Blockchain Bachelor’s Thesis – Information Overload and Methods of its Elimination in the Modern Information Society: Going Through the Sources pt.1

Source

Previously published

---

Introduction

Blockchainized Bachelor’s Thesis
Blockchainized Bachelor’s Thesis – Initial Brainstorm

Thesis

1. Preface

Sources

1. Battling Information Overload in the Information Age

The sources

---

As everyone probably knows, one has to go through quite a number of “professional” articles in order to write a thesis of a higher quality. I could go through those articles on my own and present only the final output of information taken from them, mixed with my own opinions. I though decided to share my thought processes for multiple reasons. First of all it will help me to somehow organize and sort out the knowledge gathered at an easily accessible place. Secondly I will not be the only one that would have access to that organized knowledge. Thirdly I could once again gather a valuable feedback, this time not about the thesis itself, but rather about my logical processes in a direct confrontation with logical processes of other authors. Without further add-on, let’s get to work!

Article

---

GOLDSBOROUGH, Reid. Battling Information Overload in the Information Age. Tech Directions [online]. 2009, 68(9), 13-13 [cit. 2018-01-05]. ISSN 10629351.

Battling Information Overload in the Information Age - Interesting thoughts

---

„Nearly two millennia ago, the Roman philosopher Seneca wrote, "What is the use of having countless books and libraries whose titles their owners can scarcely read through in a whole lifetime? The learner is not instructed but burdened by the mass of them."“

In the preface of the thesis I stated that philosophers nearly two thousand years ago already realized that something like information overload exists. I also said that the problem was only affecting handful of “chosen ones”. Seneca was back then contemplating about the fact that there is no way whatsoever how to read all the books that were accessible for him. I am convinced that he has at least tried to read as many books as he could, therefore he met the limit of his processing capacity, thus realizing that something like information overload (despite not having the right term for it back then) existed.

---

„To try to keep up with the "infoglut", we start the day earlier and end it later, in some cases never ending it. With the help of the ever-expanding choices of ever-cooler portable communication devices, many of us are, less than blissfully, connected 24/7.“

Now, two thousand years later, those “accessible books” were heftily multiplied and are now not only accessible by the handful of chosen ones. One could also argue that the amount of accessible information is growing exponentially rather than linearly. Thanks to smart-devices one can even access it whenever one wants. People in general want to consume that accessible information and I do believe that they now sleep less than they used to (for example in medieval ages it was normal to have 2 sleeping shifts. One during the night and one in the middle of a working day to replenish the so needed energy). I disagree that they are connected 24/7 because that is simply not possible due to the information overload itself. There is not nearly enough processing capacity inherent in our brains to deal with such an exposure. The argument though is valid, despite the aggrandizement at the end.

---

„What's more, as the level of information input increases, our capacity to process and retain that information decreases. The noggin is only so big. Try to fill it beyond its capacity, and you'll wind up wandering around the streets asking for directions to the Yellow Brick Road.“

I’m not entirely convinced that our capacity to process and retain information decreases. I would actually argue the very opposite, but I do not have any proofs for my statement. So does not the author of the text for his claims though. My logical process is following. The information inputs increased (the author is correct). Our minds needed to cope with that fact and are still, even now, trying to adapt to the change. The fact that the people are accessing the information more and more (there the author is also correct) and the fact that they are still rather effectively functioning (I think) proves, that at the very least, our processing capacity did not decrease overtime. It either remained the same, or it is slightly increasing, but not nearly enough, compared with our needs.

---

„As a misguided weapon against the flood, some people periodically declare "e-mail bankruptcy" by deleting all unread e-mail messages and starting afresh. The problem is, of course, that important information might be in those deleted messages.“

Firstly I need to state that the article is few years old. Back then e-mails were the dominant messaging platform. After careful consideration, I still find the article up-to-date, if we only substitute the “e-mails” with basically any information inputs. Then it becomes a super valid argument. I think that we all can relate to that state where there was so much incoming information where we simply had to say “fuck this shit” and discard it all in order to wind up. For example, We had quite some articles opened on Steemit that we wanted to read, but as we worked our way through the day, our processing capacity got depleted and we just ignored the articles, not ever coming back to them, because we simply didn’t have any energy left to comprehend its meaning. For those that are not part of Steemit, replace the “articles” with any given feed of information that you go through. This state definitely is not desirable. As long as the ejection of the information is not a thought out process, we could be definitely losing relevant information and to make matters worse, we will never know, as soon as we discard the information, whether we have lost valuable information or not.

---

Points at the end of the article:

• Turn e-mail notification off in your e-mail program to prevent yourself from being continually interrupted as new messages arrive
• Read the entire thread of any e-mai! or discussion group message before responding to ensure you're responding to the latest points made and not providing information already provided.
• Don't burden groups of students or colleagues with unnecessary email, especially one-word replies such as "Thanks!" or "Great!" that are sent to the entire group that received the initial message
• Supply all relevant details in any communication instead of assuming that recipients have information they don't

The premise from previous paragraph stands, just this time replace the “e-mails” with any form of virtual (sometimes even face-to-face) communication. If you’ll choose to read the original you will come across plenty of rather vague advices. Nevertheless, some of them seemed relevant to me. Apart from the first chosen point (which according to me cannot be applied to any given individual, therefore its relevance is strictly subjective), it can be objectively said, that following those tips will lead to much healthier progress of any given communication.

---