Some days, the New York Times seems particularly stacked with good articles. It could just be that those are the days I actually focus and read the articles (rather than just skimming the headlines), but for whatever reason, today was a good day. In no particular order, and with quite a range of topics, enjoy:
- I haven’t been watching American Idol much this season, but according to Stephen Holden, we’ve got an interesting finale on our hands: sweet — if slightly boring — Southern dude versus androgynous L.A. dude. I might actually have to tune in tonight. Holden convinced me that along with being something of a godsend for Idol’s ratings, the matchup will make for some very watchable teevee. Better than the forgettable Davids of last year.
- Speaking of Davids, according to David Brooks and a study called “Which C.E.O. Characteristics and Abilities Matter?”, warm and fun and friendly people are less likely to be C.E.O.’s. Basically, “warm, flexible, team-oriented and empathetic people are less likely to thrive as C.E.O.’s. Organized, dogged, anal-retentive and slightly boring people are more likely to thrive.” Of course, those sets of qualities can’t be mutually exclusive, but the study makes a point. Boring people of the world: aim high. Fun ones: go into politics.
- What do our college degrees and cell phones say about us? According to this John Tierney article, they can potentially say a lot — and most of us like to believe they say a lot, which is why we aim for Ivy Leagues and iPhones — but it only matters if other people are paying attention. In other words, “A Harvard diploma might get you a date or a job interview, but what you say during the date or the conversation will make the difference. An elegantly thin Skagen watch might send a signal to a stranger at a cocktail party or in an airport lounge, but even if it were noticed, anyone who talked to you for just a few minutes would get a much better gauge of your intelligence and personality.”
- I found this reflective piece by Dana Jennings to be quite thought-provoking. In it, he recounts three major hospital visits in his lifetime: one at the age of 12, one at the age of 27, and one just last year, at the age of 51. All of the visits were relatively serious and had the potential to be life-threatening, but the way he reacted to the hospital stays predictably changed a lot over the years. As he puts it, “When I was young and ill, all I cared about was the result, about scalpels and scars. But in this waltz with prostate cancer, I’ve cared about the process, too. All along, I’ve wanted to know what this cancer could teach me, and I’d like to think I gripped it just as hard as it has gripped me.”
[Posted by Mallory]
One response to “tuesday roundup of interesting nytimes articles.”
“All along, I’ve wanted to know what this cancer could teach me, and I’d like to think I gripped it just as hard as it has gripped me.”
What a great metaphor. Sigh. Not that this is even close to a reasonable comparison, but I deffo feel like the sciatica is beating me, and I’m just sitting there taking it, and occasionally crying about it. Perhaps I shall grip, instead. (Though, to be fair, I do not have the wisdom of a 51 year old. Perhaps I shall just smack at it a little, and save the grip for my 50s). Also, I am rambling, and my computer froze twice as I was typing this.