There was an interesting essay — Inside the Ostrich Effect: How Ignorance Has Become a Survival Strategy — in the weekend edition of Bloomberg. (It’s a gift link and should be good for a week. After that, I’m afraid you’re on your own.)
Alex Stone wrote about having “tuned out” of the regular “parade of headlines and commuted to a chorus of political podcasts, the buzz of alerts drumming through my day like a nervous heartbeat.”
He stopped the regular rush of “market updates, the climate alerts, the breaking stories that never stopped breaking.” Stone had been, as he described, reacting to burnout. He also pointed to a study from the Reuters Institute and the University of Oxford’s 2025 Digital News Report that, in passing, pointed to “growing numbers of people selectively (and in some cases consistently) avoiding the news.”
The study’s answer was to look at “the potential benefits of using new generative AI technologies to personalise [sic] content and make it feel more engaging for younger people.” Given some of the issues with generative AI, that seems more hopeful than realistic, like painting a house with structural problems and hoping it will bring in higher bids on the market.
And yet, Stone’s approach seems partly wise and partly off-base. He does reasonably point to the way social media platforms intentionally increase engagement by promoting content designed to push emotional buttons. The path of engagement to ultimately drive usage, advertising revenue, and data about users.
He also noted an academic meta-analysis in the Annals of Behavioral Medicine that found “almost 1 in 3 participants avoided or were likely to avoid information.” It’s the ostrich effect of trying to avoid danger by not looking. Although ostriches don’t bury their heads in the sand. They don’t need to. As the Encyclopedia Britannica notes: “A frightened ostrich can achieve a speed of 72.5 kilometers (45 miles) per hour. If cornered, it can deliver dangerous kicks capable of killing lions and other large predators.” Flight or fight, indeed.
I’d prefer Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy mention of the ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, which is “so mind-bogglingly stupid that it thinks that if you can’t see it, it can’t see you.” If facing one, you’re supposed to wrap a towel around your head.
However, there is a bifurcation in all this. On one hand, fear of what might happen can lead to a psychological shutdown. But the constant din of detail seems more related to a common problem in one’s financial management.
Investors are typically advised not to check their portfolios too often. In virtually any aspect of life, there are levels of variation. It’s movement that will typically have a trend line, whether up, down, level, or changing at different times.
Too much attention to the flickering differences means the investor is trying to time markets, which is a hopeless act. Some people will have success at some times and too many see them as winners. But as the statistics show, only a tiny percentage of professional money managers beat the market in any year, and the roster regularly changes.
Do you pay attention to big systemic changes? To companies that suddenly take a clear wrong turn? Of course. Otherwise, you become the sort of person who is driving toward a cliff’s edge and doesn’t bother to turn the wheel or press on the brakes.
The ostrich knows when to run and when to kick the stuffing out of a lion. Face what you need to address but don’t wring your hands over every new message or outrage. Use social media and have the judgment to turn to something else when it is harmful. Check your portfolio maybe every quarter or six months and see how things are going. Your sanity and effectiveness will benefit.