ، برداشتی تحت عنوان سرگرمی نمی توان از اخبار داشت . در موارد محدودی دوبلی از یکی از بحران های فعلی بشر نام برده است و آن را بدون هیچ دلیل و استدلال موجهی به اخبار نسبت داده است . گویی خود او نیز به خطایی که در قدرت شفاف اندیشیدن از آن نام برده ، دچار شده است . این خطا که ذهن ما استاد برقراری ارتباط هایی است که به هیچ عنوان بهم مربوط نیستند . با ساده ترین تفکری می توان دریافت که افت کیفیت گفتمان های سیاسی هیچ ارتباطی با اخبار ندارد ، اما این موردی است که باز هم در نکوهش اخبار ، در این کتاب ذکر شده است
کتاب ، اخبار را دشمن زمان آزاد شما می داند و بارها ذکر میکند که می توانید به وسیله حذف اخبار از زندگیتان یک ماه دیگر در هر سال به شکل اضافه تری بدست آورید . حال نویسنده نباید فرایند جایگزینی را برای آن ارائه کند ؟ قطعا جواب مثبت است . تا چه حد این کار را انجام داده است ؟ در این که او راهکار هایی را به ما معرفی کرده است که در آن زمان به انجام آن ها بپردازیم ، شکی نیست . آیا جز کتاب خواندن و از فواید آن گفتن ، راه دیگری را به ما اعلام میکند ؟ قطعا جواب منفی است . حال اگر کسی هم به خبر و هم به کتاب خواندن اعتیاد داشته باشد ، چه تکلیفی را پیش روی خود میبیند ؟ قطعا نمیداند که اگر قرار است که اخبار را کنار بگذارد ، چه چیزی را باید جایگزین آن کند
این کتاب برای چه کسانی مفید است و نویسنده مخاطبین خود را چه کسانی قرار داده است ؟ جواب این دو سوال متفاوت است . قطعا کتاب برای همه مفید است زیرا اگر در منزوی ترین شرایط و کم جمعیت ترین مکان ها هم زندگی کنید ، به اخبار دسترسی دارید و و باید این واقعیت را که اخبار زندگی همه ی ما را احاطه کرده است را پذیرفت . اما نویسنده به طور کاملا مشهود در حال قانع کردن افرادی است که مدت زمان زیادی را صرف پیگیری اخبار می کنند . کسانی که او آن ها را معتادین خبر می نامد . این که بالاترین افراد را در یک جامعه آماری ( که در اینجا منظور معتادین خبرها هستند ) را در نظر بگیریم و روی سخنمان را آن ها قرار دهیم و بدین وسیله بخواهیم بقیه خود به خود به وسیله استدلال هایی که مختص به آن ها نیست ، متقاعد شوند ، روشی است که نباید انتظار داشت همواره جواب دهد . هر چند که در اینجا تا حدودی مطالب توانسته است خود را در میان سایر اقشار نیز جای دهد اما این روشی نیست که بتوان همواره به آن دل بست و باید از ابتدا ، نویسنده جامعه ی مخاطبین خود را انتخاب کند و نقطه متمرکز کتاب را روی آن ها قرار بدهد
در آخر هم یک متن مناسب این روز ها را از زبان دوبلی بخوانید : علت سلبریتی بودن سلبریتی ها ، سلبریتی بودنشان است . چگونگی سلبریتی شدنشان خیلی زود فراموش می شود و هیچ نقشی در سیرک رسانه ندارد . خبرنگاران به این دلیل درباره ی یک سلبریتی گزارش تهیه می کنند که سلبریتی است و نکته تلخ ماجرا این است که این سلبریتی ها تمام کسانی را که به دستاوردی حقیقی رسیده باشند از دید رسانه ها پنهان می کنند . زیرا خوراک خبری مناسب تری برای اخبار هستند و رسانه ها نیز از این موضوع به شدت استقبال می کنند
ما را منفعل می کند . وقتی مغز ما فجایعی را در سراسر دنیا میبیند در حالی که فرد ، هیچ تاثیری نمی تواند روی آن وقایع بگذارد ، به تدریج خود را در نقش یک قربانی منفعل می بیند
اخبار خوراکی ایده آل برای مصرف بدون فکر است که تقریبا همواره به سطحی ترین لایه یک موضوع اشاره می کند و امکان تفکر عمیق و متمرکز شدن را از شما میگیرد
به دلیل حجم کوتاه و تنوع زیاد ، یکی از عوامل مهم حواس پرتی به شمار می آیند
عموما تک بعدی به مسائل نگاه می کند و شما را از داشتن تحلیلی جامع محروم می کند
این که قدرت نقد یک پدیده فراگیر را نداشته باشیم و تنها به نفی کردن بدون استدلال آن قناعت کنیم ، باعث بال و پر دادن بیشتر به آن پدیده می شویم و در واقع به شکل کاملا غیرارادی در حال تبلیغ آن هستیم . صفحات ابتدایی کتاب به قدری ضعیف بود که ابتدا قصد رها کردن آن را داشتم اما از منصرف شذن و ادامه دادن خودم ، بسیار خوشحالم . در ابتدای کتاب گویا دوبلی پیش فرض خود را روی این موضوع قرار می دهد که قرار است مخاطبینی که به وسیله کتاب های گذشته خود جذب کرده است ، مجددا این کتاب را مطالعه کنند و این موضوع سبب شده است که مدام نویسنده دستورهایی را صادر کند و از خوانندگان خود انتظار انجام دادن بدون هیچ قید و شرطی را داشته باشد . غلط بودن این فرضیه به مرور و با خواندن کتاب تا به انتها ، بر من ثابت شد و دقیقا همان فرمتی که در ذهن داشتم ، جز به جز در کتاب مشاهده کردم . ابتدا دوبلی حرف خود را بدون نیاز داشتن به ارائه سند و یا مدرکی بیان می کند و بعد از آن با انبوهی از دلایلی مواجهه می شویم که علی رغم این که با ترتیب آن ها مخالفم ( در کتاب بر اساس شدت اثر ، از کم به زیاد ترتیب بندی شده است اما شخصا بهترین روش را قابل مشاهده و لمس پذیر بودن اثرات اخبار میدانم ) اما برخلاف ترتیب بندی ، در دلایلی که ارائه می دهد از ابزارهایی که در دست دارد به شیوه ی درستی استفاده میکند که نشان از پخته تر شدن نویسنده ی�� شاید هم مدت زمانی است که او برای نوشتن این کتاب صرف کرده است
موضوعی که در کتاب به شدت نظرم را جلب کرد ، تیترهای قدرتمند ، جنجالی و در ابتدا احمقانه ی این کتاب است . "اخبار مشوق تروریسم است" ، "اخبار مزخرفات را ترویج می دهد" ، "اخبار خلاقیت را می کشد" ، "اخبار فریبنده است" و چند نمونه دیگر . طبیعتا وقتی در تیتر خود با چنین قاطعیتی صحبت میکنید ، انتظار می رود که به همان میزان هم بتوانید دلایل قانع کننده ای در این زمینه داشته باشید . تا چه حد دوبلی توانسته این انتظارات را برآورده کند ؟ باید اقرار کرد که ویژگی مثبت این کتاب آوردن دلایلی منطقی برای ادعاهای خود است که خواننده را مجاب به پذیرش حقیقت می کند . دوبلی برخلاف کتاب های گذشته خود به شدت کمتر از تمثیل و داستان سرایی استفاده میکند که نقطه قوت بزرگی برای آن محسوب می شود و به این وسیله می توان این کتاب را جدی تر از سایر کتاب های او در نظر گرفت
در مقدمه کتاب اخبار را نوعی سرگرمی در نظر گرفته است ، اما در هیچ کجای کتاب توضیحی برای این سخن خود ندارد و به هیچ عنوان با توجه به محتوای ادامه کتاب ، برداشتی تحت عنوان سرگرمی نمی توان از اخبار داشت . در موارد محدودی دوبلی از یکی از بحران های فعلی بشر نام برده است و آن را بدون هیچ دلیل و استدلال موجهی به اخبار نسبت داده است . گویی خود او نیز به خطایی که در قدرت شفاف اندیشیدن از آن نام برده ، دچار شده است . این خطا که ذهن ما استاد برقراری ارتباط هایی است که به هیچ عنوان بهم مربوط نیستند . با ساده ترین تفکری می توان دریافت که افت کیفیت گفتمان های سیاسی هیچ ارتباطی با اخبار ندارد ، اما این موردی است که باز هم در نکوهش اخبار ، در این کتاب ذکر شده است
کتاب ، اخبار را دشمن زمان آزاد شما می داند و بارها ذکر میکند که می توانید به وسیله حذف اخبار از زندگیتان یک ماه دیگر در هر سال به شکل اضافه تری بدست آورید . حال نویسنده نباید فرایند جایگزینی را برای آن ارائه کند ؟ قطعا جواب مثبت است . تا چه حد این کار را انجام داده است ؟ در این که او راهکار هایی را به ما معرفی کرده است که در آن زمان به انجام آن ها بپردازیم ، شکی نیست . آیا جز کتاب خواندن و از فواید آن گفتن ، راه دیگری را به ما اعلام میکند ؟ قطعا جواب منفی است . حال اگر کسی هم به خبر و هم به کتاب خواندن اعتیاد داشته باشد ، چه تکلیفی را پیش روی خود میبیند ؟ قطعا نمیداند که اگر قرار است که اخبار را کنار بگذارد ، چه چیزی را باید جایگزین آن کند
این کتاب برای چه کسانی مفید است و نویسنده مخاطبین خود را چه کسانی قرار داده است ؟ جواب این دو سوال متفاوت است . قطعا کتاب برای همه مفید است زیرا اگر در منزوی ترین شرایط و کم جمعیت ترین مکان ها هم زندگی کنید ، به اخبار دسترسی دارید و و باید این واقعیت را که اخبار زندگی همه ی ما را احاطه کرده است را پذیرفت . اما نویسنده به طور کاملا مشهود در حال قانع کردن افرادی است که مدت زمان زیادی را صرف پیگیری اخبار می کنند . کسانی که او آن ها را معتادین خبر می نامد . این که بالاترین افراد را در یک جامعه آماری ( که در اینجا منظور معتادین خبرها هستند ) را در نظر بگیریم و روی سخنمان را آن ها قرار دهیم و بدین وسیله بخواهیم بقیه خود به خود به وسیله استدلال هایی که مختص به آن ها نیست ، متقاعد شوند ، روشی است که نباید انتظار داشت همواره جواب دهد . هر چند که در اینجا تا حدودی مطالب توانسته است خود را در میان سایر اقشار نیز جای دهد اما این روشی نیست که بتوان همواره به آن دل بست و باید از ابتدا ، نویسنده جامعه ی مخاطبین خود را انتخاب کند و نقطه متمرکز کتاب را روی آن ها قرار بدهد
در آخر هم یک متن مناسب این روز ها را از زبان دوبلی بخوانید : علت سلبریتی بودن سلبریتی ها ، سلبریتی بودنشان است . چگونگی سلبریتی شدنشان خیلی زود فراموش می شود و هیچ نقشی در سیرک رسانه ندارد . خبرنگاران به این دلیل درباره ی یک سلبریتی گزارش تهیه می کنند که سلبریتی است و نکته تلخ ماجرا این است که این سلبریتی ها تمام کسانی را که به دستاوردی حقیقی رسیده باشند از دید رسانه ها پنهان می کنند . زیرا خوراک خبری مناسب تری برای اخبار هستند و رسانه ها نیز از این موضوع به شدت استقبال می کنند
June 12, 2022
I spotted Stop Reading the News: A Manifesto for a Happier, Calmer and Wiser Life in the library on the jubilee weekend and the title really spoke to me, because I was avoiding the news particularly assiduously at the time. I've done so to a greater or lesser degree since 2016, so the author did not really need to convince me. Nonetheless, I found Dobelli's reasoning interesting to follow. He makes a lot of good points, but also some tiresome over-generalisations (especially about hierarchies and ideologies - I do not believe you can avoid the latter). The book is a quick and enjoyable read. Each short chapter is, ironically, about the length of a news article. The current media business model is critiqued in a particularly succinct and effective manner:
Dobelli also uses some memorably entertaining similes:
Two topics I found particularly thought-provoking were informed voting and terrorism. One thing that keeps me periodically checking local news is so I have an informed basis for voting in elections. Dobelli tackles this in chapter 31, pointing out that you can research election candidates without regular news consumption. In the UK, websites like https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ do facilitate this. On terrorism, he quotes an Israeli historian as follows, 'The theatre of terror cannot succeed without publicity. Unfortunately, the media all too often provides this publicity for free. It obsessively reports terror attacks and greatly inflates their danger, because reports on terrorism sell newspapers much better than reports on diabetes or air pollution'. Before mass media, it certainly took a great deal more effort to terrify a whole population.
In my view, the big weakness of the book is not discussing social media. During periods when I've stopped reading the news because it was overwhelming and terrifying, I was still constantly exposed to it on social media - twitter, to be specific. Around March 2020, I completely stopped using twitter as the COVID-19 panic was more than I could bear. This was quite isolating, as I use it to keep up with a bunch of friends living hundreds of miles away. I assume the same effect would occur with facebook, if I used facebook. To stop reading the news in the 2020s is not as simple as avoiding TV news, radio bulletins, newspapers, and news websites. Social media is saturated in contextless snippets of current events. If I want to keep up with friends and their cats, I apparently have to endure this. At present I don't read news websites at weekends, therefore regularly have no idea what the hell my friends are talking about or reacting to on twitter. Today, for instance, a twitter friend posted a thread about 'the laMDA situation'. It's Sunday so I have no clue what that means and lack the energy to find out.
Although this book is clearly argued and wide-ranging, its brevity does result in over-simplification. For more depth, I suggest The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, The News: A User's Manual, and The People Vs Tech: How the Internet Is Killing Democracy. I don't think there is an easy or settled optimum for news avoidance. I frequently adjust my approach based on my mental tolerance, the state of current affairs, and any other factors that arise. During most of the pandemic, especially periods when cases and deaths were rising rapidly, I only read Scottish news and pretended that America was a fictional place that only existed in TV and movies. It's a pity that local news websites have particularly annoying clickbait formats, as news that occurs within several miles of your home can be genuinely useful. I also appreciate Guardian book reviews for updates on potentially promising reading matter.
My current dilemma is which is worse to read during workdays, twitter or the Guardian and BBC? I tried logging out of twitter on my phone for a week, with the result that I read news articles as micro-breaks instead. That wasn't more calming! But twitter has its own whiplash effect that I find difficult to deal with, neatly described in this tweet. Ideally I'd take a break by reading a few pages of a book, but unfortunately that is not something I'm capable of. A few pages turns into 75 to 250; books are far too involving. Maybe I should subscribe to a hardcopy periodical like the London Review of Books? Despite 13 years using twitter and aggressive curation of my feed, I still haven't built up a robust tolerance for it - although in my defence, during that time both twitter and the world have got worse.
The news media, whether big or small, is obsessed with the immediate. Gripping stories, shrieking images, shocking videos, and astonishing 'facts' grab our attention. This is how their business model works. The adverts that finance the whole circus will only be sold if they're going to be seen: if they're surrounded by garish news stories. The upshot? Anything subtle, complex, and abstract, anything that develops slowly and is remotely abstruse, will be systematically dismissed by the media, and by ourselves, despite being the content that actually matters more to our lives and genuinely furthers our understanding of the world.
Dobelli also uses some memorably entertaining similes:
In short, it's a serious mistake to think that we need to form an opinion about everything. Ninety percent of our opinions are superfluous. Yet the news is constantly urging us to form opinions. This robs us of concentration and inner peace. Opinions are like noses - everybody has one. Consuming the news is like having a whole face full of noses.
Two topics I found particularly thought-provoking were informed voting and terrorism. One thing that keeps me periodically checking local news is so I have an informed basis for voting in elections. Dobelli tackles this in chapter 31, pointing out that you can research election candidates without regular news consumption. In the UK, websites like https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ do facilitate this. On terrorism, he quotes an Israeli historian as follows, 'The theatre of terror cannot succeed without publicity. Unfortunately, the media all too often provides this publicity for free. It obsessively reports terror attacks and greatly inflates their danger, because reports on terrorism sell newspapers much better than reports on diabetes or air pollution'. Before mass media, it certainly took a great deal more effort to terrify a whole population.
In my view, the big weakness of the book is not discussing social media. During periods when I've stopped reading the news because it was overwhelming and terrifying, I was still constantly exposed to it on social media - twitter, to be specific. Around March 2020, I completely stopped using twitter as the COVID-19 panic was more than I could bear. This was quite isolating, as I use it to keep up with a bunch of friends living hundreds of miles away. I assume the same effect would occur with facebook, if I used facebook. To stop reading the news in the 2020s is not as simple as avoiding TV news, radio bulletins, newspapers, and news websites. Social media is saturated in contextless snippets of current events. If I want to keep up with friends and their cats, I apparently have to endure this. At present I don't read news websites at weekends, therefore regularly have no idea what the hell my friends are talking about or reacting to on twitter. Today, for instance, a twitter friend posted a thread about 'the laMDA situation'. It's Sunday so I have no clue what that means and lack the energy to find out.
Although this book is clearly argued and wide-ranging, its brevity does result in over-simplification. For more depth, I suggest The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, The News: A User's Manual, and The People Vs Tech: How the Internet Is Killing Democracy. I don't think there is an easy or settled optimum for news avoidance. I frequently adjust my approach based on my mental tolerance, the state of current affairs, and any other factors that arise. During most of the pandemic, especially periods when cases and deaths were rising rapidly, I only read Scottish news and pretended that America was a fictional place that only existed in TV and movies. It's a pity that local news websites have particularly annoying clickbait formats, as news that occurs within several miles of your home can be genuinely useful. I also appreciate Guardian book reviews for updates on potentially promising reading matter.
My current dilemma is which is worse to read during workdays, twitter or the Guardian and BBC? I tried logging out of twitter on my phone for a week, with the result that I read news articles as micro-breaks instead. That wasn't more calming! But twitter has its own whiplash effect that I find difficult to deal with, neatly described in this tweet. Ideally I'd take a break by reading a few pages of a book, but unfortunately that is not something I'm capable of. A few pages turns into 75 to 250; books are far too involving. Maybe I should subscribe to a hardcopy periodical like the London Review of Books? Despite 13 years using twitter and aggressive curation of my feed, I still haven't built up a robust tolerance for it - although in my defence, during that time both twitter and the world have got worse.
September 13, 2025
کتاب «اخبار را پیگیری نکنید» (Stop Reading the News) نوشتهی رولف دوبلی نویسندهی سوئیسی است که بیشتر با کتاب «هنر شفاف اندیشیدن» شناخته میشود. این اثر بهنوعی ادامهی مسیر فکری دوبلی است؛ او در آن به بررسی تأثیرات منفی مصرف روزانهی اخبار بر ذهن، روان و کیفیت زندگی انسان مدرن میپردازد.
دوبلی برخلاف جریان عمومی رسانهها، توصیه میکند که بهجای غرق شدن در اخبار فوری و سطحی، روی اطلاعات عمیق، تحلیلهای بلندمدت و کتابهای ارزشمند تمرکز کنیم. این رویکرد برای بسیاری خوانندگان رهاییبخش و نوآورانه است.
دوبلی از یافتههای علوم شناختی، سوگیریهای ذهنی و تجربیات شخصی استفاده میکند تا نشان دهد اخبار نهتنها در تصمیمگیری کمکی نمیکنند بلکه اغلب ما را به واکنشهای احساسی و کوتاهمدت میکشانند.او تنها به نقد اکتفا نمیکند، بلکه پیشنهاد میدهد مدت مشخصی اخبار را کنار بگذاریم تا تأثیر مثبت آن را در آرامش ذهن، افزایش بهرهوری و تمرکز تجربه کنیم.
اما از نقاط ضعف کتاب این است که دوبلی تقریباً همهی اخبار را بیارزش و مخرب میداند؛ در حالی که برخی اخبار برای آگاهی اجتماعی، مسئولیتپذیری مدنی یا واکنش به بحرانها ضروریاند. این نگاه مطلقگرایانه ممکن است محل نقد باشد.هرچند نویسنده به یافتههای علمی اشاره میکند، اما کتاب بیشتر بر تجربه شخصی و دیدگاه فردی او استوار است تا تحقیقات عمیق و دادههای تجربی گسترده.
دوبلی برخلاف جریان عمومی رسانهها، توصیه میکند که بهجای غرق شدن در اخبار فوری و سطحی، روی اطلاعات عمیق، تحلیلهای بلندمدت و کتابهای ارزشمند تمرکز کنیم. این رویکرد برای بسیاری خوانندگان رهاییبخش و نوآورانه است.
دوبلی از یافتههای علوم شناختی، سوگیریهای ذهنی و تجربیات شخصی استفاده میکند تا نشان دهد اخبار نهتنها در تصمیمگیری کمکی نمیکنند بلکه اغلب ما را به واکنشهای احساسی و کوتاهمدت میکشانند.او تنها به نقد اکتفا نمیکند، بلکه پیشنهاد میدهد مدت مشخصی اخبار را کنار بگذاریم تا تأثیر مثبت آن را در آرامش ذهن، افزایش بهرهوری و تمرکز تجربه کنیم.
اما از نقاط ضعف کتاب این است که دوبلی تقریباً همهی اخبار را بیارزش و مخرب میداند؛ در حالی که برخی اخبار برای آگاهی اجتماعی، مسئولیتپذیری مدنی یا واکنش به بحرانها ضروریاند. این نگاه مطلقگرایانه ممکن است محل نقد باشد.هرچند نویسنده به یافتههای علمی اشاره میکند، اما کتاب بیشتر بر تجربه شخصی و دیدگاه فردی او استوار است تا تحقیقات عمیق و دادههای تجربی گسترده.
January 1, 2022
آرامش ذهنی تا حدودی مستلزمِ نبودِ احساسات مسموم است.
این مسئله چه ربطی به اخبار دارد؟؟
با شرایط زیر کتاب ,این کتاب را بخوانید.
اگر وقت زیادی صرف اخبار میکنید,
اگر وقت اضافه دارید,
اگر کتابی برای خواندن ندارید,
اگر بر کتابهای دیگر تمرکز کافی ندارید ,
اگر دوست دارید کتاب جدیدی شروع کرده باشید ,
و اگرهای دیگر . .
قسمت اذیت کنن��هی کتاب ،پافشاری نویسنده برای ترک اخبار و تکرار مکرر این قسمتها بود.
[البته برای من که دوسالی هست اخبار را ترک کردهام,تأثیر عمیقی نداشت ولی دلایل خوبی ارائه کرده برای این حجم از ابتذال خبری]
این مسئله چه ربطی به اخبار دارد؟؟
با شرایط زیر کتاب ,این کتاب را بخوانید.
اگر وقت زیادی صرف اخبار میکنید,
اگر وقت اضافه دارید,
اگر کتابی برای خواندن ندارید,
اگر بر کتابهای دیگر تمرکز کافی ندارید ,
اگر دوست دارید کتاب جدیدی شروع کرده باشید ,
و اگرهای دیگر . .
قسمت اذیت کنن��هی کتاب ،پافشاری نویسنده برای ترک اخبار و تکرار مکرر این قسمتها بود.
[البته برای من که دوسالی هست اخبار را ترک کردهام,تأثیر عمیقی نداشت ولی دلایل خوبی ارائه کرده برای این حجم از ابتذال خبری]
May 11, 2020
کتاب خوبیه البته من کلا اخبار نمی بینمم که بگم تاثیر گذار هست یا نه
اقای شکوری هم چند شب پیش تو کتاب باز دربارش صحبت کرد و بنظرم خیلی خوب بود اگه خواستین تو پیج اینستا کتاب باز ببینبن توصیه میشه
اقای شکوری هم چند شب پیش تو کتاب باز دربارش صحبت کرد و بنظرم خیلی خوب بود اگه خواستین تو پیج اینستا کتاب باز ببینبن توصیه میشه
March 30, 2022
SÁCH ĐA PHẦN LÀ RÁC RƯỞI!
Một mớ thông tin rời rạc và lộn xộn chỉ để cố làm rõ cái tiêu đề. Uh thì ngừng đọc tin tức, tin tức rất độc hại, tin tức là đường, là ma túy. Ăn thì ngon nhưng tác hại vô cùng. Uh thì thay đổi não bộ với hạn chế tư duy, củng cố thiên kiến.. Đúng ra nên dừng đọc luôn từ chương 2. Không phản bác chút nào với ý kiến của tác giả. Nên dừng đọc tin tức luôn, nó không mang lại hiểu biết sâu sắc nào cả, nó đầu đọc tâm trí và tạo ra ảo tưởng rằng mình hiểu biết. Nhưng cách viết và trình bày thì thôi. Tởm, quá ngán ngẩm với kiểu thị trường này. Nếu đọc 2 cuốn của tác giả này rồi thì thấy nội dung trùng lặp 1 đống, dẫn chứng cũng chỉ nhai đi nhai đi. Như này mà mặt dày đóng thành sách xong bán thì loại sách này cũng chỉ là 1 loại sách độc hại. Sách gì mà phần phụ lục bằng nửa nội dung chính. Nội dung chính thì chỉ là mấy chục gạch đầu dòng xong còn tóm lược lại bằng mấy dòng.
Tại sao người ta có thể tiêu thụ thứ sách như này?? Tại sao nhà xuất bản in ra thứ sách này?? Sao có người mua?? Hình như cũng vì tiền và lợi nhuận cả thôi. Những loại này không kén người đọc, chỉ là dạng tin tức rẻ tiền khác và cũng khiến người đọc ảo tưởng rằng mình có chút hiểu biết sau khi đọc. Đọc xong thấy rất phí thời gian thậm chí phí cả tiền dù cuốn này rẻ bèo. Chỉ cần 1 bài viết dài trên blog hoặc fb là đủ, cả cuốn sách nếu cô đọng thì cần 2 trang A4. 2 trang A4 và bôi thêm chữ để in thành sách. Chịu luôn. Từ giờ 3 cái cuốn vớ vẩn được share, được khoe, được giới thiệu bỏ đấy hết.
DỪNG ĐỌC TIN TỨC VÀ DỪNG LUÔN ĐỌC SÁCH VỚ VẨN. Như thế tác dụng mới thật lớn. Cho 2*, vừa đọc vừa khó chịu vì lối viết cẩu thả, dễ dãi trong in ấn và xuất bản. Tác giả hẳn phải là kẻ mặt dày thì mới đem bản thảo rẻ rách như này gửi cho nhà xuất bản để in thành sách. Những ai không có khả năng viết làm ơn đừng viết nữa, đừng xả thêm rác thông tin nữa. Nó đã quá đủ ô nhiễm rồi. Những bạn đọc làm ơn cũng khắt khe hơn trong việc chọn sách đọc thì mấy thể loại này mới không còn đất mà xuất bản được.
Một mớ thông tin rời rạc và lộn xộn chỉ để cố làm rõ cái tiêu đề. Uh thì ngừng đọc tin tức, tin tức rất độc hại, tin tức là đường, là ma túy. Ăn thì ngon nhưng tác hại vô cùng. Uh thì thay đổi não bộ với hạn chế tư duy, củng cố thiên kiến.. Đúng ra nên dừng đọc luôn từ chương 2. Không phản bác chút nào với ý kiến của tác giả. Nên dừng đọc tin tức luôn, nó không mang lại hiểu biết sâu sắc nào cả, nó đầu đọc tâm trí và tạo ra ảo tưởng rằng mình hiểu biết. Nhưng cách viết và trình bày thì thôi. Tởm, quá ngán ngẩm với kiểu thị trường này. Nếu đọc 2 cuốn của tác giả này rồi thì thấy nội dung trùng lặp 1 đống, dẫn chứng cũng chỉ nhai đi nhai đi. Như này mà mặt dày đóng thành sách xong bán thì loại sách này cũng chỉ là 1 loại sách độc hại. Sách gì mà phần phụ lục bằng nửa nội dung chính. Nội dung chính thì chỉ là mấy chục gạch đầu dòng xong còn tóm lược lại bằng mấy dòng.
Tại sao người ta có thể tiêu thụ thứ sách như này?? Tại sao nhà xuất bản in ra thứ sách này?? Sao có người mua?? Hình như cũng vì tiền và lợi nhuận cả thôi. Những loại này không kén người đọc, chỉ là dạng tin tức rẻ tiền khác và cũng khiến người đọc ảo tưởng rằng mình có chút hiểu biết sau khi đọc. Đọc xong thấy rất phí thời gian thậm chí phí cả tiền dù cuốn này rẻ bèo. Chỉ cần 1 bài viết dài trên blog hoặc fb là đủ, cả cuốn sách nếu cô đọng thì cần 2 trang A4. 2 trang A4 và bôi thêm chữ để in thành sách. Chịu luôn. Từ giờ 3 cái cuốn vớ vẩn được share, được khoe, được giới thiệu bỏ đấy hết.
DỪNG ĐỌC TIN TỨC VÀ DỪNG LUÔN ĐỌC SÁCH VỚ VẨN. Như thế tác dụng mới thật lớn. Cho 2*, vừa đọc vừa khó chịu vì lối viết cẩu thả, dễ dãi trong in ấn và xuất bản. Tác giả hẳn phải là kẻ mặt dày thì mới đem bản thảo rẻ rách như này gửi cho nhà xuất bản để in thành sách. Những ai không có khả năng viết làm ơn đừng viết nữa, đừng xả thêm rác thông tin nữa. Nó đã quá đủ ô nhiễm rồi. Những bạn đọc làm ơn cũng khắt khe hơn trong việc chọn sách đọc thì mấy thể loại này mới không còn đất mà xuất bản được.
Read
March 27, 2021اخبار برای ذهن حکم شکر را برای بدن دارد
اطلاعات زیادی داریم و با اینهمه خیلی کم میدانیم.چرا؟.
در این موقعیت ناراحتکننده قرار گرفتهایم، چون ۲۰۰ سال پیش نوع زهرآگینی از دانش را به نام «اخبار» ابداع کردهایم. زمانش رسیده تا آثار زیانبخش اخبار بر افراد و جوامع را بشناسیم و اقدامات لازم را انجام بدهیم تا از خودمان در برابر خطراتش حفاظت کنیم.
انسان امروزی در اصل همان آدم غارنشین است که حالا لباسی بر تن دارد. مغزهایمان برای محیط ابتدایی شکارچی-گردآورندگان بهینه شده است، جایی که در گروههای کوچک ۲۵ تا ۱۰۰ نفره با منابع محدود غذایی و اطلاعاتی زندگی میکردیم. مغزهایمان (و بدنهایمان) حالا در جهانی متضاد با چیزی زندگی میکنند که برایش طراحی شدهایم. این ماجرا منجر به مخاطرهای بزرگ و رفتارهایی نامناسب و آشکارا خطرناک شده است.
یک بار برای همیشه تکلیف خودتان را با این همه اخبار روشن کنید. مثلاً یک سال گذشته را در نظر بگیرید و از خودتان بپرسید: واقعاً کدام خبر را در روزنامه یا وبسایتی خبری خواندهاید که تأثیر مهمی در زندگی و کارتان داشته است؟ چه چیز مهمی هست که اگر خبر نخوانید از دست خواهید داد؟ جوابش تقریباً برای همۀ ما یکسان است: هیچ چیز.
اگر اطلاعاتی واقعاً برای حرفهتان، شرکتتان، خانوادهتان یا اجتماعتان مهم باشد، به موقع از آن باخبر میشوید، از سمت دوستانتان، مادرزنتان یا هر کسی که با او صحبت میکنید یا میبینید
رولف روبلی در مقاله ای پانزده اثر مخرب اخبار را منتشر کرده است که می توانید اینجا در سایت ترجمان گوش دهید
«از اخبار فرار کنید، همانطور که از هروئین فرار میکنید»
https://tarjomaan.com/sound/10121
August 14, 2020
ترجمهٔ کتاب ضعیف بود و ویراستاری آن بدتر. انگار که اصلاً یک بار هم کتاب مرور نشده.
بسیاری از دلایل نویسنده رو برای دنبال نکردن اخبار قبول دارم، اما اینقدر رادیکال بودن در این زمینه پذیرفتنی نیست. چیزی که مهم است معتاد نشدن به اخبار و همینطور فضای مجازیه. در کل افراط و تفریط در هیچ کاری خوب نیست.
علیرغم تأکیدی که نویسنده بر دنبال نکردن اخبار میکند، چندان هم بیخبر از اوضاع نیست. ایشان برای آنکه در جریان مسائل روز باشند، روشهای خاص خودشان را دارند. مثلاً اینکه ناهارشان را با روزنامهنگاران و نویسندگان صرف میکنند و در مدت صرف ناهار، از مهمترین اخبار مطلع میشن. یا در ملاقاتشان با دوستان و آشنایانشان از یکی دو خبر روز هم باخبر میشن. یعنی میخوام بگم حتی خود نویسنده هم به طور کلی از خبر فاصله نگرفته، بلکه روش جایگزینی پیدا کرده تا در خبر غرق نشه و فقط آنچه مهم است را بفهمد.
بسیاری از دلایل نویسنده رو برای دنبال نکردن اخبار قبول دارم، اما اینقدر رادیکال بودن در این زمینه پذیرفتنی نیست. چیزی که مهم است معتاد نشدن به اخبار و همینطور فضای مجازیه. در کل افراط و تفریط در هیچ کاری خوب نیست.
علیرغم تأکیدی که نویسنده بر دنبال نکردن اخبار میکند، چندان هم بیخبر از اوضاع نیست. ایشان برای آنکه در جریان مسائل روز باشند، روشهای خاص خودشان را دارند. مثلاً اینکه ناهارشان را با روزنامهنگاران و نویسندگان صرف میکنند و در مدت صرف ناهار، از مهمترین اخبار مطلع میشن. یا در ملاقاتشان با دوستان و آشنایانشان از یکی دو خبر روز هم باخبر میشن. یعنی میخوام بگم حتی خود نویسنده هم به طور کلی از خبر فاصله نگرفته، بلکه روش جایگزینی پیدا کرده تا در خبر غرق نشه و فقط آنچه مهم است را بفهمد.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 564 reviews