Relevance Theory
Ignoramus that I am, I've only just come across Relevance Theory. (If you're as in the dark as I am, here's a .doc handbook by Deirdre Wilson, one of its originators)
There's a bundle more reading for me to do to get fully to grips with Relevance Theory, but one thing has caught my eye already: its definition of relevance.
Relevance of an input to an individual a. Other things being equal, the greater the positive cognitive effects achieved by processing an input, the greater the relevance of the input to the individual at that time. b. Other things being equal, the greater the processing effort expended, the lower the relevance of the input to the individual at that time.By 'positive cognitive effects' they mean a worthwhile difference to the individual's world, such as a true conclusion, or learning you have time to put the kettle on.
What I was curious about was the effort. On the one hand, low processing efforts might explain the divide in New York Times bestsellers listbook buying shown below. It takes a lot less effort to understand a similar point of view. But on the other hand, the one I'm waving at you and asking for help with(!), just because something takes a lot of effort to process, does that then mean it's irrelevant? Is a contrary viewpoint always irrelevant? Or is that covered in the all things being equal.
Ho hum.