Slashdot Mirror


Having Too Much Information Can Narrow Your Focus

CeruleanDragon writes "This excerpt sums up Dave Pell's article at NPR pretty well: 'Google's Eric Schmidt recently stated that every two days we create as much information as we did from the beginning of civilization through 2003. Perhaps the sheer bulk of data makes it easier to suppress that information which we find overly unpleasant. Who has got time for a victim in Afghanistan or end-of-life issues with all these tweets coming in?' It's a valid point. If it's not tweets or Facebook posts, it's lengthy forum arguments or reading news articles from the time you walk in the door at work until you're ready for bed at night, and realizing you didn't actually accomplish anything else. Sometimes too much information can get in the way of living and can bury otherwise important things."

10 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Too early. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I will come back to the thread later, when there are several hundred comments to read.

  2. every so often, you have to turn off the toys. by swschrad · · Score: 4, Funny

    perspective is import... OOOHHHH, shiny.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  3. TV? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it's not Tweets or Facebook posts, it's lengthy forum arguments or reading news articles from the time you walk in the door at work until you're ready for bed at night, and realizing you didn't actually accomplish anything else

    RIght, because before the information explosion on the internet, people never watched TV from the time they walked in the door until they were ready for bed at night, accomplishing nothing. The newest shiny toy is always a distraction, if you aren't going to learn to overcome being distracted, there will always be a new thing to ruin your productivity.

    And if you disagree with me, by golly, I'll stay here and argue with you until the sun goes down if I have to!

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:TV? by CrashandDie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's another thing that makes me go "duh", even more than the TV argument.

      Books.

      I recently had a discussion with a friend who was amazed that these days, there was so little censoring in the 100+ page media. He wondered if our governments (or corporations as he now calls them) were getting sensible.

      I've always been amazed at this train of thought. Books don't require censoring anymore. There are so many books coming out, every single day, that it would be impossible for the public at large to have a "big thought" pierce through the cloud of utter bollocks that is being printed. Books had a very big potential for spreading ideas around the world; or at least countries.

      Everyone can get a book published and printed. Heck, I have two books in print, and three which are currently being "worked on" -- and I went the old way, with a publishing house taking me under their wing, and I have some semi-monk semi-guru who tries to inspire me on a weekly basis.

      Today, you'd be hard pushed to find anything remotely interesting or exposing novel ideas. It seems to me that as a whole, the amount of information is only a repercussion of a more general trend: people don't give a shit. After having to deal with mortgage, picking up the kids and dealing with an ego-driven sadistic boss, people don't want to care, they don't want to think.

      Does this mean that there has been a shift in the way people think, or the fact they want to unwind? No, not at all.

      The only real difference, is that now, through the limited costs of publishing things around the world, the crap you used to hear at the local pub now comes right into your inbox, or some idiot in Vermont has enough free time to actually write a whole book around it.

      The dynamics haven't changed one bit. Only how the media presents itself, and how the crap flows down the drain.

  4. On the other hand by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When faced with an engineering problem, I can dip into the vast sea of information at my fingertips and instantly find answers instead of spending all day flipping through hardbacks at computer literacy, bullshitting with local sales reps to try and get copies of data sheets faxed to me, or just plain wasting time figuring out something out that's already been solved. This leaves me more time to work on the interesting stuff, or fart around on Facebook if I feel like it. I'm failing to see the downside. If you're a distractible person you can be even more distracted if you want to. If you're a productive person you can be even more productive if you want to. More information, please.

  5. Bull. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The bulk of information created before the advent of the Printing Press has been lost. We only have fragments of data from the Roman Republic and Western Empire. Same goes for a host of empires and states.

    We create more bytes of data and more copies of data while we track things much closer, we really don't know what was created before. We don't know all the works of art, mundane information and data saved by the Romans, Greeks, Han, Aztecs, Maya, Egyptians or Celts, or any of the thousands of other civilizations.

    1. Re:Bull. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We create more bytes of data and more copies of data while we track things much closer, we really don't know what was created before.

      You know, that makes me wonder how much of all this data that we're assuming is going to create a "permanent" archive is really going to be permanent.

      I remember hearing about this kind of information overload back in the days when we backed up data on 200MB magnetic tapes. Those tapes got stacked in closets, pile upon pile, and nobody's ever going to look at most of them ever again.

      I wonder if in 250 years people are going to say the same thing about our culture that you said about the pre-printing press days. A lot of books were printed that are gone forever. Magnetic coatings on mylar tape have flaked off. I've got a drawer full of old external drives. I'd bet that in 10 years if I were to plug one in, assuming there were still USB ports on computers then, that at least one of those drives is going to fail.

      I'm not saying digital information isn't more persistent than print on vellum or impressions on clay cylinders, but at some point somebody has to care about that information if it's really going to be available to future generations. Look how many films from as late as the 1970s have already deteriorated and are lost. I just heard someone talking about the archives of the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. Apparently, John Lennon and Paul McCartney were on together once in the early 60's. But because some production manager decided that tape was too expensive not to re-use, there are no copies left to see except about 2 minutes of 8mm film someone shot off of his TV set (at a different frame rate, too).

      Even when you have a "permanent" record, at least today, it's not really permanent unless someone cares enough to maintain it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Bull. by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The article confuses "data" with "important recorded stuff". Long before Twitter people would say "I'm going to lunch now". People used to have long discussions in person without the internet being involved. People crunched lots of numbers too. The difference is that now it's recorded and saved.

      What is more accurate is to say that "we're archiving more useless data now than we ever used to before".

  6. sort of like Huxley's distopia by FudRucker · · Score: 5, Interesting
    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  7. finding/processing the information isn't free by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One problem is that "information" is largely supposed to make things easier by giving you access to something that was already done: someone else already went out there and collected meticulous information on frog populations, so it's easier to get access to that information than go out and count frogs yourself. But as information multiplies, sometimes it really is easier to just count the damn frogs instead of making sense of the voluminous and often inconsistent frog literature.

    Diderot noticed this in 1755, in a famous passage:

    "As long as the centuries continue to unfold, the number of books will grow continually, and one can predict that a time will come when it will be almost as difficult to learn anything from books as from the direct study of the whole universe. It will be almost as convenient to search for some bit of truth concealed in nature as it will be to find it hidden away in an immense multitude of bound volumes."