Because I am an adult with a short attention span (which unnerves me, since as a child I had the ability to focus on things indefinitely which allowed me to get good grades; if I ever went back to school now it would be a disaster!), I can't read newspapers. Nor can I read the news online. Unless its in short attention span form, such as in publications like am New York.
I just read today's edition of am New York. Well, not really. I read the gossip page, my horoscope, and perused the am Careers section. In her article entitled "Simplify Your Life For Success," Karen Salmonsohn points out that 80% of your results come from only 20% of your activity, so its not so much what you SHOULD be doing as it is what you should NOT be doing. Instead of doing, un-do!
She suggests making an "Un-Do List," which includes the following:
1. Undo unimportant meetings
2. Undo unclear assignments
3. Undo energy sapping people (yes!) and
4. Undo personal wackiness
OK. I agree with 1, 2, and 3. This is fairly intuitive. It pains me that people might have to see these things in published list form to consider them. Number 3 especially. This is a good philosophy for life in general. Yes, Karen, yes!
But.
Wtf is "undo personal wackiness?" Never, Karen, never!
Isn't "personal wackiness" the key to success? If we didn't have personal wackiness, we'd be a bunch of worker drones and that would not be productive. Everyone would be so bored and boring that nothing creative or interesting would ever be accomplished.
Oh, wait, right, that's actually how it is. "Personality" and "personal wackiness" aren't rewarded. We can't be individuals. We can't have ideas. We can't do things differenly and chaotically.
I hate Karen and Karen's world.
Personally, I'd be more productive if people in the workplace would indulge their "personal wackiness." A disorganized and wacky work machine, in my opinion, would encourage me to get more done because it would be more exciting, unpredictable, and ZANY!
I don't even know where I'm going with this.
I guess I just enjoyed seeing the word "wackiness" printed in a newspaper.
Heh.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I was in the process of commenting earlier, when my computer at work froze and I forgot to get back to it, that people who inhabit Karen's world and undo personal wackiness -- are all people who don't get Mitch Hedberg, and that slowly, over the last four years, I notice that I've dissolved all friendships and other personal relationships with people who don't get Mitch Hedberg.
I stand by the Mitch Hedberg Litmus Test (MHLT), as well.
Isn't your sister the one who proposed the MHLTFC? (Mitch Hedburg Litmus Test For Cool) She's no physicist. You can't fool me.
I also think it's interesting that the MHLT (Mo and everyone else, take notice -- the last two letters in the acronym are redundant) is my only positive test for judging people.
(Although note -- sometimes I judge people on the basis of nothing at all and am, so far, apparently, none the worse for it.)
My two reliable negative tests are, of course, 'DaVinci Code' and 'Big Fat Greek Wedding'. 'Harry Potter' used to be in it, too, but too many cool people I know inexplicably like it, maybe because derivative and cliche things also hit the nostalgia centres...
I love that the MHLT is being discussed.
Sorry, Mo. Sister was the origin of exposure to Mitch Hedberg, but Everyone's Favorite Physicist used the term "litmus test" so he gets credit.
Banalities, you are right on the Davinci Code Litmus Test (aka the Davinci Code Litmus Test For Lameness - DCLT) is a good one. (Incidentally, there is a copy of The Davinci Code sitting on the microwave near my desk and it's driving me insane!)
But, like you say, we judge people based on nothing in particular or concrete and are, more often than not, correct in our judgments. It's just that the MHLT and the DCLT are quick and dirty.
Hmm... other positive tests...
Hmm...
You're right. There are none.
There are so many negatives, such as the M5LT (Maroon 5 Litmus Test).
Further evidence for the positive nature of the MHLT:
When friend X was a freshman in college, I let him borrow my videotape of Dr Katz reruns, which contained at least three Mitch Hedberg episodes, along with one Emo Phillips and a Steven Wright. He understood it, but "didn't get it."
Fast forward, six years later, I burn him some Mitch Hedberg, Bill Hicks, Dave Chappelle, and Lewis Black -- and he identifies Mitch Hedberg as his favorite of the bunch. Which is debatable, given the company. But the point is: one can grow to love Mitch Hedberg. So failing the test doesn't prove anything, but passing certainly does.
Also, when will they put Dr Katz out on DVD? My favorite hour of late night TV on college was midnight Sundays when Comedy Central played 'Dr Katz' and 'The Critic' back-to-back...
Have you guys read _The DaVinci Code_? I have not, but I have the sneaking suspicion that you haven't either, so how can you say it's terrible? (If you have read it, my apologies.) I have read two other Dan Brown books, and I found them entertaining. I have one major complaint with the plot in each book, but they were entertaining nonetheless. I also like Dick Francis. And Banalities, I am obssessed with Harry Potter, so (hands over ears) la la la! I can't hear you!
But I have long known that I am not as "cool" as Leah Lar, at least when it comes to pop culture - music especially. I think it may be because we are from different generations. Also I listen to NPR all day long, so I never hear any new music.
How about TMBG and The Muppets as positive litmus tests?
TMBG? Teenage Mutant Binja Girdles?
I've read it, Mo. I may be a snob, but I'm not an arrogant snob.
OK. I'm kind of wicked arrogant, too. But still, I always like to use concrete evidence when I'm being a snob. Because it's more devastating to use facts.
Post a Comment