Saudi Arabia again

After violently responding to protests in its own country, Saudi Arabia has now decided to violently suppress protests in neighboring Bahrain. Thankfully, the Obama administration has urged Saudi Arabia to exercise restraint.

Consider it exercised.

Scrot check

It's easy to wax philosophical about autocratic, repressive leaders in Libya and Tunisia. Freedom for the small potatoes, right? Sweet. I'm down. But let's see if we have the huevos to stand up to violent repression in Saudi Arabia.

Don't hold your breath.

$10 a gallon for gasoline, anyone?

Gladwell's Theory of Proficiency and a Question about Well-Roundedness

Malcolm Gladwell, in his book Outliers, presents the 10,000-hour rule, a theory that to become proficient at a given task, you must dedicate about 10,000 hours to said task. That equates to about four hours a day for ten years. Few of us spend that much time doing anything, with the possible exception of sleeping (and perhaps watching TV). And that's probably a big part of the reason why few of us develop our talents to greatness.

Gladwell's theory makes me wonder about my own lifestyle choices. I mean, I want to be great at stuff, but I also like to do a lot of stuff. I spend a lot of time writing, playing music and running, but not at a rate where I'll get to 10,000 hours any time soon. It makes you appreciate the difficulties in trying to be well rounded and trying to be really good at any one task.

It's certainly possible for some. For example, Nabokov wrote books in three languages, was one of the most accomplished translators of Russian literature, and was among the best lepidopterists of his time. He was great at all of these things, but it is doubtful that he spent 10,000 hours or more on each. Perhaps if the skills are interrelated, you don't need to spend all 10,000 hours to develop each individual skill. Time reading helps you become a better writer. Time listening to music could make you a better musician. Time translating Russian to English makes you a better writer in both languages.

And, of course, an otherworldly intellect doesn't hurt, either.

Creativity and Charlie Sheen

I don't find Charlie Sheen as fascinating as some, but one can't deny the phenomenon that is Charlie Sheen today. From what I've seen, his act strikes me as a cocky, sexual form of stream of consciousness. Kind of a less cerebral, more Bacchanalian version of Ulysses. It doesn't bother me and it doesn't pique my interest. But the broad-based viral obsession over his antics is real, and that's something that fascinates me.

I stumbled upon this Scott Adams commentary on Sheen, which is great. According to Adams, who has met the man, what makes Sheen noteworthy is his 1) extraordinary acting talent and 2) complete lack of filter. The former is debatable, but not of interest to me. It's the latter that strikes me as both true and worth analyzing. It's common to describe a person as having "no filter," but most people described as such are merely less tactful than most. Sheen, or at least when he's most interesting, appears to not know where his own thoughts are going. And to do that on broadcasts that are seen by millions is a rare.

Adams says (and I'm paraphrasing) that the great artist and the lunatic are the only people who have no filter. Manners are dull, and by avoiding them, an artist has an advantage in making their creativity attractive to others. By saying what they're thinking, artists act on what others only think, but don't do. This is part of the release of experiencing art that makes creativity attractive to others, and why Sheen is so enthralling.

Adams also says that for those who break ground artistically, many teeter on the verge of insanity. Or, at a minimum, that's the way they are perceived. Because insane people and those who live a filterless lifestyle -- let's just say there's overlap in their Venn Diagrams. The only difference, as I see it, is intent. Those who are insane have no choice but to live without filters. They are out of control. But the artist can go back and forth. Still, one can see how the lines could blur.

I'd like to propose two corollaries to the Scott Adams theory: First, it's not easy to be polite and creative at the same time. To avoid offending, you have to err on the side of the conventional. If you're conventional, it's hard to find an edge that will make you worth watching.

Second, one cannot function well in society without a filter. Sheen, an artist whose non-traditional lifestyle choices have been known for decades, lost his job when he let go of the shackles. Most professional workplace situations disallow any display of ad libbing, much less a complete lack of filter. That's why it's inconceivable for someone go from working at Microsoft for ten years and then start working as a professional comedian. Success at the one only comes with the death of the instincts that make you good at the other.

And that's all I have to say about that.