i pretty much need to get to the bottom of things.
i'm exacting. i'm precise. i ask questions.
i'm also scattered.
these two characteristics have been on my mind recently, but not at the same time. not until i started writing this post--right now--did i remember a personality test my colleagues and i took at the gates foundation. it was quite informal; we lollygagged on islands of blankets strewn lazily on a grassy lawn, ticking off answers to questions, and then waited impatiently to divulge the impending scarlet letter we all would have to bear.
my label? i'm concrete random. how's that for a dichotomy?
indeed. a precise scatterer.
[and now i shall make an example of myself. i digress. my original topic of this post had nothing to do with the scattered side of me, but i will now showcase that characteristic by changing the subject. dramatically.]
my sister and i were talking about products--moisturizers, in particular. i rallied for SPF worn daily in my best i'm-older-and-wiser tact. it went without saying that i wasn't talking about just any SPF, but an organic one that doesn't have all the trappings of a powerplant (an aside: david and i use different sunscreens). and then, when chatting with a friend yesterday, she posited that the chemicals found in SPF products--even the organic ones--may be more unhealthy than time spent in the sun.
so i researched. and when reading the paper today, i learned that the chemicals are indeed bad for someone--marine life. after reading the comments to the piece, i followed a link to SkinDeep, a site i have visited in the past, but not to rank my sunscreen choice. the fine folks at SD showed me the best and worst sunscreens, and although my current screen isn't a complete dud, it didn't make an appearance in the top 150! i also learned that even the top sunscreen may be linked to cancer. while i'm not ready to quit the SPF-a-day kick, i could certainly do better, and i will.