The Epistemology of Poker Pedagogy

[shipitfish]

My post beginning my series for introductory players got two (1, 2) surprising responses. The basic argument is that educating people about poker draws them into a dangerous world of addictive gambling, populated by seedy people, and that such an introduction can ruin people's lives. My commentators indicate that I should consider the unintended consequences. Indeed, they argue that one might have a duty to divert people away from the poker world.

I think the argument is a seductive one, but is flawed. In fact, there are a dozen other things I could make this same argument about, using the same evidence. So many things in life which are acceptable in moderation have the same sorts of addictive qualities as poker.

I have spent a lot of time (my whole career in fact) around computer programmers and computer networking experts. I've known a few who are addicted — truly addicted in the sense my commentators talk about — to programming, or to cracking network security, or to some other sub-genre of the computer 3l33te world. They have let all relationships in collapse. They have left spouses, or spouses have left them, because they couldn't not help but stay in front of the computer for 20 hours straight out of every 30.

Sex can be the same way. Indeed, there is even Sex Addicts Anonymous, just like there is Gamblers Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. Of course, many people do engage in sex, gambling, drugs, and alcohol and don't become addicted in the DSM-IV sense. As one commenter points out, most people who do these things, in fact, aren't addicted. But, we still have to draw some distinctions between these activities. Introducing a person to any of them is not necessarily the same type of act. Let's consider in this post some very rough distinctions.

The first distinction sets aside substances that have a proven element of direct physical addiction. That's one class in itself. I would say that likely cocaine, heroin, and nicotine are three common substances to go in this class. The body becomes truly dependent, sometimes after the first introduction of the chemical. Another distinction is the group of substances that are a less physically addictive, but do cause serious changes to body chemistry. Some examples here might be alcohol, marijuana, and maybe sex. This class is different still from activities that, while they may generate some physiological responses, do not interact directly with the body chemistry. Of course, these lines aren't fine, nor are there only three classes, but let's just take a rough cut here for the moment.

Now, I agree in regard to the first class of substances, for sure. I think it's wrong to offer people cocaine and heroin. However, even in this class, is it wrong to tell people about its existence, and that it feels amazing? Probably not. It's just information — data about an activity. That in itself can't be wrong. Indeed, if it were wrong, the course I took toward at my Psychology department in college, The Biology and Psychology of Substance Abuse was chock full of information that was “wrong” in this sense.

Now, consider that middle layer in my classification. Well, I have to say, somewhere in there I stop believing that it is wrong to encourage people to engage in the activity. If a waiter offers me a glass of wine, or a website tells me how to brew my own beer, are they harming me? Would they do better to keep me from harm by not giving such information? That seems ludicrous. Indeed, I had a drinking problem in college and have shied away from alcohol ever since then, but imbibe maybe once a year. My co-workers invite me out for drinks much more often than that. Should they stop offering, just in case I fall into a drinking problem again and ruin my life? Would it be there fault if I did?

And, consider sex as another example. It's the example that analogizes nicely with comments about how seedy the poker world is and the caliber of people who sometimes occupy it. Wandering over to the “Casual Encounters” section of Craig's List, you'll find some really seedy people in the sex world, but does that mean “Craig” is culpable for introducing harm and should stop? And should he discontinue the “Women Seeking Men” section too, just in case? What about the people who wrote Joy of Sex? Are they to be shamed because they boosted their egos by writing the book and thereby introduced some people to seedy underworld of sex addiction?

Maybe some poker-playing friend of mine will have a collapse like is suggested in this comment. Maybe no one will. Maybe I'll go out drinking with my co-workers one night and become a serious alcoholic and ruin my life. Maybe someone who didn't know about Craig's List's “Casual Encounters” section will read this post, find it for the first time, and descend into sex addiction. Maybe his wife will call me up to tell me how he caught HIV, ruined their marriage and is almost dead now. Sure, I would feel awful about it if it happened! I'm a human being who doesn't want to see people suffer. But, it's not fair nor necessary to blame myself for those consequences, and the fellow's wife would be wrong to do so. She'd just be looking for somewhere to hang her pain and picking the wrong place.

Yes, the friends I help learn play poker will probably be losing players. But, that doesn't mean it was wrong to give them information. The epistemology of whether or not generally useful technical information should be made available is a field of study where I have some experience. In fact, I studied with a MacArthur award winner who (more or less) invented the idea that information with a didactic component should always by freely available for all who wish to learn. It was even my job once to educate people about that very issue. So, I would say I'm surely prepped to enter this debate about the ethical correctness of the idea that “information wants to be free”. But, the arguments on the other side seem so ludicrous, I don't know if it is worth it.

Finally, there is some truth that sharing information in a pedagogical way is sometimes about the ego of the teacher. Having studied a large sociological culture built around making information available, I can speak with some experience — there is no denying that hubris and ego drives some of it. But, humans are complex beings. There's a bit of ego in being the teacher, but there's also the joy in sharing something you love — something that, might I remind you, a noted psychologist told me would be helpful to make me feel better about my own obsession with my job and the world that surrounded it.

And it did help me. I met one of my best friends (nick_marden) hanging around that seedy poker world. I do believe the poker world can be good for others, too, even if, like so many things in life, it might be bad for others.

Comments

[roryk.livejournal.com]

If I said somewhere in my posts that it was morally wrong to talk to people about poker, I overstated myself. I never meant to say that if I did. I don't feel like it is wrong to talk to people about poker, morally. I don't think you are doing anything "wrong", per se. You are not doing anything wrong having your journal open to the public, that is not what I am trying to say to you. I don't think anyone could come to you and point the finger at you and tell you that you did anything bad or that you are a bad guy.

Okay, it's like bungee jumping. Let's use that example instead. You are hanging out with your buddy, you love to bungee jump. Your friend knows that you like to bungee jump and he asks you about it and you get him all amped up about it and he goes bungee jumping with you and he dies bungee jumping. You didn't do anything wrong. But, in a way, you were kind of the cause of his death and it is going to haunt you for a long time that you took your friend bungee jumping. If he had a wife and kids, they are going to blame you. You could not have known he was going to die, and it really isn't your fault, but it also kind of is. You didn't do anything wrong or bad, but if you had just kept quiet your friend would be alive. It doesn't mean you have to never speak about bungee jumping ever, but if you can play it down and discourage your friends from going bungee jumping you can ensure that you never place yourself in that situation. If your friends independently get involved in bungee jumping then that is their own thing, you are no longer in part responsible for what they decide to do, but if you are the one who introduced them to it, then you are in part responsible for what happens to them. Just like if they have a ton of fun bungee jumping, guess who they are going to give the credit to for getting them into it? You. They will be like, "Yeah Bradley! That was so much fun, thanks so much for bringing me man, that was FUCKING AWESOME!" You are getting credit for bringing them bungee jumping. And so you should get credit when they die. If they said they had fun to you and thanked you after going you would never go, "No. I was simply talking about my own experiences bungee jumping and you decided of your own volition to come bungee jumping. In no way did I encourage you or convince you or persuade you to come bungee jumping in any way or enable you to do something you would not have done independently on your own. I am not responsible for the outcome of your actions." So you see, you want to accept credit for getting people into poker, which is why you are writing the newbie poker articles and trying to get new people into poker, but you want none of the responsibility. It doesn't work that way.

I'm not saying it is morally wrong. You aren't doing anything morally wrong. Of course it is not morally wrong to share a fun activity you like to do with people you are friends with, and it is only natural to want them to also participate in the activity. I did the same thing for a while too. But then I saw people go down the tubes and my friend had a scare, and I talked to some older and wiser players who had been around, and they gave me some advice. And I watched and I thought. And I took it to heart and I see that it is very true, and I am passing that advice on to you, and explaining it to you and for everyone reading the journal. It is especially important for the professional players. I dunno. I guess, like I said, I hope that the advice will never come up.