On Addiction Education

Should addiction education be made part of the standard American school curriculum? I think our current generation is under-educated on the subject. This is unfortunate, because I also think the large majority of the current generation will face some form of addiction in their lives, even if some of their addictions aren't particularly serious. But our current educational system is all about prevention. They tell us “Don't touch these addictive things, they'll mess your life up.” What they don't do so well is tell us what it's like to be addicted to something, or how to try and get out of it. It's rather naive to assume that these are skills children won't need; on the contrary, modern technology is making it easier and easier to access whatever the subject of our addictions may be. If we don't do a better job of teaching our children how to deal with it, we run the risk of creating a future society seriously crippled by the chains of addiction.

Addicted or Passionate?

What is the difference between passion and addiction? One of the reasons that geeks tend to get defensive when confronted with the topic of technology addiction is likely that the two aren't so different after all. To identify as a geek is to proclaim a passion for technology. But both passion and addiction involve a very strong desire to return repeatedly to a specific type of activity, to the point of being willing to overcome significant obstacles to achieve the goals of those activities. Arguably, the strongest passions, belonging to the greatest inventors and creators of history, could also be classified as addictions. Cautions against addiction, then, are admonitions to maintain balance in our lives: but the line of where that balance should be drawn varies drastically, depending on who you ask. Therefore, to make progress against technology addiction, we're going to need a clearer line.

More on Hoarding

A Pornographic Plague

It's difficult to get accurate statistics on pornography usage, but from what we can gather, the percentage of LDS men who visit a pornographic website in any given month may be as high as 70%. Whatever the exact figure, we do know it is staggeringly, unacceptably high. Many Latter-Day Saints have heard President Boyd K. Packer's comparison of pornography to a spiritual plague. But I don't think many have stopped to consider the implications of how widespread this metaphor implies that pornography usage is, even among those active in the faith.

As a result, we treat addiction to pornography as problem only faceless, maladjusted, sinful strangers have. But if pornography is really as widespread as a plague, can we really believe that we don't know anyone currently addicted? Consider your group of friends and church acquaintances: if the statistics above are accurate, at least half of the men in that group likely struggle with pornography.

They won't tell you this. An individual addicted to pornography hides his addiction in the deepest, darkest parts of his soul. But if he is to recover from their struggles, this addict absolutely must seek out support from those he trusts. If he believes he is secretly part of that group of sinful strangers, and would be judged and shunned as such by any he approaches, he will remain trapped in his sin, bondage, and misery. Perhaps never before has it been more important that we learn to hate the sin, but love the sinner.

There is a danger to recognizing how wide pornography has spread. Satan is a master at convincing us it's okay to do something because “everyone is doing it.” But the sober truth is that nearly everyone will be impacted by pornography at some point, whether directly or indirectly. Therefore, as a culture, we desperately need more training and education on pornography addiction, so those ensnared can know where and how to turn for help, and those those they turn to can know how to support them.

A note to the far-too-many of you reading this who are struggling with pornography: If you haven't already, find someone to help you. You simply cannot beat this on your own. Start with your Bishop, and work from there. It may be the hardest thing you have ever done, but it is worth it to escape the misery of addiction. Educate yourself, find help and support, and rely on the Savior to do what you cannot, and you can be free from this trap. 

A Feminine Touch

A couple years ago, I met a self-proclaimed “gamer girl” at a church activity. I vividly remember that she was rather aggressive about proclaiming that even though she was a girl, she could hold her own and enjoy herself playing games like Halo or Call of Duty just as much as any guy. I also remember being somewhat disappointed with the encounter, though I attributed it to mismatched gaming interests at the time. Now, however, I wonder how much of her bravado was an act, a facade put on to try and gain acceptance in a culture dominated by aggressive males. And I wonder if I was put off by her because I wasn't looking for the “aggressive male” personality from a woman who identified with geek culture – instead, I was looking for someone who could provide a fresh, feminine perspective to the community. Why did I tell this story? Studies have suggested that one way of attracting more women to Computer Science would be to change our culture into something women can more easily identify with. Changing a culture is a difficult and sometimes scary thing. But if my experience is typical, we may find that our culture has a lot to gain from acceptance by more than one gender.

Rules of Engagement

It can be difficult to pin down a firm set of universal rules for moderating online discussions. Much of this is simply because what is considered acceptable varies so drastically from community to community. For instance, an official church message board will have very different standards than someplace like 4chan. However, if there is a universal rule of good moderation, it is that a community must have a clear and precise set of rules they promise to abide by. Writing these rules can be difficult, for the same reasons that it's difficult to write clear and precise programming specifications. But the process can also be a powerful tool to discover what it actually is that defines your community.  

The Corporate IP Hoard

One of the critical components of the intellectual property debate is the question of how differently we should treat individuals and corporations. Most people seem to agree that it's reasonable for individuals to expect ownership of their own work for as long as until their death. But corporations are more prone to hoard their intellectual property for as long as they possibly can. This hoarding was not part of the original intent of intellectual property: the intent was to promote innovation (hence why ideas can be owned in the first place) and to improve our country's general technical well-being. Right now, we have a system that does the first, but not necessarily the second: companies have inadequate incentive to let intellectual property go so the rest of the country can eventually use it.  

The Dangers of Assertiveness

Many an English teacher has asserted that students tend not to be assertive enough in writing. And it's true that there's little point in writing if you don't actually have anything definite to say. But I believe that the value of assertiveness in writing is overrated. Assertiveness is generally valued for bringing power and clarity to writing – traits absent from aimless, wishy-washy prose. However, I believe that it is perfectly possible to express uncertainty without sacrificing either clarity or power. In addition, the expression of uncertainty encourages the reader to engage in conversation with the author by confirming, arguing against, or adding to what they've presented. In contrast, a reader presented with overly assertive prose may be intimidated into believing that the author has already considered their ideas, or is not willing to listen. I propose, therefore, that if an author has doubts about the truth of what they are writing, he should consider respecting his readers' potential to answer those doubts by expressing them, rather than hiding them behind a mask of assertiveness. 

The digital frontier

Forget space – the Internet is our generation's frontier. Like the wild west of old, the Internet is vast, only loosely governed, and filled with opportunity. Points of civilization dot the virtual landscape, ranging from the great metropolises, such as Google and Facebook, to the tiny communities formed by thousands of message boards. Spambots, hackers, and viruses are the bandits who roam the wilds, ready to take advantage of the unwary. But in the same wilds, enterprising individuals seeking freedom join together to create things the world has never seen before.

However, if history is any indicator, all frontiers are eventually tamed. Such a taming would result in a trade-off. A more controlled Internet would cut down on the dangers posed by digital bandits. But it would also stifle creativity, by forcing users to jump through bureaucratic hoops to achieve the same connectivity they would have on an untamed Internet. The ideal balance likely lies somewhere in the middle. The question is, where? And could we even control it if we tried?

Realistic Privacy

To expand on last week's post on control of information a bit, let's talk about Internet privacy. The need for privacy is a bit of an extreme on the data control spectrum. The really adamant privacy advocates want absolute control over any information about them. Nobody sees any part of their information without them giving the go-ahead. Personally, I find expectations like that to be rather silly. After all, even before the Internet, people still took an inherent risk of losing control over their information any time they allowed it to leave their heads. Someone could still read your handwritten journal, or the friend you confided in could still blab to anyone they wanted. Sure, the Internet changes the landscape of information exchange significantly, but thanks to encryption (among other factors), I'm inclined to believe that things average out. Privacy is a right worth protecting, but let's not go so far as to forget that life involves sharing information, and sharing information means giving up some control of it.  

The American Reality

As a culture, Americans tend not to like the idea that the successful among us needed more than talent and drive to get there. Why is this? It's because it flies in the face of the American dream: the idea that any of us can achieve whatever success we like so long as we're willing and able to put forth the effort. Admitting that luck and circumstance played a role in making someone like Bill Gates successful means admitting that we may simply be incapable of achieving the same success, even if we tried. It narrows our potential, and makes us feel less powerful. It also means that when we honor the successful, we may be honoring their advantageous circumstances or good fortune rather than their inherent virtue. But ultimately, does it matter if we like the American dream? Or does it matter if it's true?

Digital Power Struggles

Technology consumers, producers, and regulators seem to be engaged in a perpetual struggle for control over individuals' technology. For companies, control provides business opportunities, allows for easy-to-use software, and encourages customer loyalty. For regulators, control allows them to enforce order. For consumers, control provides privacy and freedom to do what they will with their belongings. This struggle is central to operating system preference, with Apple on the company-controlled end of the spectrum and Linux on the other end. This struggle is the core concern behind the NSA surveillance scandals, a significant barrier to effective enforcement of copyright law, and a major motivation behind the open-source movement. Just lately, Valve has opted to try and disrupt the status quo of company control in the console gaming market by manufacturing an open-source, fully hackable gamingconsole. I don't claim to know where the optimum balance of control is. But we live in an age where information is power, so the question of who controls our information is critical.

What goes up must come down

Most people will agree that too much of just about anything – including digital media – is bad for you. In this light, consider that the F.A.A. is now seriously considering allowing the use of portable electronics to view media on airplanes during takeoff and landing. The regulation itself makes good sense, but the motivation behind this policy change is far more interesting: we now live in a culture where people will get upset if they are not allowed to view digital media for the ten minutes it takes an airplane to take off or land. If this policy were not a pain point, the F.A.A. wouldn't be taking time to discuss it. Now, I get as bored on airplanes as anyone else, and I also consume at least my fair share of digital media. But I also believe that if we as a society can't give up digital media (or nearly anything else) for ten minutes, we should seriously consider the possibility that we have a problem with a lack of moderation.  

The fear of change

The world changes, sometimes drastically. For many people, this can be scary, and justifiably so: not all change is for the better. Change also introduces the unknown, creates risks, and requires work to adapt to. However, change is also required for progress. You cannot make progress, fix problems, or innovate without embracing some form of change. Today, in the digital age, change often takes the form of new technology, and comes at an unprecedented pace. Consequently, we don't have to look very far to find alarmed voices worrying about what we are, or may be, losing amid all this change. Are their worries legitimate? I believe a good indicator is the specificity of their concerns. Vague, broad-reaching worries that, say, the internet is destroying our culture's social life are likely based more on fear of what we don't understand. Specific concerns such as online sexual predators, however, are much more likely to reflect a legitimate problem. In short, it is wise to keep our eyes open as the world changes. We need people who can raise a voice of warning if the world is heading for dangerous waters. However, let us be sure that we do not fear change simply because it is change.