Why a Vox Advice Column Says Skipping Information Can Be Healthy

In a recent edition of Vox's Your Mileage May Vary advice column, science journalist Shayla Love, filling in for regular host Sigal Samuel, tackles a reader's confession of information overload: tracking apps for steps, calories and screen time, plus an urge to follow political betting odds in states where they don't even live. The reader asks whether there is such a thing as knowing too much — and whether choosing to know less could actually be healthier.

Love argues that “ignorance is bliss” is not just a saying. Drawing on the work of psychologist Ralph Hertwig and lawyer Christoph Engel of the Max Planck Institute in Berlin, she points to the opening of East Germany's Stasi archives in the early 1990s. Many former GDR residents, faced with the possibility that friends, family or lovers had been spying on them, chose not to read their files; Hertwig and Engel estimated that potentially more people opted not to know than those who did.

The column frames this as “deliberate ignorance”: a conscious decision to avoid information that would unsettle you without offering practical benefit. The advice that follows is pragmatic — let yourself skip trivia that only feeds anxiety, but don't replace it with emptiness. Instead, redirect attention toward deeper knowledge: a neglected hobby, a nonfiction book, or a long conversation with someone you know well.

What Deliberate Ignorance Research Actually Shows

The Psychology of Choosing Not to Know

Love's central claim is that people routinely manage their emotions by filtering information. Avoidance shows up in everyday acts: skipping bank statements, staying away from the doctor, or covering ears at spoilers. It also appears in weightier cases — James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, asked that his ApoE4 gene status, which can signal elevated Alzheimer's risk, be excluded when his genome was sequenced.

Advertisement

Evidence, Not Just Anecdote

The column leans on established research to make its case. Blind auditions, in which musicians are heard without being seen, increased the number of women accepted into orchestras — an example of structured ignorance protecting against bias. Meanwhile, roughly 10 percent of people who got tested for HIV in one cited instance did not return for their results, a reminder that deliberate ignorance has real limits when it puts health at risk.

Why Infosnacking Is So Tempting

Love describes the modern habit of grazing on low-value updates using terms like “information foraging” and “infosnacking.” Her interpretation is that this superficial consumption can be a form of emotional avoidance: suddenly a distant Senate race becomes more interesting than a difficult but important task. That framing is advice rather than proven science, but it offers a useful lens for readers who feel overwhelmed by data.

Note: The reported examples — the Stasi archives, Watson's ApoE4 request and blind auditions — are presented as factual, while the emotional-regulation argument is the columnist's interpretive advice.

How to Put Deliberate Ignorance Into Practice

For readers who recognise themselves in the column, the practical takeaway is to treat information as something you can choose, not an obligation.

  • Pause before consuming: Before clicking a tracking metric, headline or betting-odds page, ask how the information will change your behavior. If it won't, it may be safe to skip.
  • Run an information audit: Pick one or two trackers — step count, screen minutes or calorie logging — and turn them off for a week. Notice whether your sense of your body and time changes.
  • Trade trivia for depth: Replace an hour of scrolling with a book, a new question for a close friend, or a conversation with an older relative. These are the “nutrient-dense” sources the column recommends.
  • Keep the non-negotiables: Deliberate ignorance is not a reason to skip bank statements, medical tests or other information with real consequences for your finances or health.