Everybody knows you shouldn’t only eat what you like.

Whatever it is that you like best, a varied diet is better for you than just that thing, however healthy it may be.

Some of the necessary things seem pointless or borderline harmful. Roughage, for example, goes right through you and you get nothing from it. There is strong evidence that some things that are mildly toxic prime your body in useful ways, not to mention that some elements that would be poisonous in large doses are vital in trace quantities.

I’m not talking about food, this is about information

Every time some “issue” sweeps social media, you can see people celebrating how many people they’ve identified with the wrong views, and been able to remove from their circle.

Others, stressed by world events, swear off any kind of news reporting.

This is how we can be more inter-connected than at any previous time in human history, and at the same time as divided as ever. It’s unhealthy to have an information diet without all the food groups.

It shouldn’t be about whether you like it.

When deciding what information I give space to, I think about nutrition.

After all, a balanced food diet doesn’t mean that when I’ve eaten plenty of vegetables I should go looking for hydrogenated fats and corn syrup for balance, let alone, say, deadly nightshade. So I don’t look for flat-earthers to counter my science interests.

Information is nutritious when it’s useful in some way, even non-obviously.

It can help me directly. It can make me think in ways I otherwise wouldn’t have thought. It may even just tell me how other people are thinking even though I’m convinced they’re wrong. If an idea is commonplace and I don’t understand the people who entertain it, at some point that may be a problem.

That means being deliberate and discriminating, but NOT judging by how much I agree with somebody or something.

It also means actively making space in my life for people and things I outright disagree with, because just as with food, we tend to find we naturally get plenty of the things that are to our taste without trying.

So how to judge?

I do seek out disagreeable people. I’m serious. In a way.

Before social media was a thing, I used to subscribe to a lot of news and magazines, and had a rule – if a publication had a clear editorial line on something where reasonable people can differ, I would also subscribe to something contrasting. For example (these are obviously UK examples), The Times and The Guardian, The Economist and Prospect.

These days I do more of it via my RSS news feed and people on social media, but the same applies.

The stance must be considered reasonable – not by my judgement, necessarily, it could simply have wide support. It must also be well-advocated – either well-argued (by my judgement) or at least very representative. And if there is a contrasting stance also fitting the same criteria, I need to find an example of that too.

These are the people I most value:

  • They know what they think, and they will say so.

  • They express themselves well (enough, anyway) so that I and others can understand their perspective.

  • They are not abusive to those who think differently, nor do they shut them out.

When I find people like this, especially if they disagree with me about things that I think are important, I cultivate them. I keep their writing in my feed if it’s available, and I make sure I converse with them if they’re on social media so they stay around.

It isn’t always easy, especially on social media, partly because there are some strains of thought that make their holders fundamentally disagree even with my approach. And there are others who have important views that I find abhorrent.

That means treading a careful line, sometimes. It means I’m not as forthright about what I think, always, because I value hearing others’ views more than I want to propagate my own – information is key, not image. I don’t want some people who have views I need to know about to cut me off. It means I don’t engage with some things, while making sure I continue to see them, because I don’t want to be seen to support them.

This is all more important than being right

None of us is as right as all of us. I firmly believe in the wisdom of crowds.

But for that to work, different ideas and different perspectives must be allowed to mix.

It’s no good being completely and justifiably right if I cut myself off from all the people who are wrong. They’ll be left thinking the same – that they’re right – none of us will learn anything, and at some point our ignorance of each other will break out in actual harm.

And …

Some of my favourite people think things very different to me. We don’t all have to be right about everything. Disagreeable people are great if they disagree agreeably.

We should practice that, because it needs practice and pays off.