No two people are allowed to read the same thing," I said above the noise, gesturing towards he other passengers on the crowded subway car. My out-of-town visitor glanced around the clattering train. Indeed, the commuters hurtling toward their jobs in Manhattan’s office building, restaurants, shops and other workplaces were reading such a wide variety of material that my joke almost held up. That typical weekday morning found riders engrossed in all kinds of magazines, paperback books, the Daily News, the Post, the Times, office documents, a software instruction book and, yes, the Bible. Those who weren’t reading were listening to headphones, talking to others or, apparently, just thinking.
Seeing this every day on the subway set me up for a surprise one morning when I went to catch a suburban commuter train to Manhattan. I had stayed overnight in Westchester County, an upscale New York City suburb where many executives and professionals live. I would be riding into the city with lawyers headed for big corporate law firms, financial analysts going to investment banks, editors bound for publishing conglomerates, as well as accountants, journalists, doctors, architects, engineers, public relations specialists and a host of other professionals. Boarding the train felt something like entering a library. There were no conversations even though nearly all the seats were occupied. Almost everyone was reading. But the dozens of passengers were reading only two things: The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I could have formulated another joke about allowed reading matter, but the scene was too spooky, like the aftermath of an invasion of the body snatchers: everyone dressed the same, in suits, sitting silently in neat rows and columns, each holding up a large newspaper, absorbing the same information.
A herd of independent minds? (1) Something seemed very wrong with the picture. It was obvious that when the subway riders and the suburban train riders converged at the workplace, the people who showed the greatest diversity in their dress, behaviour and thought -- the non professionals -- would be asked to do the least creative work, while the most regimented people who would be assigned the creative tasks. This seemed just the opposite of what one might expect. And even more disturbingly, it indicated that people who do creative work are not necessarily independent thinkers
