@brwarner That's partially why I read The Economist religiously. I know reading it won't tell me everything about anything, but at least I have a cursory knowledge of what's going on elsewhere in the world. The key is understanding the limits of your knowledge and not assuming you know anywhere near everything.
@brwarner It's somewhat telling that some of the smartest academics are the most modest about their own intelligences. Meanwhile, those in news and politics act as if they have a particularly acute understanding of the world...
@aendrew @Enkerli One thing I have trouble with is aggregating a lot of details if I don't have some sort of knowledge scaffolding to attach them to. I find a lot of the news is just a barrage of details and, unless I understand the situation already, I don't really internalize any of them beyond "something is happening and you should be worried." My cure so far is just trying to watch more documentaries, since their aim is more pedagogical.
@brwarner @aendrew Interesting. Documentaries tend to have a different effect on me, as they tend to be about causing strong emotions. Did some work in ethnographic film and we spent quite a bit of time moving away from most documentaries. Much of it has to do with “who controls the narrative”. In current ethnography, we typically use a reflexive approach which bears upon intersubjectivity.
@brwarner @aendrew Yes, sorry.
Our approach tends to be based on mutual engagement with people who are part of the events. We understand them as they understand us, and we make sense of what's going on by building on a mutual understanding. It's more about gaining insight on a situation than getting disparate tidbits and factoids. What we learn isn't necessarily about the accuracy of a given information but it's about overall meaning.
@aendrew Yeah. I just feel like I'm surrounded by people who seem to speak with so much authority on some stuff I can't tell if they're just posturing or if I'm just missing some vital source everyone else is tapped into.