I’m interested in how you can convert that information [news] proactively?
This is a great question, and like many questions, there is a trick hiding in it. The thinking is backwards.
That’s not how proactive thinking works. Imagine if a company handed you a coupon and your immediate thought was “how can I use this coupon to save money”? That’s not you saving money. That’s the company tricking you into buying their product.
Proactive thinking doesn’t start by watching the news and figuring out how to make best use of it. That’s reactive thinking. Proactive thinking starts totally blocking out all the news for a while, and figuring out what you want. Then go find the resources you need to accomplish that. Usually “the resources you need” won’t be news because news is ephemeralgarbage.
I want to let you know I’ve been reflecting on the reactive/proactive news consumption all week. It has really brought into focus a lot of my futile habits not just over news consumption, but idle reading and social media scrolling in general.[1] Why do I do it? I’m always hoping for that one piece of information, that “one simple trick” which will improve my decision making models, will solve my productivity problems, give me the tools to let me accomplish goals XY&Z. Which of course begs the question of why am I always operating on this abstracted, meta-level, distanced level from goals XY&Z and the simple answer is: if I knew how to solve them directly, I’d be actively working on the sets to solve them.
That’s a lot of TMI but I just wanted to give you a sense of the affect this had on me.
That’s not how proactive thinking works. Imagine if a company handed you a coupon and your immediate thought was “how can I use this coupon to save money”? That’s not you saving money. That’s the company tricking you into buying their product.
Or those little “specials” at the Gas Station—buy one chocolate bar, get another free—the customer didn’t save 100% of the price of the second chocolate bar, they lost 100% because they had no intention of buying a chocolate bar until they saw that impulse-hacking “offer”.
This is a great question, and like many questions, there is a trick hiding in it. The thinking is backwards.
That’s not how proactive thinking works. Imagine if a company handed you a coupon and your immediate thought was “how can I use this coupon to save money”? That’s not you saving money. That’s the company tricking you into buying their product.
Proactive thinking doesn’t start by watching the news and figuring out how to make best use of it. That’s reactive thinking. Proactive thinking starts totally blocking out all the news for a while, and figuring out what you want. Then go find the resources you need to accomplish that. Usually “the resources you need” won’t be news because news is ephemeral garbage.
I want to let you know I’ve been reflecting on the reactive/proactive news consumption all week. It has really brought into focus a lot of my futile habits not just over news consumption, but idle reading and social media scrolling in general.[1] Why do I do it? I’m always hoping for that one piece of information, that “one simple trick” which will improve my decision making models, will solve my productivity problems, give me the tools to let me accomplish goals XY&Z. Which of course begs the question of why am I always operating on this abstracted, meta-level, distanced level from goals XY&Z and the simple answer is: if I knew how to solve them directly, I’d be actively working on the sets to solve them.
That’s a lot of TMI but I just wanted to give you a sense of the affect this had on me.
Or those little “specials” at the Gas Station—buy one chocolate bar, get another free—the customer didn’t save 100% of the price of the second chocolate bar, they lost 100% because they had no intention of buying a chocolate bar until they saw that impulse-hacking “offer”.
On the flip side is the wasteful consumption that I don’t read—my collection of books that I probably won’t ever read. Why buy them? Seems as pointless as reading ephemeral news slop.