Can we escape information overload?
I read this week about Andrew Sullivan, a popular political blogger, whose blog does not allow readers to make comments. When he decided to ask his readers whether he should change the policy and allow them to comment, they voted 60-40 against allowing comments. Their reason? They wouldn’t be able to stop reading the comments, and they didn’t want another drain on their time.
This story appeared in a Wall Street Journal column–”Why We’re Powerless to Resist Grazing on Endless Web Data.”
An explanation for why web data might be irresistible is offered by Irving Biederman, a neuroscientist at the University of Southern California. His experiments with volunteer subjects found that “information triggers a chemical reaction that makes us feel good, which in turn causes us to seek out even more of it.”
Biederman explains that “For most of human history, there was little chance of overdosing on information, because one day in Olduvai Gorge was alot like any other. Today, though we can find in the course of a few hours online more information than our ancient ancestors could in their whole lives.”
In other words, we are programmed for scarcity, though we live in a world of abundance.
No wonder we feel overloaded. It’s our destiny.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:09 am
I respectfully disagree with the principle of information overload, and think that the fact that professional communicators buy the idea is a barrier to our effectiveness as an industry.
For me, it’s the relevance, resonance and interactivity level of information that determines whether it is part of the solution or problem–and not the sheer volume. Giving credence to the myth of information overload invariably has the impact of stifling or giving short shrift to information some would see as important, and puts the profession on the defensive about everything we allow to flow through our channels.
Furthermore, by acknowledging “information overload” as a problem, we make ourselves responsible for dealing with it. That’s not a great position to be in. Instead accepting that information is insufficiently channeled and targeted offers much more promise.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Julie,
Very perceptive observation and spot-on observation by your neuroscientist. I would comment further if I had the time but there’s too much happy surfing to do
:)……..Linda Norris IABC Washington
March 19th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Mike–
As always, you offer a new wrinkle to the conversation.
If I accept your premise that information overload is a myth, can you explain why I feel like there is so much I need to read and so little time?
Julie
March 19th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Julie,
As always, a pragmatic response.
Here are some alternative counters:
* You’re not overloaded but overextended
* There may be an unwillingness to prioritise (which is an alternative perspective to look at your original posting) and you may wish to have your cake while nibbling around its edges
* You’ve neglected to sign up for Evelyn Wood’s Speed Reading class and now you’re paying the price.
All the best from Civilisation,
Mike Klein
Delft, NL
April 1st, 2008 at 4:00 am
An article that ran in the International Herald Tribune in late February (www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/26/healthscience/snti…) covers research that shows human beings are generally unwilling to exclude options, even when we know it costs us dear.
I am trying to use this new-found knowledge to simplify my life! Including unsubscribing myself from all those lists that I receive “just in case something useful comes along”.