The Destructive Switch from Search to Social
Nat Eliason

I think the term “sugary sweet information” is a misnomer. What todays information is, essentially, is brief. But why is that appealing? It’s appealing because at a societal level, I would say globally, we value someone/something who knows/can do everything. What can give me everything? The internet, but it has to be short because learning everything is time consuming, and I don’t have a lot of time.

Seeking vs. pushing is just landscape, but the motivation of the people existing on that landscape is that Society doesn’t value highly specialized people, so people need to always be learning about something new, and need to be learning fast. A task that’s impossible, why being a know-it-all is a derisive term, because you’re kidding yourself if you think you’re able to soak up such a vast amount of information.

The information market recognized this and just started heaving out poorly researched, not in depth, tid bits of stories. The public likes it because it makes them feel well versed on a bunch of different things and therefore useful. When in actuality the public gets a synopsis of an event, technique, or idea, they forget what they read, and although the useful feeling still occurs, they would be useless if questioned about the subject.

Once society starts valuing the person who knows a lot about one thing instead of a little bit about everything we will see a change in how information is ingested. We’re choosing bad information because on it’s face, brief, “sugary” information is what wins people favor from employers, social constituents, and at the end of the day, people in power.

Like what you read? Give Connor Cushman a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.