While the post didn't particularly speak to me, I think you are being overly reductionist. You can dismissively summarize anything into a few "key points."
Just in the first couple of paragraphs alone:
- The author discusses the "why" by pointing to research on how new information triggers dopamine pathways. Maybe this is obvious to you but it's not necessarily obvious to everyone.
- The author points out that this would have historically been an evolutionary advantage (at least that's my interpretation), but access to modern high-volume, low-nutrient information has made this an addictive unhealthy habit.
- For those already familiar with how modern access to high-calorie, low-nutrient food (that triggers the dopamine response), the author is showing that the same mechanisms are at play with information.
I think it's actually your comment that contains the tweet-able one liners (as "key points") that are likely to result in head nods and smug self assurances but aren't doing anything to encourage deeper thought.
Just in the first couple of paragraphs alone:
- The author discusses the "why" by pointing to research on how new information triggers dopamine pathways. Maybe this is obvious to you but it's not necessarily obvious to everyone.
- The author points out that this would have historically been an evolutionary advantage (at least that's my interpretation), but access to modern high-volume, low-nutrient information has made this an addictive unhealthy habit.
- For those already familiar with how modern access to high-calorie, low-nutrient food (that triggers the dopamine response), the author is showing that the same mechanisms are at play with information.
I think it's actually your comment that contains the tweet-able one liners (as "key points") that are likely to result in head nods and smug self assurances but aren't doing anything to encourage deeper thought.