> quitting (and deleting!) reddit, twitter, facebook, instagram, and maybe even HN.
I've completely dropped twitter/facebook/etc, but have found that I keep coming back to HN and reddit primarily to keep some level of awareness of things that happen outside of my "bubble".
How would you maintain that level of awareness while still dropping those social media platforms?
By scheduling time for them, if you have the available self-discipline.
Spending 30 minutes once per day on reddit is enough to keep you in the loop, and if it is on your calendar at a specific time, your chances of sticking to it are good.
Scheduled violations of the rules seem to paradoxically help you follow the rules. Tim Ferris advocates for one dietary cheat day per week, with the idea that it takes incredible will power to give up donuts forever, but almost anyone can put it off until Friday.
Schedule your cheats.
Edit: scheduling is also great for beating procrastination. “I will change my oil at 7:30pm Tuesday” is way more effective than “I need to change my oil soon”
I had a therapist a while ago that spent a lot of time talking with me about how discipline and motivation aren't real. His point was that lots of people lose before they start by feeling like they aren't disciplined or motivated people inherently. And ultimately, the only way to measure motivation or discipline is to measure something else - "I was motivated to stay fit because I went to the gym"
He also spent a lot of time with me on understanding that motivation and discipline are most times just thin wrappers around what people actually want. Thinking less about "If I were just more disciplined I would be able to do this" and more about "If I actually wanted to do this I probably would", and then focusing on what you actually want, or why you don't want something, is probably a much more valuable of a use of time for some people than thinking about motivation or discipline.
I am not posting this to say "If you're a disciplined person, you're wrong" - but moreso "If you're a person that believes you struggle with motivation/discipline, maybe you can rethink those concepts".
I took a Jocko (he's a famous navy seal) quote and made it my mantra, it's similar.
He said "Be tougher."
To paraphrase the context: mental toughness is a choice, and if you aren't as tough as you want, you just have to be tougher. Choose it. In each moment when you are tested.
Thanks for your comment. For a while I had been wondering why I couldn't focus, wasn't able to accomplish some simple long term goals, etc. Be tougher was my fix, and your comment expands on some ideas in a way that makes sense to me.
As other commenters have pointed out, environment and context of an individual are often stronger than the individuals themselves. I thought I was tough, resilient and mindful. Then the pandemic came and I couldn’t choose not to feel stressed and distracted.
I think it's different for everyone, and I think finding what piece is preventing you from moving forward is important. For some people, they just _want to want_ something, rather than actually wanting it. Identifying that you don't actually want something can help you move forward. Whether that means building the skill of "cultivating the ability to do things you don't want to do", or just abandoning a task in favor of doing things you actually want - either is usually fine. Most people just stop at "I am unable to move forward with this thing because I am an unmotivated person."
While I agree that the so-called inherent motivation is an important aspect to take care of, some skills that help remove external distractions and help you focus better could be equally useful. No matter how motivated somebody is, if they have a poor mental hygiene of constantly distracting themselves with social media, or don't have separate areas for work and for entertainment in their apartment, or as a more extreme example, is constantly disrupted by noise, they will likely suffer from suboptimal productivity. Both aspects are worth being taken care of.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to say this, as the purpose of my post wasn't to challenge any of the other assertions in this thread - rather to provide more information.
I'm not going to debate you because there isn't a debate.
Awesome content, but if you read pay attention closely, you can basically write the story without reading, because you know what the answers will be.
The paper NYT and WSJ are a great way to go. You get clear editorial contrasts and lots of content. Science Times and other feature sections are always a treat.
That's generally my experience, but I appreciate how most articles in the Economist have 1) an attempt to genuinely outline both sides of the argument, and 2) an attempt to clearly -- "clearly" is relative at times -- take a side in the discussion.
Most of the time that side is going to be the free market technocratic solution, hence the parent comment about being able to predict where the article will go, but even then I feel like I have an idea what the argument is and where the sides are.
The Economist is basically the flag-bearer of pro-capitalist policy, so yes their views would largely be supported by the entire US political establishment.
>would largely be supported by the entire US political establishment
Well that's just the thing! We observe Trump attacked from all sides of the establishment - the left, (some of) the right, and the entire government bureaucracy ("the deep state").
There is a rift somewhere in the system, and we're not discussing it...
It's stated to have a liberal slant, so especially on social issues it would disagree with Trump. It's also explicitly said bad things about Trump's demeanor or attitudes.
However, it does praise some actions that Trump and the Republicans have done with regards to covid19. I overall find that it greatly tones down the extreme takes / perspectives I see on Reddit, and finds lots of nuance
The Economist is definitely not liberal. It's intended to be nonpolitical but its conscious opinions lean conservative. Disagreeing with Trump or talking about Trump in a negative manner does not make one liberal, no matter what US political pundit will tell you.
Nonpartisan, yes. Nonpolitical? Absolutely not. The reason for its foundation was (specifically) to campaign against a policy held dear by the government of the day, and (generally) to promote a specific politico-economic worldview, that of free market capitalism with a strong emphasis on cross-border trade. Sometimes this can make their positions appear a little more left-leaning than a classic US libertarian could stomach, such as supporting the existence of the EU, if not every one of its actions; and tending to prefer at least a light touch of regulation on the markets, so long as it keeps the wheels of international commerce turning smoothly. Also, they are at pains to separate their news reporting (usually impeccably balanced and impartial) from their opinion pieces. As an answer to OP's question, I would actually second the recommendation of The Economist as an excellent way to keep abreast of world events while cunningly sidestepping the hysteria and sensationalism of nearly all other media (yes, including most "serious newspapers" these days).
The Economist leans "liberal" in the sense of liberal economics, or UK's Liberal Democrat Party. In the US, this is perhaps better translated as "libertarian."
I remember when Rex Tillerson was appointed to State, and how they wrote a glowing article about how fucking great he was and how he'll improve foreign relations and make international capital work again and bla bla bla.
Four years later he's gone, even allegedly called Trump a "fucking moron" on the way out.
I've completely dropped twitter/facebook/etc, but have found that I keep coming back to HN and reddit primarily to keep some level of awareness of things that happen outside of my "bubble".
How would you maintain that level of awareness while still dropping those social media platforms?