#InformationOverload

[omanxl1]

Teddy Pendergrass "If You Know Like I Know" (DJ Spivey's 4am Edit)

Digital Crate Digging Continues as we come through on this Saturday afternoon but the science dropped is appropriate for any time frame. The saga  / struggle continues as we come through with the rebuttal to ongoing mania the good music we’re playing for you during this time frame.. ..to rebuke the ongoing mind game per the information overload / zones being flooded after nefarious ones…

[uncloseted]

How do you feel about the desensitization social media has about tragedy and how this affects our brains? I’ve studied media and communication and I’m super passionate about this topic.

The other day I was scrolling on Youtube shorts, and I saw a girl post a video about the air quality in new york due to the wildfires in Canada. The video was satire/comedy and she sped her video up while prancing around lip singing to yellow by coldplay or something. (Side note: why do people even find these sped up videos funny? They’re annoying)

I’m just wondering if you have an opinion on how desensitized people have become. Like at first glance I was like Oh that’s a bit funny! And then I caught myself and was like hang on this really happened as is currently affecting others… that’s horrible. I’ll scroll on my snapchat news and see murder case / true crime headings reading like fun little blurbs. And people do their makeup and profit off other peoples trauma for views like they’re professionals doing it and it’s so insulting. The list really goes ON.

Do you think some studies will start coming out soon about how our empathy levels are incredibly low or even developing our brains differently because of social media’s impact on empathy and being desensitized to so many things?

Sorry for the loaded question! I’m curious to see what you think.

Thank you for this question because I've been thinking about it for like, three days straight. At first I was inclined to be like, "well, no, I think the internet is fine and our worries about empathy are just a moral panic that we see with every new technology that's developed." And then I was inclined to be like, "people have definitely become less empathetic lately, and the internet is probably a big part of that." But I think the reality is that the internet is kind of neutral. More than anything, the internet is a tool that acts to magnify and intensify the way people already are. Some people use the internet to become more aware of other people and understand their unique situations; other people use it to be trolls.

The first thing I want to talk about here is the idea that people used to be more empathetic in the past. I just don't know if that's actually true. Blood sports- games in which people are violent towards one another on purpose as a form of entertainment- have existed for most of human history. Gladiator combat in Ancient Rome is a relatively popular example of this, and often ended in the death of a gladiator. Boxing is a sport that has historically been popular and continues to be popular to this day, despite the fact that it's just two people violently attacking one another. Lynchings used to be public spectacles, where the attendants often treated these as festive events, with food, family photos, and souvenirs. I don't know that I believe we were really more empathetic in the past at all. I think we've actually really improved on the "you can't torture, maim, or kill other people or animals for entertainment" front, especially since those types of things are generally banned from social media.

And like I was saying before, I do genuinely think that the internet can foster greater understanding and empathy towards marginalized groups. I know the struggles of all sorts of groups that I might never encounter in real life. I know how to be polite to people from a variety of different cultures that I might never experience. I've been posed with some really challenging philosophical questions through the content I've been exposed to online. I'm hearing the narratives of marginalized groups that I may have never otherwise heard, and I'm hearing it in their own words. That's incredibly valuable, and I think people who have grown up in the internet age don't fully appreciate how historically rare that actually is. Up until now, history has been written by the victors, the powerful, the oppressors. Now that narrative is democratized and widely available. That's huge in terms of its ability to build empathy and understanding if we choose to be open to it.

But, that same democratization can create problems. The first is that there's not really a distinction between in-group and out-group content anymore. It used to be that there was kind of a sense of, "well, I can say that about my own [group/family/situation] to people who understand, but you can't say that, because you're not part of it and you don't get it." People create content with their in-group in mind, but it often "breaches containment"- it's seen by people who aren't in that in-group. People who are living in New York and making jokes about the air quality situation in New York are usually making those jokes for other people in New York who are in their same situation. They're trying to lighten the mood of something scary. But the people who are seeing it aren't necessarily in New York; they're all over the world, and the context and emotional intention of that joke is kind of lost. There's an implicit assumption in these videos that you're starting from a place of understanding how horrible it is because you're living it, but that's often not true of the actual viewers. In your case, you saw a funny video and thought it was funny. If you had seen a serious video about the same situation, you probably would have been like, "oh shit, this is serious. I hope the people are okay." It's not necessarily a lack of empathy here but a lack of shared context in the way the information is being presented (or something like that?)

That brings us to problem two, which is compassion fatigue. More than ever before in history, we are constantly aware of every bad thing that has happened everywhere in the world, every single day. It used to be that you would get the newspaper and it would be focused mostly on local news, with some national headlines and a couple international headlines that were really important. The information we had about bad things that were happening were mostly things we could do something about. But now, that's not really the case, right? Today, I know that the Jenin refugee camp suffered massive damage following the Israeli army's biggest assault there in 20 years. I know the Palestinians fear that the situation will escalate. I know that Allison Mack, who ran the Nxivm cult, was released from prison after serving just two years of her sentence. I know that a suspect in a Philadelphia shooting was charged with the murder of five people, and that a Canadian man is facing terrorism charges over far-right videos, and that Japan has announced a controversial plan to release treated waste water from the Fukushima nuclear plant, and that Senegal has been facing a crisis because their President, Macky Sall, was threatening not to step down after the end of his second term, and that France is protesting police violence because a police officer shot and killed a French-Algerian teenager. And I can't do anything about any of this. I just know about it, and I have to care about it because I know about it.

And we've created this weird ecosystem online where everyone feels like they need to issue a PR type statement about whatever sociopolitical thing the internet cares about in the moment to show that they're a good person who is informed, even if they don't have a significant following and aren't impacted by the issue at hand. All of us are doing a weird kind of brand management for a brand that's just our own self, and we're managing it for the sake of our friends and family because we feel like we have to. And any time a person with a significant following does publish one of those statements, inevitably there are people badgering them about why they haven't spoken on the issue that they care about that's happening in their country. I just don't think that we as people have the emotional capacity to process that much information or care about that many things, especially when they're situations that we can't really do anything about, and especially when that situation will be replaced with something new within a few days. I think that's one of the reasons so many people feel helpless and disempowered right now. There's too much to fix but no real way for us to do it, especially in the time scale the internet provides.

So in this sense, I don't think that we're lacking empathy so much as we're required to be so empathetic that we've exhausted our capacity for it. There are more demands put upon us to be empathetic than ever before, and so we reach those moments of compassion fatigue more than ever before.

The other thing that I think is worth talking about here is the way in which the internet prioritizes extremes. The goal of algorithms is generally to get people to stay on the website longer, and the easiest way to do that is by getting them to feel a strong emotion. That's why clickbait works. It's also why the internet is invested in creating so much outrage. And the easiest way to continue getting people to feel outraged is to show them increasingly outrageous things, whether or not they're true. The internet kind of got 4chanified- like teenagers on 4chan, social media algorithms and article headline writers are trying to out-do one another by recommending or posting the most outrageous thing they can in order to capture the attention economy.

This is the part that concerns me the most with regards to the internet in general. Famously, Facebook’s negligence facilitated the genocide of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar after its algorithms amplified hate speech and Facebook failed to remove the inflammatory posts. Outrage = views = money for Facebook = more outrage bait being pushed = in the most extreme cases, genocide. And also, outrage = views = money for Facebook = more outrage bait being pushed = Donald Trump getting elected in the US. Outrage = views = money for Facebook = more outrage bait being pushed = people believing misinformation about medicine. And I think that creates a kind of interesting dynamic when it comes to empathy. Because in some sense, these people are very empathetic- they're outraged because of their empathy. They read a (fake) story about a child being victimized by a pediophilic trans teacher (or whatever) and panic because they have empathy for the children that they believe were victims. They're anti-immigration because they have empathy for the people who (they believe are) losing their jobs to immigrants. In the case of the Rohingya genocide, the Buddhist majority in Myanmar had empathy for the individuals that they believed were victimized by the Rohingya for their religious beliefs. These people were all wrong, but they're not lacking empathy. They're making a decision that an outside group isn't worthy of empathy because they've committed such heinous crimes. And that's a tale as old as time; just ask anyone who's Jewish.

I think what we need to be worried about is the ways in which the internet, and especially social media, can platform and expedite that process on a level that hasn't really been seen before. After the 2016 election, I used to really believe that we just needed to sit down with people across the aisle and have a civil, empathetic, rational conversation about the issues. But now I think that if that was ever possible, the time for it has passed. Misinformation, disinformation, and sensationalized information have become so rampant online that there's not really any way to have those discussions anymore because there's no way to agree on what is and isn't true. And unless we change something really quickly, that problem is just going to get worse with the advent of deepfake technologies and AI bots.

I feel like I've said a lot here but I haven't really come to any conclusions... but those are some of my thoughts, at least. I guess maybe it's that humans have always kind of sucked at being empathetic to people who are part of an out-group, but now we're just doing it on a global scale and reacting to threats that are (perceived to be) larger than ever before? Maybe it's that we should focus on strengthening and bettering our local communities as much as possible, and contributing on a global scale when we can? Maybe it's that media literacy is important, and we should always interact with news articles critically, even if they seem like they're a credible source?

[everythingaboutbiotech]

⭐LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES⭐

Oscar Wilde famously said that experience is just another name for the mistakes we make. This rings true, as long as we learn from those mistakes. In today's increasingly unpredictable world of constant change, information overload, multiculturalism, and technological disruption, mistakes are inevitable.

Most people dislike making errors, but management expert Tom Peters argues in his book Thriving on Chaos that we can't afford perfectionism. The quickest way to find solutions is through rapid testing, making mistakes, learning, and adjusting. He advocates that we embrace and even celebrate mistakes as opportunities for growth. He thinks we should become "mistake maniacs".

⭐Happy accidents⭐

It's worth remembering that many discoveries and inventions have happened by accident. In the early 1970s, Arthur Fry wanted a bookmark for his church hymnal that wouldn't fall out or damage the pages. His colleague at 3M, Spencer Silver, had developed an adhesive that wasn't strong enough to stick two surfaces together (as planned) but left no residue after removal and allowed items to be repositioned. Fry put some of Silver's adhesive along the edge of a piece of paper. His church hymnal problem was solved, and the Post-it note was invented.

Viagra was originally developed to treat cardio-vascular problems. In testing, it must have become (very) clear that it wasn't just the heart that was affected.

And the famous inventor Thomas Edison made thousands of failed prototypes of his electric light bulb before finally succeeding. When asked why he hadn't given up, he explained that each failure had taught him something he needed to know for the next attempt. Edison was clearly a mistake maniac.

⭐Turn mistakes into experience⭐

1. Accept the mistake

When you make a mistake, admit it as soon as you can first to yourself and then to others. The sooner you accept that a mistake has happened, and take responsibility for it, the sooner you can start learning from it.

2. Analyse and get feedback

Study where you went wrong, so you'll know what to do differently next time. It can help you in identifying solutions to future problems, too. It's helpful to get feedback from trusted colleagues. A mentor can give you advice on how they've managed similar situations.

3. Find the lesson to be learned

Keep a diary. Record your mistake along with your analysis and the feedback you received. Then, make a plan with specific steps to prevent the same mistake from happening again.

Some organizations have online mistake diaries that everyone can contribute to, in which mistakes and their solutions are posted.

4. Check your learning progress

Use a simple learning checklist at regular intervals to help you learn from these experiences.

5. Always be a learner

Develop a learning mindset and be prepared to take some risks. Prioritize where you want to develop, concentrating on one thing at a time. Put time aside for your learning. Share your goals with someone you trust, so they can encourage and support you. A mistake maniac is ultimately a lifelong learner.

⭐Essential phrases⭐

1. Accept the mistake

I'm afraid that was my fault.

My approach to the problem was wrong.

I'm sorry but I messed up there.

2. Analyse and get feedback

Let's see what went wrong in the process.

I think I understand where I made an error.

Where do you think the mistake was made?

3. Find the lesson to be learned

I can see where I need to improve.

I've made an action plan to make sure this doesn't happen again.

I don't intend to make the same mistake twice.

4. Check your learning progress

Have I reached my learning goals?

I carry out a self-check on my progress at regular intervals.

I need to check whether my approach is working.

5. Always be a learner

One step at a time.

Have a look and tell me if

you think these goals are practical.

I've allocated time each week for learning.

⭐My learning checklist⭐

Answer YES or NO:

Have I...

reached the learning goals I wanted to reach by this time?

clarified my learning targets for the next six months?

taken steps to improve how I manage my time for learning?

thought about things I haven't enjoyed doing and/or have not done well and considered how?

I might handle such things in the future?

thought about things I have enjoyed doing and/or have done well?

done anything specific to keep up to date?

concentrated on how to improve in the future?

learned something new about myself?

Follow @everythingaboutbiotech for more informative and useful posts.

.

.

Source: Business Spotlight

[rahul-bedi-blog]

What are some of the most common difficulties in managing data?

Managing data is essential for organizations aiming to make informed decisions, enhance efficiency, and gain a competitive edge. EnFuse Solutions stands out as one of the best data management companies, offering end-to-end services that ensure data integrity, security, and usability. 

[joelekm]

AI Expert Predicts 2025: The Future of Tech Revealed | Tech Ai Vision

What will AI and technology look like in 2025? In this video, an AI expert shares key predictions about the future of artificial intelligence, robotics, and cutting-edge tech. From smarter AI assistants to groundbreaking innovations, get ready for a glimpse into what’s coming next. Stay ahead of the curve and see how these changes could impact your life and career.

[conceptsnest]

UGADI PACHADI & THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LIFE: TIMELESS LESSONS FROM MYTHOLOGY & HUMAN BEHAVIOR - CHAPTER 02

(Discussed previously- Chapter -01: The Deeper Meaning Behind Ugadi: Psychology & Mythology Intertwined, The Story of Yudhishthira and Karna – A Lesson in Balance, The Story of Lord Rama’s Exile – A Lesson in Balance,  Connection to Ugadi Pachadi Philosophy – The Balance of Life)

Link to Chapter 01:

Hedonic Adaptation Theory: An Overview

History and Origins: Hedonic Adaptation Theory, or the Set-Point Theory of Happiness, was first introduced by psychologists Brickman and Campbell in 1971 through their groundbreaking paper, Hedonic Relativism and Planning the Good Society.

Researchers like Sonja Lyubomirsky have expanded on this, emphasizing that while external factors like wealth or success can influence happiness, internal factors such as mindset and personality are the real drivers of lasting joy.

Understanding Human Behavior: Hedonic adaptation is crucial for understanding human behavior. This principle uncovers how we adjust to change, showing that our emotional state is less about what happens to us and more about our capacity to adapt. Recognizing this truth forces us to confront the reality- happiness isn’t a permanent state, and chasing external success won’t deliver lasting fulfillment.

Correlation to the Ugadi Pachadi Philosophy and Mythological Stories: The UgadiPachadiPhilosophy perfectly mirrors the principles of hedonic adaptation. The dish itself, made of six contrasting flavors—sweet, bitter, sour, spicy, salty, and tangy—serves as a metaphor for life’s emotional highs and lows. Just as each flavor represents a different emotional experience, hedonic adaptation shows how we cycle through these emotional states, with happiness and sorrow being temporary phases that we eventually return from to find balance.

In the stories of Yudhishthira and Karna and Lord Rama’s exile, we see resilience in the face of adversity, illustrating that emotional states, even when extreme, eventually stabilize. Karna, despite his enduring struggles and hardships, finds a way to maintain his honor and generosity, symbolizing the resilience to return to one’s emotional set-point despite external turmoil.

Similarly, Rama’s exile reflects a period of hardship that, though intense, ultimately leads to victory, showing that adversity is a temporary phase in the grand journey of life. These stories, along with the Ugadi Pachadi, highlight the core truth of hedonic adaptation—that emotions fluctuate, but with time, we return to a sense of equilibrium.

Relevance and Manifestation in Today’s Modern World

Adapting to Constant Change: In today’s fast-paced world, hedonic adaptation is more relevant than ever.

In a society where happiness is often equated with achievement and possession, this insight is critical. Real contentment comes from within, and our ability to adapt—whether to triumph or failure—is the key to well-being. By focusing on internal growth, gratitude, and mindfulness, we can shift the pursuit of happiness from external sources to lasting internal peace. The Ugadi Pachadi Philosophy and the hedonic treadmill remind us- life’s emotional ups and downs are fleeting, and peace comes from accepting and adapting to each phase with equanimity.

The Dual-Process Theory: An Overview

History and Origins: The Dual-Process Theory was popularized by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, particularly through his groundbreaking work in his 2011 book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman, a psychologist and behavioral economist, proposed that humans process information in two distinct ways- System 1, which is fast, automatic, and intuitive, and System 2, which is slower, more deliberate, and analytical.

His research, in collaboration with Amos Tversky, challenged traditional economic theories by showing how cognitive biases and heuristics influence decision-making. The theory has since become foundational in understanding human cognition, revealing the underlying processes that drive behavior and decision-making.

Two Modes of Thinking: The Dual-Process Theory explains that humans rely on two systems of thinking when making decisions:

Correlation to the Ugadi Philosophy and Mythological Stories

Balance of Thought and Action: The Ugadi Pachadi Philosophy emphasizes balance and the intertwining of contrasting elements in life—sweet and sour, joy and sorrow—much like the dual processes in human decision-making. The two systems in Dual-Process Theory mirror the balance of quick, emotional reactions (System 1) and slow, reasoned thought (System 2), as seen in the stories of Yudhishthira and Karna and Lord Rama’s exile.

In Karna’s story, his System 1 thinking often led him to act impulsively, especially in moments of generosity or battle, while Yudhishthira’s measured approach exemplifies System 2 thinking—making decisions based on reason and strategic planning. Similarly, Rama’s exile represents the slow and deliberate acceptance of hardship (System 2), while his responses to injustice and betrayal often reflect System 1’s emotional, instinctual reactions to betrayal and adversity.

The Ugadi Pachadi, with its combination of contrasting flavors, reflects the coexistence of both fast and slow thinking in life, teaching us that balance in decision-making and emotions is necessary for personal growth and harmony.

Relevance and Manifestation in Today’s Modern World

Implications for Modern Decision-Making:

However, the theory also highlights the importance of System 2, or thoughtful, reflective decision-making, especially in situations that require more careful consideration and analysis, such as in financial decisions, relationships, or ethical dilemmas.

In today’s complex world, where information overload is common, people must become more aware of when they are operating on System 1—and when they need to engage System 2 to make informed, well-thought-out decisions. This can help us avoid cognitive pitfalls and lead to better, more balanced choices. Much like the Ugadi Pachadi’s lesson that life’s flavors should be embraced in their entirety, understanding and integrating both systems of thinking allows individuals to navigate the complexities of modern life with wisdom and resilience.

The ability to strike a balance between quick, intuitive reactions and thoughtful deliberation is crucial for emotional intelligence and effective decision-making in today’s ever-evolving world.

The Opponent-Process Theory of Emotion: An Overview

History and Origins: The Opponent-Process Theory of Emotion was developed by psychologist Richard Solomon in the 1970s. Solomon proposed that emotions are experienced in pairs, with one emotion being the primary reaction and the other the opponent, which acts as a counterbalance to the initial emotion. For example, experiencing intense fear may be followed by relief or calmness.

The theory suggests that these emotional opposites occur in rapid succession to maintain emotional equilibrium. Solomon’s theory challenged earlier views by positing that emotions are not isolated responses but part of a dynamic system that regulates emotional balance. His work in the field of affective science has had a lasting impact on how emotions are understood in terms of psychological adaptation and homeostasis.

Emotional Pairings and Balance:

This concept is crucial for understanding human behavior because it suggests that no emotional state is permanent; it will eventually give way to its opposite, helping individuals adapt to both positive and negative experiences.

Correlation to the Ugadi Philosophy and Mythological Stories

Life’s Emotional Cycles: The Ugadi Pachadi Philosophy perfectly reflects the dynamics of the Opponent-Process Theory by incorporating both sweet and bitter flavors, symbolizing the cyclical nature of life’s emotional experiences. Just as the Ugadi Pachaditeaches us that life is a balance of contrasting emotions—joy and sorrow, hope and despair—the Opponent-Process Theory suggests that emotional highs are often followed by lows, and vice versa.

In the stories of Yudhishthira and Karna and Lord Rama’s exile, we see this emotional ebb and flow. Karna’s triumphs in battle are often countered by deep sorrow from his betrayal and loss, while Rama’s exile brings immense suffering but is followed by eventual triumph and restoration of order. These stories mirror the idea that intense emotions—whether grief or joy—are not lasting and that, over time, the opposite emotion will emerge, restoring balance.

The Ugadi Pachadi, much like the opponent-process dynamic, encourages acceptance of both sweet and sour moments in life, teaching us to embrace the full spectrum of our emotional experiences.

Relevance and Manifestation in Today’s Modern World

Emotional Regulation in Contemporary Life: In today’s hyper-connected world—where social media, global crises, and nonstop stimuli amplify emotions—the Opponent-Process Theory is more relevant than ever.

Much like the Ugadi Pachadi’s lesson of embracing life’s contrasting flavors, the Opponent-Process Theory reminds us that emotional balance isn’t about eliminating highs and lows—it’s about learning to ride the waves. By mastering this dynamic, we cultivate the resilience needed to manage the complexity of modern emotional life.

Content Curated by: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

[ryancrossfield]

Hooked on Outrage: How Media-Driven Anger Erodes Critical Thinking and Informed Discourse

The modern media landscape, designed to capture and retain our attention, often employs tactics that prey on our emotions, especially anger. By doing so, media outlets can achieve higher engagement and longer viewership, but this approach has significant cognitive and societal repercussions. Research has consistently shown that anger impairs our ability to think critically and reduces our attention to the quality of arguments, making us more susceptible to simplistic, emotionally charged messages over substantive, credible information. This creates a cycle where emotional manipulation by the media hooks people, but the cost is a general erosion of thoughtful discourse, reduced attention to argument quality, and an increased reliance on shallow cognitive processing.

Psychological studies reveal that anger is particularly effective at narrowing attention and impairing working memory. For instance, Van Dillen and Koole (2007) found that negative emotions like anger reduce the cognitive resources available for complex tasks. When people are angry, they tend to focus more narrowly and selectively on stimuli that confirm or fuel their emotional state, often ignoring information that might challenge or counter it. This effect is critical for understanding how media outlets use anger to hold viewers’ attention. When news is presented in a way that triggers frustration, outrage, or even indignation, viewers are less likely to process the content deeply, focusing instead on the visceral reaction. This emotional engagement may keep people hooked, but it diminishes their capacity to analyze the accuracy or credibility of the information they consume.

Media-driven anger also leads people to think in a more heuristic, less systematic way, as explored by Moons and Mackie (2007). Their research shows that anger leads individuals to rely on cognitive shortcuts rather than a thorough evaluation of arguments. In a state of anger, people are more likely to accept information that aligns with their existing beliefs or that seems emotionally satisfying, rather than information that is factually accurate or well-supported. This phenomenon is troubling in a media context, where narratives are often tailored to provoke outrage over particular issues, with little attention given to nuance or fact-checking. The result is an audience that is constantly stimulated but rarely critically engaged, vulnerable to confirmation bias and ideological manipulation.

The effects of "emotion-induced blindness" further compound this issue. According to Most et al. (2005), intense emotional stimuli, such as anger-provoking content, can cause a temporary cognitive "blindness" to subsequent information. When people encounter emotionally charged headlines or news segments, their ability to fully process what follows is compromised. In the case of media, this means that once viewers are riled up by a sensationalized story, their capacity to critically evaluate other points, counter-arguments, or follow-up information is significantly diminished. They become, in effect, cognitively "blinded" to any nuances or alternative perspectives, creating an echo chamber in which only the anger-inducing message resonates.

Moreover, anger-induced cognitive narrowing impacts how we listen and communicate, as demonstrated by Deffenbacher et al. (2003). They found that anger disrupts listening skills, creating cognitive distractions that prevent people from fully engaging with the content. When the media stirs up anger, viewers’ attention shifts from listening carefully to responding emotionally, making it difficult to process the information accurately. In media consumption, this means that viewers focus less on understanding complex issues and more on reacting to them. For instance, a story presented in a way that provokes anger might prompt viewers to focus on who or what they are supposed to be angry with, rather than on understanding the context, data, or implications of the issue at hand. This emotionalized listening reinforces tribalism and divides audiences along emotional lines rather than encouraging a well-rounded understanding of the facts.

By harnessing anger to captivate their audiences, media outlets can drive engagement and loyalty, effectively keeping viewers coming back for more. But the broader repercussions are severe. When people are angry, their ability to pay attention to the merits or credibility of what is being said is compromised. This means that media-driven anger doesn’t just keep people hooked—it fundamentally shapes how they interpret the information presented to them, often to the detriment of critical thinking. Media consumers, constantly bombarded by anger-provoking content, become accustomed to a more shallow form of processing information. They are more likely to accept arguments at face value, judge information based on emotional resonance rather than factual accuracy, and become less discerning about the sources they trust. In the long term, this pattern can erode public discourse, as fewer people are motivated or even able to critically assess the information they encounter.

The impact on society is far-reaching. As media increasingly relies on anger to drive engagement, audiences become less adept at distinguishing credible sources from sensationalistic ones. The constant stimulation of anger reinforces a mindset that prioritizes immediate emotional satisfaction over informed deliberation. Over time, this creates an environment where people are conditioned to seek out emotionally charged, simplistic narratives rather than nuanced, well-researched journalism. This shift has implications not only for individual well-being but also for public trust in media, political polarization, and the health of democratic discourse.

In an era of increasing media fragmentation and partisanship, understanding these effects is essential. Recognizing how anger impacts cognitive processing, attention, and listening skills gives us the tools to approach media consumption more mindfully. By becoming aware of these tactics, we can better guard against the cognitive traps of emotionally manipulative content. Developing a more critical approach means questioning not only the facts behind a story but also the motives behind its presentation. Why is this story being framed to provoke anger? What are the potential benefits to the source of this story for making people feel this way? And, crucially, is this anger detracting from a fair assessment of the facts?

Ultimately, the responsibility lies with both media producers and consumers. Journalists and editors must consider the ethical implications of framing stories in ways that provoke anger, especially when this tactic can hinder critical thinking and informed decision-making. For viewers, becoming aware of how anger impacts their cognitive abilities is a crucial step toward resisting manipulation. In a world where media can often be more concerned with clicks than credibility, the onus is on each individual to engage mindfully, questioning not just the story but also their own emotional response to it.

By slowing down, taking a step back, and focusing on content that encourages reflection over reaction, we can reclaim our cognitive autonomy and foster a healthier, more discerning approach to media consumption. This shift isn’t just about being more informed; it’s about developing the resilience to avoid being controlled by the emotional hooks that dominate modern media. Awareness of how anger impacts cognition can empower us to make more thoughtful choices about what we consume and, ultimately, allow us to break free from the cycle of shallow processing that has come to define so much of our engagement with information.

The research is clear: anger disrupts our ability to think deeply, listen fully, and engage critically. As long as media outlets continue to use this powerful emotion to capture attention, it is up to each of us to recognize the potential consequences and seek a more balanced, less reactive approach to the information we consume. In doing so, we can protect our cognitive resources, encourage deeper discourse, and resist the pull of manipulative narratives that prioritize profit over truth.

[unfoldingmoments]

Oversharing & Overexplaining

Navigating oversharing in the information overload era can be tricky, especially when it feels like a personal need to "vomit out" thoughts and emotions.

1. The Era of Oversharing and Content Overload We’re in an era where social media and instant communication encourage constant sharing. The "content wars" you mentioned—where everyone competes for attention—push people to reveal more, whether it’s their latest success, opinions, or even intimate details. The fear of missing out (FOMO) plays a huge role, as people feel they need to stay relevant or connected by sharing everything. This external pressure can make you feel like you’re obligated to put your life on display.

2. The Psychological Need to “Vomit Out” Thoughts The need to overshare can be more internal, driven by emotions that feel overwhelming. It might not just be a social phenomenon but rather something deeper. Emotional "vomiting" can sometimes be a coping mechanism for processing unhealed trauma, unresolved issues, or deep-seated feelings. When you experience trauma or are carrying emotional baggage, you may feel an urge to let it all out because it feels like a release.

3. Is This a Gendered Tendency? While it’s not necessarily a "women’s tendency" alone, studies suggest that women may be more likely to engage in emotional expression, including venting or sharing deeply personal thoughts. This may be rooted in social norms that encourage women to be more open about their feelings. However, men experience this too, but cultural conditioning may suppress this tendency.

4. Trauma and Oversharing If you’ve experienced trauma or have unresolved emotional wounds, oversharing might be a way to seek validation, understanding, or connection from others. It can also feel like a way to release pent-up emotions. But, oversharing often leads to vulnerability hangovers—feeling exposed or even regretful after sharing too much.

5. How to Navigate This? -Reflect before sharing: Ask yourself why you feel the need to share something. Is it for validation, connection, or emotional release?

-Set boundaries: Share with trusted people who can support you, rather than oversharing with everyone. Create a space where you feel safe to express yourself.

- Journaling: Writing down your thoughts can offer the same emotional release without the potential downsides of oversharing.

-Therapy or support groups: If you’re carrying emotional trauma, working through it in a safe environment can reduce the urge to overshare impulsively.

- Embrace solitude: Sometimes, being offline or taking a break from the constant bombardment of content can help you process your emotions without feeling pressured to contribute to the noise.

It’s not necessarily a disease, but more a combination of external social pressures and internal emotional needs. Finding a balance between healthy self-expression and maintaining boundaries can help manage the tendency to overshare. Further reading: Overexplaining is a response that is caused by trauma and the fear of abandonment. "Trauma often triggers a need to overexplain, seeking safety by making sure others understand us. Self-awareness, through journaling, helps unravel these patterns, offering insights into triggers and reactions. https://www.hindustantimes.com/lifestyle/relationships/overexplaining-is-an-effect-of-trauma-heres-how-we-can-address-it-101702891987103-amp.html

[omanxl1]

Plutonian Martian Chronicles (Part Three)

Throwback Thursday  / Thankful Thursday retro futuristic business is handled per this time frame! Who’ll work with me? I just got back from Pluto and Mars on a mystic voyage type of mind game… …similar to Pharoah Sanders Astral Traveling? understand this Brotha O is mystery unraveling;  back down on earth observing the scene reflections seen in  lakes shimmering waters. Chasing your attention…

[andronicmusicblog]

In a sea of stark white, representing the overwhelming deluge of information that floods our modern world, a solitary triangle pierces through the visual noise. Its three sharp lines form a stark frame, a filter through which only a fraction of the truth is allowed to pass.

Within this triangular aperture, a single eye stares out, cold and calculating. This is the eye of the supervisor, the omniscient observer who wields the power to shape and control the global narrative. Its gaze is unwavering, its scrutiny absolute.

But in the foreground, a newspaper defies the oppressive gaze of the eye. It looms large, its edges blurred and distorted by a mysterious shadow. Its presence is a challenge, a testament to the enduring power of independent thought and the unyielding quest for truth.

The newspaper symbolizes the struggle for transparency and accountability in an age of information manipulation. It represents the voices that dare to question the official narrative, the individuals who seek to uncover the hidden agendas that lurk beneath the surface.

This painting is a powerful indictment of the forces that seek to control and manipulate our perception of reality. It is a call to arms for those who believe in the importance of free speech and open dialogue. It is a reminder that even in the face of overwhelming odds, the truth will always find a way to shine through.

#InformationOverload #MediaManipulation #Surveillance #Censorship #Propaganda #TruthSeeking #CriticalThinking #InformationControl #HiddenAgendas #FreedomOfInformation #IndependentMedia #NewsBias #dominchiocappuccino @dominchiocappuccino

[techzeel]

Tired of missing out on crucial news? 📰

Enter DigitalNewsAlerts—your go-to for timely updates from trustworthy sources.

Why should you trust DigitalNewsAlerts?

Real-time notifications.

Curated content from reliable outlets.

No clutter, just what matters.

Ready to stay informed without the noise? Let’s talk about the future of news delivery! 🌐

[jgregsawyer]

Join us on "Ask Mom and Dad" to gain a fresh perspective on life, faith, and the search for truth. **Section 1 - "Rediscovering Faith over Knowledge"**: Join us as we delve into why parents today are increasingly obsessed with knowledge and education for their children. Are we overemphasizing the wrong things? Mom and Dad express their concern and discuss how placing the fear of the Lord at the center of life can guide us to wisdom, knowledge, and truth. The message is clear: Faith is more important than mere information. **Section 2 - "Suffocating in an Information-Soaked World"**: Information overload! We live in a world filled with constant advertisements and data. Mom and Dad will explain the suffocating effect of too much information, like a smog in a city, and why it's essential to find moments of stillness amid the chaos to hear the truth. Learn how to cut through the clutter and discover the reality that lies beneath the surface. **Section 3 - "Intimate Relationship with Truth"**: Mom and Dad explore the intimate connection between knowing truth and having a deep relationship with Jesus. They dive into the role of faith, truth, and relationships in navigating a world flooded with information. In a world where right and wrong can blur, find out why a solid foundation in faith is your compass to discerning the truth. Subscribe today to "Ask Mom and Dad" and remember, faith, not knowledge, is the key to unlocking the truth. Don't miss out on this incredible podcast journey! 🌟🙏 #AskMomAndDadPodcast

[joelekm]

How to Overcome Information Overload and Achieve Your Coaching Business Goals

Are you feeling overwhelmed by endless information and struggling to move forward in your coaching business? In this episode, we'll discuss the common pitfalls of information overload and how to break free from its grasp.