upvote
I don't know if that is a psychological quirk - it seems pretty rational to me. We are more affected by events that happen close to us than those that happen far away, so instinctively finding local events more interesting than distant ones seems like what I'd expect[0].

[0] Not that my expectation has any weight, I have close to zero knowledge of psychology.

reply
Unless you are in a highly urban area, most Wiki articles will be about _places_ and sometimes _events at the places_, but usually not _events_ themselves.

For things that affect people, I think the impact of the recency axis is significantly larger than the one of the geographical axis. e.g. I feel the effects of the Iran war in my daily consumer prices in my daily life. I don't feel the effects of a famous person being born two doors down from my place 200 years ago in my daily live.

Of course highly local things, like e.g. local politics are also felt, but those are also barely reflected in Wikipedia articles.

reply
Mhh i wonder how this would have evolved, since, you know, for 99.99% of time, humans didn't really get any information other than from their immediate proximity. And if they did (e.g. earthquake), it was very much relevant and should affect them.

Just flaunting my ignorance of biology here.

reply
I'm at least a tiny bit less ignorant on biology than psychology. I don't think this is the kind of thing that does evolve.

Normally more general capacities than that evolve. We've evolved the ability to learn and adapt, and that's what we're using to create these heuristics. But I don't people evolve into individual beliefs/attitudes in that way.

reply
I mean, it's the brain, not the world around it. Our brains haven't really evolved much while civilization and technology have been growthmaxxing. Same reason why certain social media posts can trigger a physical, emotional reaction, even though for 99.99% of the time there were no cellphones or social media.
reply
Anecdotal: I felt much more connected to Kurt Vonnegut's writing knowing that I had walked the same streets as him. The cultural aspects of his characters hit differently being able to match it to people I had met in similar places, albeit at different times.
reply
It was a really strange feeling to read through Asimov and get to Robots and Empire, where the story, having ranged throughout a galactic empire in the far-flung future, follows the characters not just to Earth but to Three Mile Island — a place I had seen before! A place less than an hour a way from my hometown! It made the story feel more connected to my own life in a way that I was not expecting.
reply
I think¹ it is more likely just a function of how we judge danger. Something local could be relevant to us now (if it were ongoing, or was likely to occur again, or affects/affected someone we care about), something far away might be relevant to us later. Nearby or approaching animal sounds? Definitely pay attention. More distant animal sounds? Maybe keep an ear on that. A tale of animal sounds in the next valley? Only take much note if it is part of an otherwise interesting/entertaining story.

--------

[1] caveat: I am in no way a biologist, sociologist, nor psychiatrist - this pondering may be complete bunkum

reply
Definitely. I read a few articles top to bottom that I normally wouldn't have even bothered to look up on real Wikipedia, learned some cool local lore.
reply
I think it's an odd side-effect of our built-in prejudice to value our tribe over strangers, which is a safety feature in all social animals.

"A plane crash in <other country> killed all passengers, including 2 from <our country>" is a fairly common news styling.

reply
One of the nearest articles to me is also a random plane crash, lol.
reply
There is a Stalin quote to this effect
reply
> otherwise banal articles

I don't think it is quite banal. The focus is on distance, with distance being local. There is IMO nothing banal about that. And the article linked in is minimal rather than banal. (Also good thing you did not forget the 'b' there.)

You can of course assume everything to have a manipulative focus, but I don't see it here.

reply