I branched it off into this post because I think there’s a danger in taking a more selective approach (like I advocated as an alternative to following sites like Digg).

But the point of this one is broader than that – I think that it’s a problem anytime you fill your list of things to read / watch / listen to with only those things that you know you already like or agree with. (see Nate’s example about “groupthink”).

The problem with that is that you never expose yourself to stuff that you don’t already approve of or agree with, and that leads to eventually forming invalid opinions on many subjects. It further leads (more often in politics and religious arenas) to very heated but artificial divisions / disagreements because the group that all thinks the same way starts building up their own strawman picture of what the other side thinks or believes, only to knock it down, which is easy to do, since the built it for that purpose.

The obvious fault in that is that they are not only making up stuff about what the other side thinks (which is wrong in itself) rather than talking with them about it and honestly listening, but it’s compounded by the fact that since they have isolated themselves from ever really hearing what the other side says, those made up positions are totally inaccurate, so they end up arguing against something no one actually believes (like Nate mentioned above).

Jared: I really get Nate’s point but I’m not clear on yours. If your point is the bombardment of media, I tackle it by organization and priorities. I do this with all my e-mail and feeds. My feeds as you know are prioritized to what I “need” to read most. Digg is on the top because it categorizes most of my already subscribed feeds, even though it is centered it does filter out the good (even with the bad) and it’s very fast to scan through. Most importantly if I miss all other feeds prioritized below digg/techmeme and the few others I wouldn’t miss too much since the majority was already dugg.

I do agree that subscribing to media that you may not normally want because you need multiple viewpoints.

Groupthink makes people think better of themselves and worse of their detractors, if you ever even hear from them. Groupthink ends up just arguing against ideas that don’t really exist because it’s so circular and nobody in the group can hold up a diverging opinion. Lately, If my world view hasn’t been challenged by what I read I get bored. Maybe I’m being reactionary against the groupthink I see taking up so much space on the internet but I’m sick of being cheated out of all the angles in all their nuanced glory. More and more I’ve been relying on a person’s tone as an indicator if I should give their material my time or not. A gentle tone that can argue multiple positions with clarity and rigor is a godsend.