I've thought about this topic often, and I bounce around on where I stand on it (unsure if I'm just being pedantic or something).
I'm currently of the mind that infotainment like (early) ted talks, a large subset of conference talks, and all "Smarter Every Day"-like Youtube channels are overall no better than general trash entertainment. With general entertainment, you know what it is and self-limit, whereas the former present themselves as a valuable use of your time, and often make you _feel_ like your doing something "good" (I'm learning!), but the actual take away is often at best a factiod that you still couldn't even talk about in any depth.
That's all well, but let's don't forget the opportunity cost.
One can enjoy anything, e.g. food, but then they get to 300 lbs and they look back, and say wtf did I let this happen?
So enjoyment alone is not a safe criterion...
>I have wasted a lot of time being busy (reading non-fiction, TED talks etc) that did not translate into any noticeable self improvement or progress in my life. I have feeling a lot of people makes that mistake too.
That's a valid point though. There's even a name for it "productivity porn".
The easiest example is that the opportunity cost of going to university is 4 years of steady income. But students believe its worth it because the future income they'd receive instead is hopefully more than worth the opportunity cost.
Thanks, I know what opportunity cost is, I just digressed when I gave the example into a "too much of a good thing" case instead of "what else you could be doing in that time" case.
I'm not sure that I agree that it is a 'mistake' to read non-fiction even if it doesn't explicitly translate into self-improvement or progress. If you enjoy reading non-fiction, then why can't it be an end in itself just like watching movies can be? (I don't like TED talks, so I won't comment on those, but I would make the same argument if you do.)
1. The good guys win, the bad guys lose
2. Going along with (1) there's the morality message
3. The events in the book serve the purpose of the plot
4. Lots of books are formulaic, i.e. the author found a formula that sells.
5. There's got to be a beginning, middle, and end.
6. Many novels are written as a series of cliffhangers. Crichton would do that, as would the Outlander series, etc.
Real life is much more messy and unpredictable, hence more interesting.
Civil War heroes are goats today, even having their memorials removed.
Edison has gone from hero to goat. He'll be a hero again in a few decades.
It's the job of a professional historian to try and discern the truth from all this. But whatever truth there is in fiction is impossible to determine if you know nothing about history.
Fictional universes evolve into 'canon', where certain explanations are correct and others are dismissed. Star Trek, Star Wars, etc., famously have 'canon'. People get wrapped around the axle arguing canon. This is ridiculous, as it's all made up nonsense.
Another is "Reach for the Sky" by Bader. Chuck Yeager's biography is also a treat.
Then watch that absurd "Flyboys" Hollywood fiction. What a piece of trash in comparison.
I go to meetups to listen to talks for fun.
My fun is:
- something really funny ( new different angle or more complex. I actually find lots of old/pref liked comedians no longer funny) - something which is between easy and hard. A lot of stuff becomes easier and easier after a while.