Four Questions That Decide What Deserves My Time (And Why You Need a System Too)

I will admit it.

I have wasted too much time on social media.

If that were the worst part, it would be great. That time loss was accompanied by anger, anxiety, depression, and pessimism.

Who was it that said social media was uplifting? No one!

To be clear, I am not talking about social media as entertainment. There’s some amusing and educational stuff out there. But they are overwhelmed by political opinions, debates, and interpretations of news or events aimed at driving emotional attachment to one side or the other on every issue imaginable.

Here’s what I finally realized: My time is my most valuable asset, and I needed a better way to limit the waste. I was drowning in information, but really interested in wisdom and impact.

Every day, thousands of messages, news alerts, social media posts, and opinions demanded my attention. Most of it made me feel worse without making me smarter or more effective.

That’s when I turned to ancient philosophy and modified it for relevance to our modern nightmare.

Lost time is never found again

Benjamin Franklin

The Wake-Up Call

The research is brutal.

People suffering from severely problematic news consumption, and that’s 16.5% of us, exhibit significantly greater levels of mental and physical illness. [1]

A quarter of Americans now experience politically-focused intrusive thoughts and ritualistic behaviors more than once daily, showing symptoms comparable to obsessive-compulsive disorder. [2][3]

Read that again. Political obsession has become a measurable behavioral disorder.

I noticed this in myself first, then in people I cared about. We’d conflate “urgent” with “important,” spending hours on breaking news that would be forgotten by Friday while ignoring decisions that would affect our children’s education for years. I watched relationships deteriorate over political disagreements that changed exactly zero minds.

Social media algorithms exploit this weakness deliberately.

Research confirms that engagement-based ranking algorithms amplify emotionally charged, out-group hostile content. That is, content that users themselves report makes them feel worse about their political adversaries. [4][5]

The platforms profit from our agitation. We pay the price in stress, damaged relationships, and wasted time. [6][7]

I needed a framework. Something simple enough to use in real-time but sophisticated enough to handle modern information warfare.

Why I Extended Three Powerful Filters With a Fourth

I started with three filters generally attributed as used by Socrates before sharing information: Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?

For accuracy, I must tell you that there are no records of these filters in Plato’s writings, where we find Socratic Dialogues. It is more likely that these filters came from Buddha, who lived and died about the same time as Socrates.

“In the same way, prince, the Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be untrue, false, and pointless, and which is disliked by others. The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be true and correct, but which is harmful and disliked by others. The Realized One knows the right time to speak so as to explain what he knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is disliked by others. For the phrase “speak so as to explain” (vācāya veyyākaraṇāya) I follow the commentary. The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be untrue, false, and pointless, but which is liked by others. The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be true and correct, but which is , even if it is liked by others. The Realized One knows the right time to speak so as to explain what he knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is liked by others. Why is that? Because the Realized One has sympathy for sentient beings.”

Buddha – Middle Discourses MN 58 [13]

Regardless of their ultimate source, I have always been attracted to them. These questions served humanity well for 2,400 years. They’re elegant, memorable, and powerful.

But they’re incomplete for 2025.

Here’s why I dared to modify the work of history’s greatest philosophers: Socrates, or Buddha, didn’t have social media, 24-hour news cycles, or algorithms designed to hijack his attention. There were a lot fewer books or news sources. More importantly, the number of people who could debate with them was limited and never anonymous. Their information environment moved at the speed of conversation in the agora or a monastery. Mine moves at the speed of fiber-optic cable, optimized by machine learning to exploit my psychological vulnerabilities.

The classical three filters couldn’t answer my questions: Nuclear war is true, discussing it might be kind, and you could argue it’s necessary, but does my 27th tweet about nuclear policy matter? Climate change is important, but does arguing with a stranger or my friend on Facebook create any impact whatsoever?

I needed a fourth filter that could handle the gap between what matters to the world and what I can actually influence. That’s when I landed on my consequentiality filter, which operates on two crucial dimensions that most people miss.

My Modified Four-Filter Framework

Filter 1: Is It True?

Before I consume or share information, I demand evidence.

Not “someone said” or “I heard that” or “in my opinion,” but actual, verifiable facts.

This filter is the most effective at eliminating waste. It alone eliminates roughly 75% of social media content from my life.

Ignoring opinion pieces automatically eliminates the vast majority. And it’s easy. No verifiable facts, no source? No go.

For years, I accepted information because it came from a credible source. I have learned that truth doesn’t care about opinions; it depends on facts and rigorous analysis.

The credibility of the source is not sufficient proof of rigor or truth:

• The BBC and the New York Times regularly go along with biased opinion-influencing articles. [9] Are other nationally funded news organizations immune to influence?
• Every credible news source supported the WMD story, which was sold to the United Nations by one of my childhood heroes, Colin Powell. [10][11]
• My work found that Federal Reserve researchers misinterpreted the results of their college wage premium research to imply that college degrees were lower risk than they actually are. [12]

When I see a shocking headline that piques my interest, I skim and discard those that are clearly opinions. For others, I will check for data and the source. It doesn’t deserve my attention if I can’t find primary evidence and thoughtful methodology. The rest go on for further consideration.

Filter 2: Is It Kind?

This doesn’t mean everything must be pleasant or agreeable. This means that information should be constructive rather than destructive. Does engaging with this content make people better, or does it just make them angrier?

Aristotle introduced us to his three methods of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos relies on credibility, pathos is an emotional story, and logos requires logic and reasoning.

• How can I argue with the Federal Reserve when they have more economic researchers and win on Ethos?
• Emotional stories are great at making the subject personal. However, they are rarely statistically significant. The actions usually recommended do not reflect a thorough assessment or root cause analysis and are mostly intended to drive knee-jerk policy decision-making.
• I am an analytical wonk, so Logos, rigorous analysis, and logic have always resonated with me.

My mistake was confusing “logic and facts” with constructive feedback or dialogue. Someone venting emotionally, especially with a pathos storyline, is not looking for logic or facts. Telling someone that airplanes are the safest transportation method is not helpful when that person is discussing a fatal accident.

How do I apply it now? I will avoid sharing sarcasm, that devastating takedown, or a snarky meme. Further, before I share facts or craft an insightful Socratic take, I ask myself: Does this build understanding or just score points? If it’s point-scoring, I skip it.

Filter 3: Is It Necessary?

Does this information serve a useful purpose? Does it help us make better decisions, understand the world more clearly, or take meaningful action? Or is it just noise?

It stops you from spreading details that add no value, even if they’re true and kind. Think of it as the gatekeeper that demands relevance.

It’s easy to believe that engagement is useful, but pointless chatter wastes time and energy.

When I feel compelled to read another article or thread, I ask: “Will this change what I know or what I do? Does my reaction or engagement serve a real purpose or solve a problem?” If not, I skip it.

Filter 4: Is It Consequential? (My Addition)

This is the filter I added, and it changed everything for me. It has two parts that must both be satisfied:

Issue Consequentiality Scale: How important or impactful is it to the world?

• Individual: Affects only me or a few people
• Community: Impacts my town, workplace, or social circle
• Civilizational: Affects nations or global systems
• Existential: Could determine humanity’s survival

Engagement Consequentiality: Will my personal involvement create meaningful change?

This distinction saved my sanity. I can acknowledge that climate change is consequential while recognizing that arguing with strangers on Facebook about it has zero engagement consequentiality. Both things are simultaneously true.

The Consequentiality Matrix: Where I Focus My Energy

Understanding where topics fall in this matrix transformed my information consumption:

High Issue + High Engagement Consequentiality

These are my sweet spots now. Localized challenges seem dull compared to national politics, but I can influence them. This is especially valuable when the lessons learned apply at the national scale. My work on illuminating the value of college degrees, or with the Baruch College Fund to increase social mobility, matters infinitely more than going to X (formerly Twitter) and debating US party politics.

My strategy: I invest deeply here. I show up, speak up, and organize. This is where I can create actual change.

High Issue + Low Engagement Consequentiality

Nuclear war is extraordinarily consequential, but my hot take on nuclear policy won’t change the situation. Climate change may be existential, but arguing with strangers online about it is performance, not action.

My strategy: I stay informed at a high level and financially support effective organizations, but I don’t let these topics dominate my emotional bandwidth. I had to learn this the hard way.

Low Issue + High Engagement Consequentiality

Office politics might seem trivial on the civilizational scale, but improving workplace culture has a real impact. The challenges in my neighborhood might not make headlines, but they matter to the actual people I may be able to influence.

My strategy: I engage thoughtfully here. Small-scale impact is still impact, often more meaningful than performative engagement with national issues.

Low Issue + Low Engagement Consequentiality

This quadrant includes celebrity drama, distant political scandals I can’t influence, and rage-bait designed to get clicks. It exists solely to monetize my attention.

Why should I care who is selected to be the next Super Bowl halftime entertainment? It’s not essential or consequential. I don’t have a vote, and my opinion does not move the needle.

My strategy: I ruthlessly eliminate these topics from my life. No exceptions, no guilty pleasures. My attention is too valuable.

How I Actually Use This Daily

My Information Diet

I start each day by deciding which quadrant deserves my attention, not what’s trending on social media, but what matters based on actual consequentiality as measured by my framework.

My scrolling has a purpose. I am scanning to eliminate what fails my filters. These are not gates that must be passed in a specific order or a logical sequence; they are knockout factors. Any filter that fails results in a pass.

Few items make it through my filters. I will spend more time digging into fact-checking, analysis, and, in some cases, writing a rebuttal on those. Only after I have done my fact-checking and analysis will I meaningfully engage. It gets easier if it’s an area I have explored rigorously recently.

This process may sound complicated and time-consuming. It isn’t. My filtering is almost automatic now as I err on the side of discarding rather than engagement.

I set specific boundaries: I check the news twice daily rather than constantly. I’ve unfollowed or muted accounts that consistently fail the four filters, regardless of “credibility” or “influence”. I choose depth over breadth; that is, one thorough analysis instead of 50 hot takes.

This wasn’t easy at first. I felt like I was missing out. I worried I’d become uninformed. The opposite happened.

Handling Politically Obsessed Friends and Family

I discovered a counterintuitive truth: The most politically engaged people often have the least political impact. They conflate ideology with truth and replace actual organizing with performative outrage.

When a colleague raises politics at a work reception, I have options beyond argument or agreement. I say something like:

“I’ve been trying to focus on issues where I can make a real difference. What’s something you think we can impact that needs attention?”

This redirects energy from performative national politics toward consequential action. Most people secretly want this redirect; they’re trapped in consumption patterns they don’t know how to break.

For the truly obsessed, consider setting boundaries explicitly: “I love you, and I need our relationship to be about more than politics. Can we table this topic today?”

Healthy boundaries have improved my relationships dramatically.

My Social Media Strategy

I treat social media platforms like hostile territory because that’s what they are. The algorithms are optimized for engagement, which means agitation, not for truth or my well-being. [4][8]

Before I post anything, I run it through all four filters. Before I comment, I ask: “Is my engagement consequential?” Before I share, I question: “Is this necessary?”

I unfollow liberally. My feed must pass the filters, or it doesn’t get my attention. Do not create an echo chamber; remove noise that fails fundamental truth, kindness, necessity, and consequentiality tests.

What Happened When I Committed to This Framework

I started using this framework consistently about two years ago. Here’s what changed:

I’m not less informed, I’m less agitated. I make much more progress in what matters because I can spend more time on those needs instead of scrolling through threads. My relationships improved because I stopped seeing every illogical reasoning or biased opinion as an opportunity for correction. I sleep better because I’m not doom-scrolling at midnight.

Most surprisingly, my actual impact increased. When you focus energy where it’s truly consequential, where both the issue matters and your engagement can make a difference, you discover how much leverage you have in the world. It’s just not where social media wants you to think it is.

Why Not Drop Social Media?

Clearly, dropping social media altogether can eliminate the downsides. Why not just eliminate your social media or go on a strict diet?

I eliminated some social media accounts. When few items were getting through my filters, interactions dwindled, as did my interest. I am no longer on Instagram, and Facebook gets about five minutes a week.

The rest were ruthlessly filtered. They were not eliminated because social media, with all its trouble, is still an excellent mechanism for understanding what large groups are thinking about and what they are focusing on.

It’s a great place to understand where misinformation is consequential and where I can do something to help educate. Perhaps the exact mechanism that propagates disputes can be leveraged to illuminate a helpful truth.

Why You Need Something Similar

I’m not suggesting you adopt my exact framework. Your consequentiality calculation may differ from mine. Maybe you need different filters entirely.

What I am suggesting urgently is that you need some systematic way to filter information. Without one, you’re letting algorithms optimized for political or corporate profit decide what deserves your attention and emotional energy. That’s not a neutral decision. Research confirms that these systems amplify divisive, hostile content that makes us feel worse. [5][8]

There are too many posts on social media for you to engage with. That’s why you end up scrooling. What is it that causes you to stop and check out a post? That is your current filter. Consider changing these filters to make your results more productive.

Ancient wisdom applies perfectly to modern digital challenges. Buddha and Socrates didn’t have smartphones, but they understood something we keep forgetting: Not all information deserves attention, and not all conversations deserve engagement. Your attention is your most valuable resource, and guarding it isn’t selfish; it’s necessary for both sanity and actual effectiveness.

You can care deeply about significant issues without engaging in every discussion about them. You can be informed without being consumed. You can have strong convictions without damaging relationships.

The Real Victory

My four filters permit me to say no to the noise without guilt. They help me distinguish between what matters and what merely feels urgent.

This week, I challenge you to try this framework or develop your own. Before you consume or share information, ask: Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? Is it consequential enough to warrant my limited attention?

Notice how much noise disappears. Notice how much peace returns.

Your attention is too valuable to waste on what doesn’t pass your filters. Whatever framework you choose, commit to it. Guard your attention accordingly.

The world doesn’t need you to consume more information. It requires you to focus on what you can actually influence. That’s where real impact lives.

Reference Sources

[1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39623948/

[2]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9052033/

[3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29631796/

[4]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.16941

[5]: https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/4/3/pgaf062/8052060

[6]: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/social-media-algorithms-have-hijacked-social-learning

[7]: https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/blog/social-media-algorithm-impact/

[8]: https://knightcolumbia.org/content/engagement-user-satisfaction-and-the-amplification-of-divisive-content-on-social-media

[9]: https://www.allsides.com/blog/how-readers-rated-media-bias-ap-bbc-and-epoch-times-and-more

[10]: https://universityofleeds.github.io/philtaylorpapers/vp016f64.html

[11]: https://fair.org/home/the-medias-lies-about-colin-powells-lies/

[12]: https://shivamber.com/why-are-the-experts-using-the-college-wage-premium-when-it-is-misleading/

[13]: https://suttacentral.net/mn58/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin