Yesterday I was able to check “Curiosity practice” off my to-do list before breakfast. Not bad for a Monday, I thought.
It was really simple and fairly obvious—when I checked the newspaper headlines I chose to read a couple of articles I might otherwise have skipped. One was actually a blog post rather than an article by Paul Krugman. It was on austerity policies, a topic where we in the past have disagreed. (Yes, in the privacy of my own home I dare to disagree with Nobel Prize-winning economists who are also New York Times columnists!) In reading it I learned several things that I wouldn’t have learned if I had just assumed we disagreed and skipped it. As is the way when we follow our curiosity, not all I learned was related to the original topic.
One of the first things I learned is that the New York Times so respects the distinction between facts and opinions that it not only confines what are clearly opinion pieces to the op-ed pages (as do all reputable papers), it even offers columnists blog spaces where they can let their hair down some more. (Even the op-ed pieces in the New York Times require facts to explain and support the author’s opinions.)
The second thing I learned is that Paul Krugman doesn’t so much push austerity policies in his post but brings in new information on them in a very balanced fashion and compares the new information to existing materials.
A final point: I realized that I, who for the most part has little tolerance for readers’ comments, can learn new ways of seeing something from the perspectives other people post.
Pretty good, as I said above, for before breakfast on a Monday morning!