[orbital-decay]

> Essentially, he noted how computers gave people tools to produce and consume more information, but not the tools to discern, filter and analyze it more effectively. It's a profound and very important observation.

Is it, really? There's a myriad of analytic tools for every imaginable domain, and even more domain-independent ones. You just need to be skilled enough to use them properly; not because the tools are bad, but because the analysis itself is hard, and even a seemingly simple problem usually needs abstract thinking and domain knowledge.

[bmurphy1976]

The information is coming at you regardless of your expertise. Those who don't have the expertise are at a distinct disadvantage to those who do. The tools may be good in the technical sense, but in the do they help normal people out sense they often are not. I would call that a bad situation, one we need to find creative and effective ways to remedy.

[orbital-decay]

That's just... a fundamental limitation? I don't think there's a way for an unskilled ("normal") person to dissect and analyze the information outside of their understanding in a meaningful way, no matter how creative you get.

[simonh]

I think that's the point. It's not anybody's fault and it's not that anyone is doing anything wrong, it's just a problem we need to take into account and try to mitigate.

[gambler]

>That's just... a fundamental limitation? I don't think there's a way for an unskilled ("normal") person to dissect and analyze the information outside of their understanding in a meaningful way, no matter how creative you get.

This is discussed in depth in Augmenting Human Intellect:

http://dougengelbart.org/content/view/138/000/