[HN Gopher] Read the Obits
___________________________________________________________________
Read the Obits
Author : EA-3167
Score : 158 points
Date : 2025-04-27 16:40 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thereader.mitpress.mit.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (thereader.mitpress.mit.edu)
| gwern wrote:
| > It's not just about learning new facts, of course -- it's about
| asking questions. Why was a British mystic in Mexico City? How
| did Spanish-language television evolve in the U.S.? What led
| someone to invent PLAX or build search tools for financial news
| decades before Google? Even if you don't find all the answers,
| just posing the questions helps you flex the creative muscle that
| thrives on curiosity and connection.
|
| Maybe wait until you have at least 1 anecdote, anywhere in the
| history of the world, of major creativity from reading an
| obituary, before recommending it?
| hammock wrote:
| Huh?
|
| Obits are mini bios, but better than living bios, and more
| accessible than bestselling bios that make you think you have
| to be Rockefeller or Lincoln
| flufluflufluffy wrote:
| Goddang, it's not like they're giving medical advice or
| anything, it's simply about being exposed to novel concepts and
| ideas, which fosters creativity. You don't really need
| "evidence" for this, but even if somehow it's wrong and reading
| obituaries either somehow does not increase or decreases
| creativity, is not like there's harm in saying "Hey, try
| reading some obituaries, you might learn some interesting
| stuff"
| crazygringo wrote:
| But that's not what they're saying. They're claiming it's a
| creativity hack, not that you might learn some interesting
| stuff. That's the entire thesis of the post... which isn't
| backed up at all.
| kenjackson wrote:
| Does there exist anything related to creativity that is
| backed up with clear data? This article is as convincing as
| anything else I've ever read about increasing creativity.
| PhearTheCeal wrote:
| > Complex training courses, meditation and cultural
| exposure were most effective (gs = 0.66), while the use
| of cognitive manipulation drugs was least and also non-
| effective, g = 0.10. The type of training material was
| also important. For instance, figural methods were more
| effective in enhancing creativity, and enhancing
| converging thinking was more effective than enhancing
| divergent thinking.
|
| from https://edoc.hu-
| berlin.de/items/a8357c0b-1e41-4eff-8ad1-fe3b...
|
| reading the obits might fall under "cultural exposure".
| gwern wrote:
| There's lots of legitimate research related to creativity
| which could be discussed: the existence of the
| 'incubation effect' and sleep effects, the inefficacy of
| the popular forms of 'brainstorming' compared to the more
| painful forms that work*, the 'near adjacent', the
| 'equal-odds rule', the benefits of cognitive/ideological
| diversity (and lack of benefits of certain other kinds of
| diversity), the correlation with intelligence and
| personality traits like Openness...
|
| As opposed to OP. Which adduces _so_ little evidence for
| the claim about reading obituaries that a rando like me
| could actually write a more persuasive argument for the
| benefits of reading obituaries (because I at least wrote
| one thing tenuously inspired by reading an obituary the
| other month: https://gwern.net/traffic-lights ).
|
| Even the most shameless periodical usually tries for at
| least 3 anecdotes, no matter how dubious and strained,
| before declaring it the hot new trend or It Is Known
| fact.
|
| * One of Sawyer's research topics, as it happens.
| kenjackson wrote:
| What was the groundbreaking creative that came out of
| this?
| jerf wrote:
| I don't think anyone is asking for a double-blind study
| conducted by accredited scientists from multiple leading
| institutions on a sample of a quarter-million people
| across decades getting published on the front page of
| Science here.
|
| We, since I will gladly agree with the criticism and add
| myself to that side, are asking for _one example_ of the
| supposedly creativity-inducing action to have even
| perhaps tangentially produced some sort of creative
| insight.
|
| As an example I would submit that the simple advice of
| "take a walk/shower" has _much_ better attestation for
| prompting creativity than "read the obituaries". It
| hardly seems like a stretch to ask the author to provide
| even a single example of this achieving something.
| codingdave wrote:
| If it helps them, that seems sufficient reason to share what
| works for them. I'd say that a more kind critique would be that
| their advice could be expanded to: "Read anything" in order to
| get creativity going. But gatekeeping advice unless they can
| cite "major creativity" that came from it seems harsh.
| crazygringo wrote:
| When they claim up front that it's a "creativity hack", yes I
| expect would expect them to back it up. That's not
| gatekeeping or harsh, it's literally the one job of an
| article to back up its claim.
| almostgotcaught wrote:
| deeply ironic counsel coming from a guy that has produced reams
| and reams of unfiltered blather...
| crazygringo wrote:
| Completely agreed. It's just irresponsibly bad writing to claim
| "this can boost your creativity!" without even a _single_
| example of how it has boosted yours or someone else 's. I don't
| need a scientific study, but surely you can give at least a
| _single_ anecdotal example? Because if you can 't, you honestly
| shouldn't be writing this in the first place.
| billfruit wrote:
| I think its hardly that much of an interesting idea. Reading wide
| ofcourse is useful and interesting. But I doubt reading
| obituaries are the best way to go about that.
|
| One approach that I often do, is to go to fivebooks.com when an
| any random subject or topic strikes me and then try to read the
| books their interviewees have recommended on that topic. I have
| found many interesting books in this way.
|
| Like their lists about the Spanish Civil war lead me to 'Forging
| of a Rebel' by Arturo Barea.
|
| Another source is to look into famous/interesting peoples reading
| lists. Many famous people including Gandhi, Tolstoy and others
| kept lists of all books that they read.
| kristianp wrote:
| What a great website fivebooks is! But as you say, you need to
| make an effort to find something different on there. A
| randomiser might be good there.
| androng wrote:
| i like this advice. when trying to come up with new characters
| for fiction its very difficult to come up with something you
| don't already know but with this you have real people with their
| entire life story summarized for free.
| Animats wrote:
| There are biographies, of course.
|
| One striking thing about reading biographies is that real
| people are seldom "chosen ones". That's a literature and movie
| trope.
| badmonster wrote:
| such a simple, beautiful hack - using life stories from
| unexpected places to stretch your mind and spark creative leaps
| you'd never plan for.
| constantinum wrote:
| There is an excellent documentary on behind-the-scenes workings
| of the obituary editorial team at NYT.
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BgpMNerK9cU&pp=ygURT2JpdHMgZG9...
| jawns wrote:
| There is a real danger that obituaries of people in the early
| 21st century will become inaccessible to future generations due
| to obituary rot:
|
| https://shaungallagher.pressbin.com/blog/obituary-rot.html
|
| > An unfortunate side effect of this move to digital-only obits
| will likely only become apparent a few decades from now, and it
| will likely frustrate the next few generations of genealogists
| hunting for records of early 21st century ancestors.
|
| > Print newspapers were well suited for both the distribution and
| preservation of obituaries. Distribution isn't a problem for
| digital obituaries, and in many ways the web is better than print
| in this respect. But when it comes to preservation, there are
| many factors that make digital obits in their current state
| particularly susceptible to rot.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Obits should intentionally be committed to the Internet Archive
| for longevity and preservation, but I digress.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| The Internet Archive is massive force for good and a huge
| not-for profit effort.
|
| However in certain aspects of preservation of History (for
| example if deemed high value at a national level) we should
| also expect national archives to duplicate the effort to
| preserve this and other information with historic value.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I wonder how much would such national digital archives
| resist rewriting of history.
|
| It is much harder to doctor hard copies of newspapers or
| books. You can burn them, but altering them is a
| complicated challenge, and someone may own another copy of
| the originals.
|
| With digital records, the temptation is stronger because
| the editing is easier, and other "unofficial" copies that
| diverge from the officially archived version may be
| declared to be fake/misinformation etc.
| akoboldfrying wrote:
| Timestamping services that use digital signatures solve
| this, basically.
| immibis wrote:
| The Internet Archive is constantly under attack for daring to
| preserve pressure waves. One of these days the destruction
| will be successful. Probably right now, under a Republican
| landslide government.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| It wasn't a landslide by any definition except the Trump
| campaign's; Trump won by an extremely narrow margin. It's
| important to be accurate about this to try to preempt
| despair.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Trump won by an extremely narrow margin in _the popular
| vote_ , but by a high margin _in the electoral college_ ,
| which was the real prize fought over by the two
| candidates. He took all seven swing states.
|
| IDK if this counts as landslide in the American sense. I
| mostly heard that expression used for results of European
| elections.
|
| Edit: instant downvote, didn't even take a minute from
| the original posting! Wow.
|
| Sheesh, people, don't be so sensitive about political
| topics. The fact that Trump got 312 electoral votes to
| Harris' 226 is just that, a fact. It does not reflect any
| subjective attitudes or preferences of anyone taking part
| in this discussion, wisdom or idiocy of current White
| House policies etc.
| nothrabannosir wrote:
| _> Sheesh, people, don 't be so sensitive about political
| topics._
|
| However, I _am_ sensitive about shoe-horning political
| talking points into a conversation.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Did I do that? Not knowingly; my main intent was to
| reflect on what "landslide" may mean in various
| perspectives.
|
| Personally, I am more to the right than to the left, but
| I don't enjoy the clusterfuck of the current
| administration at all, doubly so because our local
| security (a small NATO member which used to be subjugated
| to Moscow) has been thrown into total uncertainty.
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| Even the popular vote was the biggest landslide in ...
| the last 8 elections I think?
| rdtsc wrote:
| > Trump won by an extremely narrow margin
|
| It was 312 vs 226 votes, including seven swing states,
| and got the popular vote. I guess to make ourselves feel
| we'll just say an extremely thin margin. But as long as
| it's with a nod and wink; kind of like saying that
| alligators also fly, just extremely, extremely low.
| dleeftink wrote:
| There's a danger, but also a natural way of things. Why should
| we default to records being accessible in perpetuity?
|
| Mind I can get behind the genealogy argument, yet feel that our
| post-life records being accessible by default is not an
| assumption we can make unilaterally.
| globnomulous wrote:
| > Why should we default to records being accessible in
| perpetuity?
|
| The historical record is important and we don't know what
| will be useful to future generations.
|
| Take Carlo Ginzburg's _The Cheese and the Worms_ as an
| example. It briefly recounts the multiple legal proceedings
| that the Roman Catholic Church brought against a humble
| Italian Renaissance-era miller who spread strange, heretical
| ideas about the cosmos (involving the cheese that was
| apparently the moon 's substance and the worms that ate it).
| Ginzburg draws on Church records, including the man's own
| written defense, and builds a fascinating picture of his
| mental world, intellect, and disposition.
|
| If I remember correctly, these small, cloudy windows into the
| Early Modern past even let Ginzburg identify likely traces of
| pre-Christian, or folk, traditions largely hidden from the
| written record.
|
| This is a funny example, I suppose, because in all likelihood
| the miller would have been tickled to know that his ideas
| survived and found an audience not just despite but because
| of Church persecution.
|
| Still, his case nicely illustrates the importance and
| unpredictable value of the historical record.
| speckx wrote:
| When my mother-in-law died, I immediately registered a domain
| for her name and created a website and added the obituary,
| eulogy, and a photo gallery and shared that with friends and
| family for exactly this reason.
| hdjrudni wrote:
| That's cool, but doesn't it have the same problem? When you
| die or decide to stop paying, the website dies too.
| nightfly wrote:
| Archive.org
| bombcar wrote:
| People are going to be _surprised Pikachu_ when that goes
| down, either from poking the law bear or just because
| everything dies eventually.
| Jaygles wrote:
| Companies that aggregate and sell data suck up all of the
| obituaries as they are public record and unburdened by
| regulations on sharing and selling it. Although it may not be
| in its original form (as far as I know), info from obituaries
| may actually be positioned to survive a very long time.
| hackable_sand wrote:
| That is okay. People deserve the right to die.
| 6502nerdface wrote:
| But not the right to be forgotten.
| hackable_sand wrote:
| Wdym
| detourdog wrote:
| What we have already lost is the process of reading the
| newspapers that birthed the obituary.
|
| Newspaper's used to have strong local coverage and a collection
| of vignettes into the outside world. The way the author uses
| the obituaries is the way I used to use the newspapers. Getting
| multiple newspapers (and magazines) from all over the world was
| a fixture for New York City creative offices pre-internet.
| titaphraz wrote:
| It's really hard to find stuff from the "old internet" on
| google. I know it's there. But instead it feeds me garbage
| marketing articles that just touch the surface and then try to
| sell me something.
| lubujackson wrote:
| I suggest trying Yandex, no joke. It feels like 2005 Google -
| no industry forced filtering or rerouting, no BS recipe sites
| boosted by SEO and "time on page" manipulation...
| smartmic wrote:
| I think the idea from the original article is great! But
| although I'm a fan of printed newspapers and even subscribe to
| a renowned one, I unfortunately can't take part in it, simply
| because in my cultural circle (Germany) there are no detailed
| obituaries of ordinary people in the newspaper, only death
| notices. But that's always been the case here - at least that's
| how I know it.
| jayknight wrote:
| When in doing genealogy, I tend to save obituaries in
| archive.org and archive.ph and sometimes paste the content into
| the wikitree profile.
|
| None of those are guaranteed to be around in 50 years, but
| hopefully it helps a little.
| Wistar wrote:
| I have a lifelong friend who is a very successful investor and
| who has been habitually reading obits since his high school days.
| I recall his explaining that obits served as an opportunity
| radar.
| djeastm wrote:
| Can you elaborate on how? Besides the obvious of seeking out a
| bereaved family member and purchasing their home/belongings on
| the cheap, of course
| eru wrote:
| You can also look for companies with leadership transition.
| bix6 wrote:
| Related, new era obits and celebrations (I am affiliated):
| https://www.chptr.com/
|
| My father unexpectedly passed away a few years ago so this stuff
| is especially close to my heart.
|
| I've learned a lot from lives of others so think this is
| wonderful advice for finding gems and remembering the normal
| goodness that exists in this world.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> one popular piece of advice for boosting creativity is to
| learn something new every day. But here's the catch: This only
| works if that new information is very different from what's
| already in your head._
|
| This is a good distinction.
|
| I make it a point to hang with folks from _vastly_ different
| backgrounds from me.
|
| I can get some _very_ good (and bad) ideas from them.
| qubex wrote:
| An old Russian joke:
|
| A guy keeps going to the newsagent: he scans the headlines and
| then leaves.
|
| The newsagent sees him do this a few days in a row and finds it
| to be strange behaviour, so one day he asks him:
|
| "Comrade, what are you doing? Can I help you?"
|
| "Thank you comrade, but I'm only interested in the obituaries."
|
| "But comrade, the obituaries are at the back!"
|
| "Not the ones I am looking for, comrade!"
| pavlov wrote:
| This joke has its origins in the days when Soviet leadership
| was a series of men in their seventies who kept dying on the
| job.
|
| It has acquired a certain acuity in today's America where the
| leaders are a series of unpopular men approaching their
| eighties.
|
| There is a widespread "Is He Dead Yet?" meme that's the
| contemporary direct equivalent of the Soviet joke.
| piyh wrote:
| All I ask for are leaders born in the 1950s
| ghaff wrote:
| The Economist obits are especially worth reading.
| dcminter wrote:
| I think this is my favourite:
|
| https://www.economist.com/obituary/2009/08/13/benson
|
| https://archive.ph/9tM1P
| ycombinatrix wrote:
| damn, can't believe i outlived Benson
| DangerousPie wrote:
| They are also available as part of their excellent (and free)
| The Intelligence podcast. Always worth a listen.
| Triphibian wrote:
| The obituary they run in the back of The Economist is an
| excellent place to start.
| chairmansteve wrote:
| A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
| opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its
| opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is
| familiar with it ...
|
| Max Planck
| kayo_20211030 wrote:
| I like obits as much as the next person, maybe more. But the
| premise of the piece very much depends on a particular definition
| of creativity; and then tries, and fails, to extend it to reading
| obits. If it's defined as something novel, then a priori it can't
| be obvious and therefore is likely to be an association between
| distant concepts - a statement of the obvious. Mednick might be
| right; but an extrapolation to obits, as in the original piece,
| is unjustified, and definitely unproven. Velcro wasn't invented
| because someone read an obit; it's good, impressive, but just
| regular creativity. Gentner posits an obvious truism, but its
| relationship to obits is tenuous at best, again unjustified, and
| just probably wrong.
|
| The whole piece would be begging the question were there a
| question. It's a statement of faith.
| pnw wrote:
| Interestingly the second person listed has their own Wikipedia
| page.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Garfinkle
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-27 23:00 UTC)