I could have told you there were 42 reasons. Or 13. Or 6 steps. There aren’t.
Or there may be, but I’m not going to list them out here. But headlines like that are just one contributing factor to a big problem: the continued erosion of critical thought and deliberate consumption and the hive-mind sharing that mocks the very independence of thinking that we praise the web for giving to us.
Have I written titles with numbers in them or how-to posts? You bet. Just yesterday. So, bathe in the hypocrisy for a moment if you wish. However, they’re starting to make me feel dirty. I regret doing it. I’ve finally reached the place where I’m just not going to use them anymore. They’re a gimmick. I don’t need them.
I’d rather have six people read a blog post that actually care about reading the information and contributing to the discussion than hordes who want to skim a list, hope they absorb a few things by osmosis, and believe that they now have ALL THE SHORTCUTS they’ll ever need to write great content or be influential or write a book or start a business or find success. Or even sixteen words and phrases they’re using wrong (and so they can just stop thinking about the rest of them). It’s starting to become painful.
The reason people write this stuff is because people click on it (whether they read it or not is still debatable to me). Humans are creatures of habit, and we follow the path of least resistance more often than not. We want someone else to do the hard work of thinking for us – even if that means breaking something down into an arbitrary number of parts or steps – so that we can absorb something more easily. And trust me, they are arbitrary.
The writers like me that have done it know exactly what we’re doing, too. It’s subtle manipulation to gain a read because we know the human condition is drawn to ease, simplicity, and summary. If the goal is traffic and mass eyeballs, carving something up into digestible, visible, clever little pieces does it beautifully. Some of that content is also really incredibly smart. But not all of it. The crappy stuff is nearly indistinguishable from the good stuff on the basis of format alone.
We back up the value of “easy to consume” content by saying that attention spans are at an all time low, that we have information overload, that people just can’t process big chunks of information.
If that’s universally true, then I’m writing for myself more than ever before. Because I think we’re capable of more than that.
Just yesterday, a well-know business magazine put out, under their masthead, a blog post from a freelancer that was absolute dreck. It was full of clever language that said nothing at all, generalities that have been pummeled in every business book known to humanity, and moreover, many of the conclusions were complete and utter garbage. But hey, if it gets a click…and it did. All over the place. People sharing it that I consider smart, accomplished professionals with comments like “Yes, this.”
I’m willing to believe that a few of those people really did agree with the content, and that we are philosophically simply on different pages there.
But the majority of them are sharing an article because their friends shared it. Because someone they respected tweeted about it, so it MUST be good. Because it’s in Important Business Magazine so surely it’s a useful, worthwhile and well-thought piece of content. Because they scanned a title and a few subheads, thought it sounded halfway smart, and they needed to feed their content machine so someone would retweet them.
That’s so frustrating.
We have all of this information at our fingertips. We can get smarter exponentially faster and find the information that will better inform our choices and decisions and expand our perspective, or we can numb our braincells with frightening speed and never have to think critically about anything again because the Almighty Internet will simply tell us what to think and what to share and who should be the authority on something because their post on Twitter tips went crazy.
I don’t want to write like this. I probably did at one point, because it was easier. Because that’s what “real” bloggers did. Or because when all else fails, churn out a “how to tips” post on something and check off the box for the day. Guilty. I admit it. At this point in my writing maturity, I regret settling when I knew I was doing it. You also deserve more.
I don’t want to check off boxes anymore. Not when I write, not when I read, not when I share.
I would rather dig and find the one article today that drives me to think harder and smarter about my life and what I do than be the sharing machine that pumps out a dozen articles a day from the same, tired sources in the same, tired form saying the same, tired stuff. I want to be a resource, sure. And I want to be “social”, whatever that means, by pointing to work that I think is really well done. Today that might be tons of things. Tomorrow it might be nothing at all.
I call bullshit on mindless spreading of mediocre information. We are smarter than this.
I know for a fact that there are brilliant, hard working, incisive people in my midst. I talk to you all the time, meet you at events, see you online. I’m challenging you – us – to do better. To look at an article and say “Are those really the six steps? What’s missing? Do I agree, disagree, and why? How does this help me or someone else? What does this make me think about next?” To comment intelligently. To write your own post. Even to sit quietly and say nothing at all but think through what you’re reading.
Critical thinking is so absent sometimes it hurts me. (Which is not the same as vitriol or snark or that guy that constantly has to play the contrarian. You know that guy.)
But critical thinking, meaning the ability to question your own assumptions and the assumptions of others. If you agree vehemently with something and think it’s the most brilliant idea that you’ve ever heard, to practice the art of articulating why you feel that way. To apply some reasoning to your emotions, for better or for worse. To look a piece of research and wonder about the sources of the information or the bias of the analyst or the motivation for the company who sponsored the study. To know that the author who wrote the best-selling book is still capable of turning out an article that’s not so great (and that that’s perfectly normal, human, and okay, not cause for an internet uprising).
Thoughtfulness takes more time. Accept that.
When the giant flood of information threatens to make us drop our standards, lean back, and become mentally sluggish and obese, we have to snap the hell out of it.
The web can and will transform the way we communicate, work, think. It’s up to us to decide that the transformation will be something to be proud of.
I think you’re onto something. There’s actually a great skill and craft to pondering and making the effort to convert data to information to knowledge to wisdom. We seem to be in an era of churn and gratify. Speed kills [deep thought].
You know, there are 6 steps to strengthening one’s critical thinking skills, and it can be done in 45 minutes in the comfort of your own home. Just sign up for the webinar series, then tweet to all your friends. You can read the summary on my blog. Or buy the Kindle edition of my ebook… 😉
(but I digress.)
Sometimes, it’s worth being challenged by someone like Otto Scharmer, Phil Kotler, Ravi Kalakota or Jim Collins. Better yet, Paul Tillich, Plato, William James, Marcel Proust, Albert Camus…
Apropos: “A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring” -Alexander Pope
Thank you for fighting the fight.
It’s always worth being challenged. The problem is challenge = hard. It requires time. Energy. Brainpower. And we want things to be easy. And easy isn’t always bad, but it definitely puts the bar lower for things that suck, and we don’t scrutinize them nearly as much because…hey, they’re easy.
Brilliant. Sometimes I think you live in my head. Brain twin.
Thanks, Karin.
I think you should write “10 Ways to Write an Intelligent Blog Post.”
I agree.
That psuedo-html above should be {ducking as you throw shoe at me}.
Where’s my shoe? 🙂
But..but…it’s HARD.
Sigh. I feel the lure of it, too. I write so irregularly because I just can’t do a post I’m not glad of. Clicks or no clicks.
As so often, I’m glad of yours.
I’ve written posts that are lightweight and I still believe them to be useful content. My challenge to myself is not to write that just because I have to write something. And if I’m reading something like that, to not be afraid to ask whether it’s truly useful or just a piece of fluff.
I often read articles you link because I know you don’t waste my time on jargon filled hot air. If success could be found in 9 or ten steps, wouldn’t we all be there? The hive mentality of click, share, like rarely has genuine complex thought behind it. I can’t share something I haven’t read top to bottom, and I couldn’t get my spirit into writting a blog for “busy moms who just skim over headlines”, it was a professional setback I couldn’t afford, yet I couldn’t bear to do it. 15 pages on the role of children in Dostoyevsky novels, or the photographic manipultions in Nazi propaganda, I can get my teeth into that, but I’m not sure anyone wants to read it, or pay me to write it.
You’re definitely in the minority I think, Emily. Most people skim, click, share. In fact, I *know* people share stuff without reading because a) you can’t have read that article in the two minutes since I tweeted it, let alone thought about it and b) they’ll ask questions or make comments that are clearly addressed in the writing.
It’s frustrating as all hell but it’s part of the nature of the internet, and people.
I’d ask you to call out the name of the ‘magazine’ but I’m going to guess either inc.com business insider or Forbes.
It’s not pertinent to the post. The whole point is that the people sharing the article shared it because it came from a respected publication even though the article itself was a bunch of puffed up garbage. I want to talk about the behavior, not call out some specific publication to pick a fight.
Amen and thank you!
Thanks for reading.
Strongly concur. I think we are living at the beginning of the end of understanding. What we “know” seems to be increasing, and is also as you point out organized and re-organized into neat, quickly consumable lists. But what we understand, why things work the way they do, will be increasingly fleeting and unappreciated.
I sure hope it’s not the END of understanding, but I definitely agree that understanding and the effort required isn’t as valued as it should be today.
Excellent post, Amber. Recently I was rummaging through some of my parents’ stuff and came across several local (Chicago area) newspapers from the 1940s. I was astounded by the length of the articles, their quality, their depth, and the number of them. This is what the mass of people were reading at the time. Compare to today’s Chicago Sun Times, which looks more and more like a Cliffs Notes version of the National Enquirer. If media serves up what the public wants, what does this say about us?
Not very flattering things. Granted, that was THE media back in the ’40s, and now we have many other formats and streams from which to get our information. But I take your point: reading mainstream media today is about as mentally stimulating as reading the cereal box. And when we’re presenting that to people as hard hitting news and journalism, we’re setting a standard that they’ll continue to follow.
HEY! I resent that remark — cereal boxes are VERY interesting to read, thank you. :p
Hi Amber, like you I value deep thought expressed well. In addition, I like several points of view so that I can see the big picture. One of the reasons I enjoy writing is to sort out my thoughts or to explore a topic in a more focused way. Blogs work well for that. If I want to narrow down my thinking into a thesis-like statement expressed simply, it becomes a Tweet.
Me too, Robyn. I’m a big fan of Joan Didion, and I’m paraphrasing here, but she said “I write to discover what I think,” and that’s so similar to what I do. But I want to be useful to people along the way, too.
You make some good points, Amber. It’s not just the bloggers who are suffering from the bullet-point mentality, however. Mainstream journalists are now relying on the crutches of subheads and bulleted lists because it’s easier to write that way than to actually put together a well-structured article with segues. This may be a chicken-and-egg argument, of course. What came first – the writers who are producing simplified articles that don’t require deeper thought, or the readers who can’t be bothered to read anything that requires deeper thought? I don’t really care which came first, but I do wish one, if not both, of those groups would see the error in their ways and stop relying on shortcuts.
Oh definitely not. The example above was a blog from a mainstream magazine, but it was a freelance journalist writing and a mainstream publication. It’s a problem that’s seeping into all of our media (hell, we can’t even handle a video that’s more than two minutes long).
I think the only thing that changes it is individual people’s values. The writers to refuse to write the fluff, and the readers who demand more.
Thank you for writing this post, Amber. It has helped confirm some of the motions and thoughts I have been feeling the last few months. I’m glad to see that I am not the only one towing this line of thought.
Reading your post, I could feel your thought process on the various topics you addressed.
I’m curious on your take of today’s attention span of the average social web consumer. Have we always had short attention spans, or has Social Media bastardized our capacity for absorbing information?
You’re definitely not the only one. I actually don’t think our attention spans have changed, I think they’re more fractured. Give all of my available attention to one thing, or to fifty? Part of that can’t be helped with evolution in general and more networked communication. But that means that *deliberate* attention needs to become a priority for the individual giving it.
This is a great article and you expressed and articulated what I’ve been thinking about, too, but was still in blend and process modes.
Thank you for always helping me to be better, stop and smell the roses of thought and intention, and to recognize the weeds that are growing in my professional garden (meaning my own lazy or uninspired habits because I just want to check off that to-do post)
Please keep up the good work!
Glad it was useful, and thanks for reading!
Truth and wisdom flow from your lips Amber. Such a breath of fresh air. Coming from a background of marketing and strategic research with Gartner, I have watched this trend with despair. I hope we can turn the tide back to critical thinking. Our businesses and our clients will be much better served.
I hope so too. We can only be accountable for our own work and behavior, I suppose, so let’s promise each other we’ll fight the good fight. 🙂
Fight on!!
Thank you for that challenge. Timing is everything and I needed to hear that thought as a writer. Thanks, Amber.
Thanks, Elizabeth!
Pirsig.
Ok, I give up. A little help?
Sure.
Robert Pirsig wrote “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,” and one of the key themes from the book is the notion of Quality. What is it, how do you define it, how does anyone without just recognizing it for what it is?
How can you prioritize it? Can it be maximized, or even measured?
Pirsig would say that Quality is what truly matters, and that any formula one uses for shortcuts diminishes it to a rote activity, devoid of creation or passion or insight.
So, yeah.
Pirsig.
Ah, yes. Sorry. I did google that, but since I haven’t read the book, I didn’t want to assume what you were referring to. Thanks (from me and all the other people who weren’t sure either)!
This entire post was music to my ears.
I read a lot of blogs. Every day. You have to skim through a lot of average and below average content to find the few bits and pieces of actual insight and inspiration. We have become a culture of frantic consumption, and – sadly – that demand is driving an endless supply of subpar writing – things that have already been said, don’t need to be said, or are poorly said.
I stumbled across this in the wake of reading your post and thought you might enjoy it: http://toddsieling.com/slowblog/?page_id=10 Looks like the author took his manifesto a bit too far (last post is from June of last year), BUT – I do think there is merit in the philosophy behind the manifesto and there are some complementary ideas to the ones you’ve expressed here.
Thanks for the great post. I am breathing easier. 🙂
Thanks, Jamie. I think the problem is less about the subpar writing and more about the fact that we aren’t doing a great job of *filtering* the subpar writing. There’s always going to be bad writing. There’s room for levity and light content.
The problem is when we shut our brain off and treat all of it the same.
Personally, I’m a full-on subscriber to the @gapingvoid:twitter “Sex & Cash Theory”:
http://gapingvoid.com/2004/03/25/the-sex-cash-theory/ Basically, we have to do some things that are easily consumable, quickly bloggable, or social-media-dramatic sometimes because they DO drive interest and traffic and notoriety. In a personal-branding sense, that imperative to drive your own popularity may be less, and so you can spend more time on the stuff you wanna do, rather than the stuff you have to do. The KEY, in my mind, is that any time you walk on this “dark side” of Content For Fame, you don’t lose your mind or soul in the process. Tom Webster talks about this all the time – research created for the express purpose of feeding a content machine, which leads to bad research. The fact that this phenomenon exists doesn’t mean you can’t do good research that’s still insightful, intriguing, maybe arresting – and still worth its salt.
Much love as always, Amber! Love your work!
I don’t disagree with the existence – and even rightful place – of light, breathy content that isn’t all about cramping your brain. Like I said above, the issue is when we don’t distinguish between the two, mindlessly clicking and lauding whatever comes along simply because of the source or the title or the format.
The lack of critical thought is my issue here.
Alleluia, Amber. This is why I struggle with developing and contributing good content that isn’t recognizable as someone else’s previously regurgitated social media topical hash.
Give me a familiar topic that’s cleverly covered and well written, and I’m all about it. We get into trouble when we don’t recognize the difference between the well presented stuff and the bottom-scraping cheap stuff.
Amber
You nailed it! This is genius. I too am so tired of so-called experts telling us to get more readers with those types of posts. Especially since, step one is always, “Create great content.” Oh really? Thanks so much.
This is a much needed post and I hope that many, many people take it to heart.
Kevin
Creating “great content” is much harder than it sounds. Thanks for reading, Kevin.
Completely agree. That’s why I so dislike those “5 steps” type posts. They start with telling you to jus create great content…like it’s so simple. They totally dismiss the difficulty of creating something worth paying attention to.
Thanks again for the great post. This one will stick with me for a while.
Kevin
Thank you for this Amber. Also guilty. (and in fact, working on a ‘list’ style post as I stopped to read this one – how’s that for transparent?) While I agree with so much of what you said initially in your message above, it was your call to action – to critically THINK – that really caused me to jump up and down excitedly. I’ve been stirring up quite the pot in regards to critical thinking in my personal life mostly… but the point is, I’m trying to be ‘that person’ who never intends to ruffle feathers for the hell of it, but for the sole purpose of causing healthy conversation. So, while I consider deadlines and obligations, and acceptable work versus something stellar, I will keep these thoughts in the forefront of my mind. You just made my mind happy. Thank you!
That’s the part I care about here – the thinking part. I should emphasize that the evil to me isn’t the list style post, though I called myself out on using it as a crutch.
The evil is when we think that every list style post is filled with gold *because* it’s a list style post.
I partly agree and perhaps partly disagree.
I totally agree that there is lots of useless, mindless content out there, and that it is often posted in a list, or with some other “this will solve all of your problems!” type title. I also agree that this is becoming more and more common from people and publications that I respect, unfortuntely. I, too, am sick of “how-to” articles, and prefer writing with more meaning that causes me to think about something (like this one!). That said, I don’t think there is anything inherently evil about list formats (or other short formats).
I think the problem with a lot of the lists that I see is simply that the underlying content is fluff. They are only a gimmick if there is nothing behind them. I can’t think of any reason why very useful, smart content can’t be delivered in a short format, or why we should feel bad about preferring receiving it that way. I don’t think making your content simple necessarily means you are trying to manipulate your audience – unless you are.
Perhaps not all content needs to be in prose to generate critical thinking – or perhaps not all content need to generate critical thinking. Opinion pieces really should be in full thoughtful paragraphs, but maybe observations about some experience you just had would be appropriate in a “5 things i noticed when…”
I really enjoyed your thoughts Kate. And guess what? It caused MORE reason to think.
Thanks Jenn!
Kate, you’re right that they’re only fluff if there’s nothing behind them. And like I said to a few commenters above, my issue is NOT with the format, even though I find myself wanting to move away from it for my own purposes (and I’m challenging people not to rely on it so much).
The problem isn’t short form content. And I never said that the issue is that content should always have to provoke deep, complex thought.
What I’m taking issue with is the mindless, robotic-like sharing of content no matter whether it’s any good or not. I’m calling for people to READ and evaluate the quality of a post before they share it (realizing that’s subjective), but not just thinking that every “top 20” list is awesome, or that every article from a well-known business publication is gold simply because they are those things.
Sorry if my point wasn’t as clear as I would have liked, but the problem here isn’t the existence of easy-to-consume content, or short posts, or even lists. It’s that we are *magnetically*, almost brainlessly, spreading that stuff around with very little editorial or thoughtful reasons behind why (or if) it’s any good at all.
As a matter of fact, making something simple and good is HARD. I applaud the people that do it well. But just *because* it’s simple doesn’t mean it’s good, and vice versa.
Thanks Amber – completely agree!
Damn, girl – you always articulate what I’ve been thinking and end up saying it better than I would. Thanks
Thanks, Robyn.
You wrote this post out of (shared) frustration, which reminded me of a local Ignite Phoenix talk by Corri Wells, who was also my college English professor. http://youtu.be/RRNnreXFr0M
She talks about using writing and critical thinking to understand your own anger, passion or convictions. She was encouraging the Phoenix community to write, publish and share their thoughts with the world — whether through blogging or letters to a politician — because if you can articulate what you stand for clearly enough, more than likely you’re helping someone else see through a clearer lens as well. “Writing clarifies vision” and “creates bridges of understanding,” she says. True no matter what you write about.
But, like you pointed out, coming up with something utterly honest, useful, or thought-provoking can take a lot of time. Similarly, Corri said in her talk, “It’s a long way from the brain to the heart to the fingertips.” You have to do a lot of mental push-ups to get something actually worthwhile on paper. That’s why we have a lot of regurgitated fluff floating around the internet, aiming to drive traffic to websites to generate X dollars in ad revenue or spark enough mindless shares to garner increased visibility in search engines. That stuff still matters, but it’s not all that matters.
I think it’s really about balance. Maybe for every shortcut you take to meet a deadline or demand — for every post on “5 Useless Tips I Pulled from My Bum To Trick You Into Sharing This” — take the time to sort through your thoughts, do some research, and articulate something original.
Or maybe it’s about sad, sad acceptance of the purpose of your content. Online, you are what you publish. We live in a world where Google increasingly determines your relevance based on freshness. Where we’re conditioned to do more in less time. Where we’re told to multitask even though studies indicate it’s not possible. Today’s motto: “Think critically…but faster!” It doesn’t work that way. And does everyone want to challenge themselves to think more critically like you? Unfortunately, I doubt it. Under certain circumstances, I think everyone likes to be told what to think or do, so churning the useless, “sticky” content works.
If you want people to read your blog, agree with you or buy your stuff, you have to package information in ways the vast majority can absorb with ease. Hence the brevity, the numbered tips, the popularity of infographics, the publishing for the sake of publishing. Was the videographer-turned-street-artist Mr. Brainwash talented? Arguably, no. Did he make almost a million dollars on unoriginal artwork at his first, over-hyped art show? Yes.
Gimmicks work, although not in favor of our long-term cognitive well-being. I appreciate you reminding me/all of us and encouraging us to do better.
Loved this.
The day I equate financial success with quality product and content is the day I stop writing altogether. 🙂 I can name a dozen millionaires who earned every penny with amazing work, and two dozen more who push out “make more money online” crap that isn’t worth the pixels it’s printed on.
My battle is subjective. *I* value critical thought, and value those who value it. I can’t convince them all, but I can take a stand about creating and sharing value, and stick with it.
It’s a very valid, subjective battle. One that I appreciate.
I think I was taking a roundabout way to try and express that thinking critically and creating value requires an individual to make a proactive choice to do so.
I’m all for creating for the sake of creating. Writing for the sake of writing. Pouring your heart and soul into something because you believe in it. If it catches on, great. If not, who cares? You did something you cared about. I just think a lot of the numbered tips and how-to posts serve a very different purpose than what you’re trying to do.
I admire that you’re encouraging others to stop valuing this easily-digestible garbage that’s produced for mere traffic, clicks, shares or dollars. These posts are all too prevalent, especially in the social media space. However, I think this stuff works for a different niche – most likely beginners on a topic, or perhaps someone pressed for time. Or maybe someone passes along “5 Steps to X” because it will be of value to their followers even though it’s too simple for themselves.
A lot of what I’m seeing is brands and people creating what they know will drive a Facebook comment or like rather than a genuine conversation like the one that’s taken place in this comment thread. I think the key is to not get lost in the garbage — to make the effort to step outside your bubble. I believe that was the point you were trying to make, in which case I agree 100%. And this post served as a great reminder of that.
Brava!
Thanks, Jo!
It’s a shame that there is no door to the Internet upon which you could nail this post. So many posts, particularly personal finance, health, and productivity posts, regurgitate the same bland material. Much of my blog reading time is spent sifting the wheat to eliminate the chaff. Refreshing read. Thanks.
Wait, there’s no internet door? Damn.
Once again, I think the lack of original material is part of the problem. I think the bigger issue is that we perpetuate and even encourage half-assed material because we’re willing to share it, spread it, skim it and call it a day.
I think we can do better. If shortcuts are what someone values to get the clicks, fine with me, but I’m rallying the people – including me – that really want to do more than that.
Great post, Amber, and I 100% agree. It reminded me of this poetry reading by Tyler Mali. http://youtu.be/LGAMd-tT6fQ
It’s important to own your thoughts and what you associate with. Mindlessly sharing shiny things that say nothing says something about the person who shares…
All I can say is: I.love.this. I wish I’d written it. Sigh…
“When the giant flood of information threatens to make us drop our standards, lean back, and become mentally sluggish and obese, we have to snap the hell out of it.”
Love this…it completely resonates with an inner conversation I have with myself when wasting hours in the vortex of re-written, regurgitated content that I skim through ad nauseam. One of the reasons I come back to your blog time and again. Keep it up Amber:)
I come up with a lot of goofy headlines that often have little to nothing to do with the content of my post. You can call that my passive/aggressive response to the proliferation of ridiculous headlines and empty posts that I keep stumbling across.
With so many information available online, I sure do hope
that the situation allows us to be more critical, more choosy about what we perceive
as the truth. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
It makes me wonder where I fit in. Self-indulgent, I know. I do appreciate the point of view here and actually agree that there is this social need to ride the wave of influence. Occasionally I come across a post like this one and it gives me a sense of relief.
The daily struggle with popularity certainly does not help an individual with filtering the good from the bad merely through the need to “share” and maintain visibility and traffic. The but to that for me is what are you saying about your personality and persona when you follow the crowd like a lemming?
Anyway, interesting piece.
Thank goodness – it’s not just ME. Many times I think, ‘I really need to start guest writing, submitting pieces to Big Name sites b/c damn, I could write better than some of this drivel.’
Part of it is the nature of the beast as @twitter-14166981:disqus and @shannopop:disqus mentioned; the ‘publish or perish’ and ‘most clicks WIN!’ mentality, is in fact partly driven by the consumers lack of quality filters, not wanting or having the time for anything more than McNuggets. Part of it is either not knowing – or looking for – the difference. If it’s got Big Name endorsement and ‘friends’ liking and ‘gurus’ tweeting it, well then it must be good. So the ‘followers’ program everything by This Person or That RSS feed to post at will; then that fluff and filler drowns out the quality work of the unwashed, unread, unretweeted masses. I’ll admit to being lazy, not reading everything w/ a critical eye, sharing more than a few average lists, infographics. But I also try for ‘quality’ and something worth reading when I can. I read way, way more than I post (that pressure to ‘share’ as others have mentioned) and it’s b/c of this, b/c if I can I’d like to do more.. even if it’s sharing less. FWIW.
Thank you for this post, Amber. I feel like I’m swimming against the tide or not being smart because I just won’t write the ’12 steps to guaranteed success’ type of post. Like you, I know all the data on how people love to click and open these posts. But I’ve got to believe that over the long term people who share content that they really believe in will come out on top. Or at least will be respected in the morning.
I admire you and it means a lot to me that you’re taking this stand. Thanks.
A well-constructed argument over the diminished capacity for critical thinking. There is, however one point I think you’re missing as regards use of bulleted lists, # Steps to.. and other serial list-type posts.
Sometimes we simply are attracted to them because, unlike so much on the web, they’re declaring themselves to be -focused- on a specific topic. In as much as critical thinking may be at a loss sometimes, even moreso is our ability to simply stay focused. Lists address this.
Though, I’ll admit, you’re at least 90% right about ‘why’ most writers create them 😉