How To Improve Your Information Diet

Like any diet, it's about choosing what not to consume

Before I get to a reader question this week, I want to share a short excerpt from Inside the Box that I think is relevant.

It’s about a cutting-edge genomics lab that was trying to do so many things at once that work became chaotic and technicians actually started losing track of samples. Not good. The solution came when the team decided to make all of their current commitments visible, and it led to an obvious conclusion:

“They generated a list of every single ongoing project, and then—on a wall in the office—made a diagram of their development ‘funnel.’ Every ongoing project had a Post‑it on the funnel indicating its current stage of development. The funnel diagram relayed two obvious lessons: Nobody knew everything that was going on—which meant some projects were redundant—and there were at least twice as many projects underway as the team could deal with, even in a best‑case scenario.

The development team met at their funnel wall weekly, keeping track of project progress (a pink Post‑it meant that some projected timeline was missed) and canceling lower‑priority work. As part of the new system, a ‘hopper’ was added before the funnel, which held ideas that could move into the funnel only when space opened up. In two years, the team cut the number of ongoing projects by more than half, which increased the number of projects that actually got done.”

During my research for Inside the Box, I found repeatedly that the simple act of making all current commitments visible is remarkably effective at sparking change and clarifying priorities. Pretty much every individual or team that does this realizes they are overcommitted and should take something away to focus on the important stuff. It seems simple, but humans are hardwired to overlook solutions that involve taking away. There’s actually a name for it: “subtraction neglect” bias.

Which brings me to this week’s reader question, courtesy of David Robinson:

“I struggle with how to impose sensible constraints on how much content (newsletters, podcasts, non-fiction books, subscription feeds, etc.) I follow and regularly consume. I’m quite curious and could spend all day absorbing new insights. If you have some ideas on how to impose intelligent constraints in this mode of consumption I’d be quite grateful!”

I’ve struggled with this exact issue. A useful constraint, I think, comes from deciding what not to consume. I’ve tried two helpful things in the last year. First, I did the genomics-lab thing. I made a list of all the sources of information I regularly intended to consume, and the other things I intended to do in a day, and immediately realized it wouldn’t all fit. I then asked myself, if I had no choice but to cut this information-consumption list in half, what would go?

And then I cut it in half. Naturally, as I found new interesting sources, the list grew again. So I did it again, and again. At one point, I decided to go a week without consuming anything topical — no new articles or podcasts. At the end of the week, I only brought back the sources I missed. That was a pretty helpful exercise for cutting back and thinking about the sources I really value. That’s one of the things that useful constraints do: they force you to clarify priorities.

With your information diet, the whole goal is to be intentional about what you’re consuming, and — just as importantly — not consuming, so that your attention is being structured by you rather than by never-ending algorithmic feeds. If you’re feeling overloaded, try the genomics lab approach: make a list of every source you intend to regularly consume. Just the act of making the list will probably be revealing. Then ask yourself what you’d cut if you had no choice but to take away one source, or even to cut the list in half. A couple of questions that might help: Which of these do I read out of genuine curiosity, and which out of a vague sense of obligation? Which ones have actually changed how I think or act? And then actually make cuts. If something new earns a spot later, something else has to leave the funnel.

Don’t beat yourself up if the list builds back up. You can just do your subtraction audit regularly. And a final tip that I’ve found helpful: the headlines of most feature articles appeal to me. They often make me feel like I simply must know whatever’s in the article or I’ll go through life ill-informed. But, much of the time, after I read the article, I don’t feel like it was time well spent. So instead of reading an article right away, I bookmark them in a dedicated folder. If hours later, or the next day, I’m still yearning to read the article, I read it. But most of the time the bookmarking makes me feel ok to move on and I never come back to it. I found this constraint — don’t read it right away — to be very helpful. It mostly led me to stop reading articles that portrayed a sense of urgency that wasn’t actually real.

I replaced some of that reading time with older, slower things. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote to John Adams: “I have given up newspapers in exchange for Tacitus and Thucydides, for Newton and Euclid, and I find myself much the happier.”

Thank you for reading. If you like my newsletter, I think you’ll love my new book. If you order from any U.S. retailer between now and publication day (May 5), you’ll get access to a set of exclusive Q&As I did with leaders in their fields talking about how constraints shaped their work and lives. The form for the preorder bonus is here, as are links to various retailers.

If you appreciated this newsletter, please share it:

If a friend sent this to you, you can subscribe here:

Until next week…

David