Negative News Distorts Our Thinking | Hacker News Reader

Negative News Distorts Our Thinking

psychologytoday.com

112 pointsingve35 comments

I subscribe to a handful of positive newsletters to help counteract the barrage of daily negative news. Some of my recommendations:

1) The Guardian's Upside https://www.theguardian.com/world/series/the-upside-weekly-r...

2) Future Crunch https://futurecrunch.substack.com/

3) Positive News https://www.positive.news/

4) The Good Newsletter https://www.goodgoodgood.co/goodnewsletter

Putting this front and center: the constant outpouring of negative news has and is having a negative impact on my worldview and my mental health. Most of this is due to "news", which is not the same as news. Headlines no one needs to hear about but are only printed because 24 hour media needs a constant flow of content.

A big problem I've had in seeking explicitly "positive" news is a lot of it is actually negative "news" just spun in a positive light. Articles like "5 year old cancer patient has successful GoFundMe to pay for chemo". That's not positive (nor is it news), it's just highlighting the societal problem that unexpected medical costs in America can bankrupt entire families unless their case is sympathetic enough to get random people to pay the cost.

The other kind of positive news I see often is things that sound great but aren't actually real. Like "New breakthrough battery technology means batteries last for 1000 years" but there's never a follow-up (I guess it would be negative news then) that this "breakthrough" only exists in the lab and can't actually be turned into real batteries.

After spending a few months going out of my way to read explicitly positive news, I find it worse than ever. Because a lot of explicitly positive news isn't actually news, and a lot of it isn't actually positive either.

Edit - I guess this was just a bummer with no positive, and I apologize for that. What I've ended up doing right now is limiting where I get my news from and dramatically slowing down my news consumption. The reason we commonly think the 70s/80s/90s had such better music than today is because we've already let time filter out the bad music so we only remember the good stuff. I treat news the same, if it's something I need to know I will still hear about it tomorrow or the next day. Seeing "news" happen in real time with BREAKING NEWS slathered across the page makes it seem more important than it actually is. Seeing it as a footnote a few days later often doesn't change the store but changes your perception of that story. And it also filters out the unimportant things that aren't worth talking about because they're not going to be talked about tomorrow or the day after.

The news app TheSkimm has actually been helpful, it's not explicitly positive news but it's important news slowed down and explained properly, while everything else is just a headline or not even mentioned at all. Finding a slower news source would be my recommendation rather than filtering yourself to explicitly positive news.

maybe this is the secret reason behind the sucess of cat (and dog and any other animal, really) videos--to escape the not-really-positive news for something unequivocally happy and cute and positive.

I've found I much prefer my downtime be filled with silly nonsense like cats/dogs or videos of people who are incredibly good at something rather than "news" that's actually just outrage in a can.

The idea of scheduled dissemination for entertainment is going out of fashion with all the streaming options available. This works well because you pay the streamer directly and advertisers aren't part of that. I like this, because the service has to answer to me as a consumer directly.

I somewhat think that the idea of scheduled dissemination for news and world events needs should go out of fashion in a similar way, as it would be less "corrupted", but don't think it will for a long time at the very least.

The idea of news is not purely about information delivery to most people. People really want opinions about news far less than raw reporting of events. Also people find comfort, meaning, and connection in the ritual of scheduled content. For that emotional need to be fulfilled, they seek content aligned with their social and economic bubbles.

It's silly, and as a result I keep my consumption of news to an absolute minimum.

On the topic of on-demand streaming news, I used to listen to a couple of daily news podcasts. With my new mindset around news consumption, I'm listening to weekly or bi-weekly podcasts instead (and oftentimes not listening to them the day they were released). Even still it's amazing the amount of news content they cover that (if you listen to it the day after it was released) is already "out of date". Things like "Amazon is expected to announce plans to buy AMC theaters" on Thursday and when I listen to it on Friday it's already been announced.

Now if only I could just filter HN to only show me tech stories instead of "news".

News is an addictive substance and needs to be treated that way, whether it's good news or bad, local or world, political or not. It's alcohol, or smoking, or in some cases, methamphetamine administered through your eyeballs. It's somewhat necessary, but it's also bad for you.

You want to maintain some awareness of world and local events, shifting political themes, and technological developments as an actualized adult. Too much of it though is unhealthy and it's weird that we all seem to readily agree that it's unhealthy but still keep doing it.

I grew up before the 24-hour news cycle. Back then, "the news" was 15 pages of newspaper that you flipped through during breakfast. There was a real, defined end to the news stream: the last page. Or, maybe a few pages before the last, since it devolved into "the funnies" (which weren't, even then), Anne Landers, and ads for things nobody much cared about.

But before you were done with breakfast you were caught up on everything and you got on with your day.

That's a pattern I try to enforce now. It's hard. I have to unwire 20 years of infotainment addiction and modern life isn't super supportive of that. But on the better-disciplined days I'm consistently happier, more productive, better.

It’d be interesting if in places where censorship is common and part of daily life there would be efforts to study an artificial periodic dissemination of information.

I mean if the CCP wanted, they could label 24hr news a counterrevolutionary conspiracy by the US to distract citizens and tell them from now on news will be delivered on a schedule to ensure the continued success of... their success.

What a peek into behavior that would be...

I built https://legiblenews.com/ because I wanted to see it told as encyclopedic as possible (it scrapes Wikipedia) and be able to click on links where I can dig deeper and accidentally learn something (Wikipedia links). Ideally news doesn’t have a positive or negative spin; it should “just be” as much as possible.

It runs once per day at 8p PST so that I’m not constantly getting hit with headlines or refreshing it for new news like a junky ... and my favorite part is that each page loads with one request (no JS, Ada, etc)

Subscribed to all your suggestions above.

I’ve also recently found https://reasonstobecheerful.world - also excellent and updated regularly.

Look, I am all for self-care and not overexposing yourself to terrible news all day every day. But to act like negative news is making us think the world is worse than it is is just sheltered.

The reality is the world has a lot of terrible things happening all day every day and humanity is basically not doing anything to stop it as of now. Here are a few:

(1) in the US, a lot of people don't get enough healthcare because they can't afford it, and just go bankrupt when they get cancer

(2) black people are still terrorized and murdered by police, who largely get off scot-free

(3) the US and its business partners perpetrate crimes against humanity in the middle east on a regular basis

(4) the daily gruesome reality of poverty in the US

(5) We continue our slow but sure march towards climate apocalypse which will largely affect the most vulnerable among us.

This idea that "the standard of living" is higher... well sure, if you have a certain amount of money. But many people don't get healthcare, don't have any leisure time, don't have money to travel. And yeah, there's peace here, but what about in Yemen? What about in Honduras? Iraq? Afghanistan? So what, because we have iPhones we're supposed to think everything's amazing?

Worse yet, what many consider a standard of living increase such as air travel, cheap energy, and an abundance of material goods shipped from all over the planet are actually contributing to the climate crisis.

I was thinking that this article showed signs of distorted "optimistic" thinking.

I hate to use the word "privileged" because it is so loaded but I do think that this shows privileged thinking. "The world is great!" yeah because you have enough money/power to go about your life comfortably, and you're ignoring the plight of those that don't. "You only think the world is bad because of these cognitive biases".... lord take me now

But, on each of this metrics (minus climate change), the US is better off today than it was 50 years ago.

The world conflicts that you cite involve fewer civilian casualties, today, than before. There are obviously horrible things going on in the world, but the mindset that people are generally worse off today is largely shaped by the media and false.

Don't take my word for it. Go plot violent crime rates worldwide. Or poverty rates, or quality of life, or starvation rates. Or access to medical care (you think it's expensive today, those treatments weren't even available 50 years ago!). None of those things are trending in the wrong direction. Except maybe the US cost of medical care, that stuff is mind boggling.

> Except maybe the US cost of medical care, that stuff is mind boggling.

It is just greed, wealth concentration and regulatory capture at work.

Given that no spot in the value chain is particularly profitable (drug companies, hospitals, doctors, nurses, insurance companies), I am more inclined to believe there are structural issues rather than greed.

The police only kills about 1000 people per year in the USA, and some of those kills are justified. Including it in the same list as global warming is IMO an example of 'Availability bias means that after we see negativity, we overestimate its significance' mentioned in the article.

police disproportionately harass and kill black people, and unarmed black people, and you can find this in about 2 seconds in a google search

EDIT: apology for the personal attack, I have deleted it.

You're downplaying the damage those murders do black communities. And for every black person murdered, 1,000 more are terrorized with less than lethal force.

> But to act like negative news is making us think the world is worse than it is is just sheltered.

I disagree, I think that's exactly what negative news does.

Your 5 terrible things actually underscore another point, often the negative news makes us also feel helpless.

We can all vote; some of us have free time to volunteer; some of us have spare cash we can donate.

I'm not sure what I am supposed to do though on a day-to-day basis as the horrible news keeps coming.

Anecdote: I cut the wire (nixed cable TV) over 20 years ago when I started a family.

What a shock it was then when on road trips our family would find ourselves in a Best Western breakfast room with cable news showing explosions, people being set on fire by Isis, planes crashing, dead children washing ashore. I would have a momentary panic attack thinking that, just as we headed out for vacation, the world decided to come crashing down.

I learned to calm down, remind myself that, at any given time there is always something horrible happening on Earth and that the news is going to make sure you know about it.

I'm informed. I vote. But I also want to have a waffle from time to time without my hands shaking with fear.

that's why I say self-care is important. we can't take too much individual responsibility for the world's issues. and if we don't let ourselves enjoy life when we can, then there's no point in even saving this world. but that's different from saying "the world is actually better than we think it is." the world is actually terrible. but we can still carve out some joy for ourselves when we can without deluding ourselves.

But here's my problem with that... what am I supposed to do to help? With any of that?

It seems to me like I've got two options:

A) Filter/slow my news consumption to just the stories that are relevant to me plus the big huge actual breaking news stories and miss out on all the bummer stories about how bad it is in Yemen

B) Keep reading the news unfiltered and worrying about people in Yemen that I can't help and then switch to worrying about people in Honduras that I can't help then worrying about wildfires in California that I can't help and then worry about everything else until eventually I get so upset by the state of the world and how helpless I am that I fall into deep depression and end up harming myself or losing the will to live altogether.

Flipping your comment around, I'm all for being well-informed and reading the news, but what am I supposed to do about it? I vote. I pay taxes. I donate to local charities. Yeah the situation in Yemen is bad but what good does reading a news story do? Is my reading of how bad Yemen is going to help the people in Yemen? Is my inevitable mental health decline going to make their lives better?

What can I do with that information besides say "yeah Yemen is pretty bad isn't it"?

that's why I say self-care is important. there's no point in torturing yourself over everything. we have to vary how much responsibility we want to take based on how hopelessly things feel outside our control. but deluding yourself into thinking the world isn't bad is just putting your head in the sand. yeah, it sucks, but we're all in this together. By being aware, if the opportunity arises to do something about it (e.g. by lobbying a presidential candidate, or a president), then you will be able to. If you don't know about it, you can't do anything even if some opportunity arises.

I personally strongly disagree (the world is bad but it's far better now than it ever had been) but I understand your point of view and I'm okay with it. Different people have different world views and different lenses they see the world through, so everyone has different tolerances. Personally I can't watch hours of bad things back to back without feeling bad, and if I see heartwrenching stories of war-torn Afghani families I'm going to be an emotional wreck for the rest of the day. It legitimately has a negative impact on my day-to-day life. I also have an addictive personality so one thing leads to another.

Some people can drink socially. Some people can function in their daily life as alcoholics. Some people find out they can't be around alcohol at all without relapsing to destructive alcoholism. It's the same for any addictive substance, and "news" definitely is addictive.

you absolutely should not expose yourself in a way that harms you excessively. noone is helped by your torment.

I like Dr. Bronner: "1st: If not for me, who am I? Nobody! 2nd: Yet, if I’m only for me, what am I? Nothing!"

I think we all have to find an appropriate personal balance.

> But to act like negative news is making us think the world is worse than it is is just sheltered.

You can't falsify "negative news is making us think the world is worse than it is" by giving a list of bad things happening (which are all true, not disputing that).

it's inherently a subjective question, based on what you value. if you value access to technology, then you'll think things are better than ever. if you enjoy arguments based on "average" and "median" then you might find some data to support an optimistic worldview. but if you look at the lot in life of those who suffer most, you will find a different story. if you value access to healthcare, access to leisure time, access to peace, you will find a different story. everyone has to make their own judgment of the world but in my opinion the articles tone is inappropriately optimistic

> it's inherently a subjective question, based on what you value.

It's not. It's an objective question that compares "how the world is" vs. "how people think the world is".

the choice of metric that defines "how the world is" is where the subjectiveness lies, as my comment explains. the article was generally about "how bad the world is." if you find some result specifically about people's estimates of specific metrics, e.g. child mortality, poverty, etc, then we can have the discussion you're trying to have.

Conversely, happiness appears to raise IQ: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-19659985

There is so much more to happiness than negative news.

A friend escaped Bosnia during the war. She chose to live in New Zealand, because the top news story of the day was about a cat that was lost. She figured if that was all New Zealand had to worry about, then New Zealand was the country for her. She found gainful employment, raised a kid, and she went to the beach every weekend during the summer. She hated it. She is back in Europe now.

The issue I have with my relationship to the news is less so the negative slant in and of itself, moreso never being disconnected from it. Most of it is banal or fluff. You can keep track infrequently and be a well informed voter.

I follow tech news aggregators more but could use less of that as well. There's just too much time spent on mindless bullshit.

What gets me about it is that it's always stories that I can't do anything about.

Like, sure, someone got stabbed. That's terrible for them and their family, but I didn't stab them and I don't know the victim, so in what way does being informed of this enrich my life? I was already aware that people got stabbed sometimes. Can I have that five minutes back please?

So I don't watch the "news" anymore.

I guess it is a case of self-fulfilling prediction.

It is an article about negative things and how they are negative for us. And it distorts our thinking, at the very least, it tried to distort mine's by imprinting "the fact" that negative news distorts our thinking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com