If you just believe their conclusions, or the conclusions of people you know who are digesting it all, with high confidence, you don’t need to watch (or listen, or skim written formats).
If you believe that everyone there is a total fraud and that only Trump will tell it to you straight, you don’t need to watch either. But you do probably need to reduce your media intake and do some serious self-reflection.
If you’re not sure whether to believe them but you don’t care to reduce your uncertainty, you don’t need to watch. I would opine that if you’re materially unsure about whether Trump was a bad actor or not (“not” ranging from him actually being right to him being self-deluded), it’s probably worth an hour or so to at least get a little more info.
If none of the above apply, maybe check it out until you feel more satisfied.
Personally, I’ve heard a random sample of about 45 minutes of the Jan 6th committee, and was pleasantly surprised by the meaningfulness to meaninglessness ratio.
I’m not sure that listening-to/watching the hearings themselves, in this or other cases, would be of sufficient ‘info profit’ to me to justify not just ‘triangulating’ on the info/evidence I pickup thru my ‘secondary sources’.
I would have been surprised had the ‘primary sources’ NOT seemed meaningful! I think they’re optimizing for meaningfulness! But I think the means by which they’re doing that is crafting a Narrative, which I do distrust. (I expect reality to be generally much messier than a relatively simple story, especially any Morality Play.)
I think a big part of my judging the ‘primary source material’ not being of sufficient ‘info profit’ (for me) is that there’s so much of it. It also doesn’t seem like the kind of info that can be easily, and ‘representatively’, ‘sampled’. I’m sure I’d learn of lots of (supposed) details were I to listen to “a random sample of about 45 minutes” of something like this. But I wouldn’t expect to be able update my beliefs in the right (true) direction. But maybe that wouldn’t matter if I was also still ‘triangulating’ overall.
I’m definitely open to some info from ‘secondary sources’ about this kind of thing. I’ve already revised my beliefs a good bit from that kind of thing.
If you just believe their conclusions, or the conclusions of people you know who are digesting it all, with high confidence, you don’t need to watch (or listen, or skim written formats).
If you believe that everyone there is a total fraud and that only Trump will tell it to you straight, you don’t need to watch either. But you do probably need to reduce your media intake and do some serious self-reflection.
If you’re not sure whether to believe them but you don’t care to reduce your uncertainty, you don’t need to watch. I would opine that if you’re materially unsure about whether Trump was a bad actor or not (“not” ranging from him actually being right to him being self-deluded), it’s probably worth an hour or so to at least get a little more info.
If none of the above apply, maybe check it out until you feel more satisfied.
Personally, I’ve heard a random sample of about 45 minutes of the Jan 6th committee, and was pleasantly surprised by the meaningfulness to meaninglessness ratio.
This seems like sensible ‘meta advice’; thanks!
I’m not sure that listening-to/watching the hearings themselves, in this or other cases, would be of sufficient ‘info profit’ to me to justify not just ‘triangulating’ on the info/evidence I pickup thru my ‘secondary sources’.
I would have been surprised had the ‘primary sources’ NOT seemed meaningful! I think they’re optimizing for meaningfulness! But I think the means by which they’re doing that is crafting a Narrative, which I do distrust. (I expect reality to be generally much messier than a relatively simple story, especially any Morality Play.)
I think a big part of my judging the ‘primary source material’ not being of sufficient ‘info profit’ (for me) is that there’s so much of it. It also doesn’t seem like the kind of info that can be easily, and ‘representatively’, ‘sampled’. I’m sure I’d learn of lots of (supposed) details were I to listen to “a random sample of about 45 minutes” of something like this. But I wouldn’t expect to be able update my beliefs in the right (true) direction. But maybe that wouldn’t matter if I was also still ‘triangulating’ overall.
I’m definitely open to some info from ‘secondary sources’ about this kind of thing. I’ve already revised my beliefs a good bit from that kind of thing.