This is what I need more of – theoretical justifications for not reading things.
Neil Levy, Open-Mindedness and the Duty to Gather Evidence; Or, Reflections Upon Not Reading the Volokh Conspiracy (PDF)
At times Neil comes perilously close to endorsing Kripke’s paradox. Assume p is something I know. So any evidence against p is evidence for something false. Evidence for something false is misleading evidence. It’s bad to attend to misleading evidence. So I shouldn’t attend to evidence against p. So more generally I should ignore evidence that tells against things I know.
But Neil’s main point is more subtle than that. It’s that it can be a bad idea to approach a topic as an expert when in fact you’re not one. And that seems like good advice, even if you really should be reading the Volokh Conspiracy (for instance).