>did not translate into any noticeable self improvement

I've thought about this topic often, and I bounce around on where I stand on it (unsure if I'm just being pedantic or something).

I'm currently of the mind that infotainment like (early) ted talks, a large subset of conference talks, and all "Smarter Every Day"-like Youtube channels are overall no better than general trash entertainment. With general entertainment, you know what it is and self-limit, whereas the former present themselves as a valuable use of your time, and often make you _feel_ like your doing something "good" (I'm learning!), but the actual take away is often at best a factiod that you still couldn't even talk about in any depth.

>Life is short, enjoy your time watching movies.

That's all well, but let's don't forget the opportunity cost.

One can enjoy anything, e.g. food, but then they get to 300 lbs and they look back, and say wtf did I let this happen?

So enjoyment alone is not a safe criterion...

>I have wasted a lot of time being busy (reading non-fiction, TED talks etc) that did not translate into any noticeable self improvement or progress in my life. I have feeling a lot of people makes that mistake too.

That's a valid point though. There's even a name for it "productivity porn".

I'm being that pedantic guy now, but I think you misunderstand opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of eating food wouldn't be the negative consequences of eating food. Rather, it would be the negative consequences of not doing something else that you would have done if you hadn't been eating the food.

The easiest example is that the opportunity cost of going to university is 4 years of steady income. But students believe its worth it because the future income they'd receive instead is hopefully more than worth the opportunity cost.

>I'm being that pedantic guy now, but I think you misunderstand opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of eating food wouldn't be the negative consequences of eating food. Rather, it would be the negative consequences of not doing something else that you would have done if you hadn't been eating the food.

Thanks, I know what opportunity cost is, I just digressed when I gave the example into a "too much of a good thing" case instead of "what else you could be doing in that time" case.

> Life is short, enjoy your time watching movies. I have wasted a lot of time being busy (reading non-fiction, TED talks etc) that did not translate into any noticeable self improvement or progress in my life. I have feeling a lot of people makes that mistake too.

I'm not sure that I agree that it is a 'mistake' to read non-fiction even if it doesn't explicitly translate into self-improvement or progress. If you enjoy reading non-fiction, then why can't it be an end in itself just like watching movies can be? (I don't like TED talks, so I won't comment on those, but I would make the same argument if you do.)

I find I enjoy watching documentaries and reading technical/history/biography books often more than fiction. Because fiction is, ultimately, fake and manipulative.

Good luck out there.

I'm reading your comment as implying that fiction is more manipulative than nonfiction? If that's true, I'd be curious to hear more about your reasons for that. Don't mean that in a challenging way, this is just a topic I've been thinking about.

It's manipulative in the following ways:

1. The good guys win, the bad guys lose

2. Going along with (1) there's the morality message

3. The events in the book serve the purpose of the plot

4. Lots of books are formulaic, i.e. the author found a formula that sells.

5. There's got to be a beginning, middle, and end.

6. Many novels are written as a series of cliffhangers. Crichton would do that, as would the Outlander series, etc.

Real life is much more messy and unpredictable, hence more interesting.

The problem I have with biographies and documentaries is that they overlay order and narrative on this 'messy and unpredictable' reality. If anything, that's more manipulative than a good novel that is rooted in deep research/domain knowledge and that doesn't claim to be 'objective'.

Historical accounts are always biased, usually according to the political correctness of the time they were written. For example, the Founding Fathers went from hero to goat to hero to goat and are now morphing back to heroic status with the play "Hamilton".

Civil War heroes are goats today, even having their memorials removed.

Edison has gone from hero to goat. He'll be a hero again in a few decades.

It's the job of a professional historian to try and discern the truth from all this. But whatever truth there is in fiction is impossible to determine if you know nothing about history.

Because history and biography are never fake or manipulative?

Of course they are. The challenging part is reading different accounts of the same events, and attempting to discern the truth. For example, was Edison a good guy or a bad guy? Did he invent the lightbulb or steal it? And if you find something interesting, you can dig into it and find out more. Not so with a novel.

Fictional universes evolve into 'canon', where certain explanations are correct and others are dismissed. Star Trek, Star Wars, etc., famously have 'canon'. People get wrapped around the axle arguing canon. This is ridiculous, as it's all made up nonsense.

Good point on reading multiple viewpoints. As for fiction, there are a few writers who say true and interesting things about the world but they don't write Star Wars novels. I'd say "Disgrace" by Coetzee and "Demons" by Dostoevsky are examples.

You do realize 'fiction' is more than just Dan Brown and Star Trek, right? Some of the best novels I've read are basically historical/biographical accounts that just don't pretend they're anything but one person's biased take on things.

Instead of reading historical/biographical fiction, why not read the real thing? For example, read "Stuka Pilot" by Rudel. It's an account of fighting in WW2 that would be dismissed as ridiculous if it was a Hollywood movie, but it is all real and documented.

Another is "Reach for the Sky" by Bader. Chuck Yeager's biography is also a treat.

Then watch that absurd "Flyboys" Hollywood fiction. What a piece of trash in comparison.

I do watch Ted talks and others for fun.

I go to meetups to listen to talks for fun.

My fun is:

- something really funny ( new different angle or more complex. I actually find lots of old/pref liked comedians no longer funny) - something which is between easy and hard. A lot of stuff becomes easier and easier after a while.