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

[tmckearney.livejournal.com]

Well, this is one of those situations that I have found myself in in the past. It seems that Rory has made a point and possibly overstated it a bit.

We all understand the caution. Stu Unger is a good example of gambling gone bad. Rory's actions seem like a behavio[u]r I have seen in myself in the past. People disagree, but you believe so strongly that you continue beating the horse until it is just a reddish-brown sack of protoplasm. I have learned over time to realize this situation in myself and to stop the conversation.

Bottom line: We get it. You think poker is evil, yet you do it every day. You remind me of the movie "Ray", where Ray Charles is taking Heroin all the time, yet he tells all the chicks he's banging that they should stay away from it.

Frankly, I'm sick of reading about the same topic over and over again. It is the responsibility of the individual to deal with their own issues. If you have an addictive personality/brain/whatever, it's your problem. If you have one leg shorter than the other, it's your problem. If you stutter, it's your problem. I am not going to pity someone who takes his welfare check to the liquor store and buys booze and lottery tickets with it.

If I lose my house gambling, I'm not going to sue Bravo for running Celebrity Poker Showdown all the time. I take responsibility for myself and I assume that others will do the same. If they don't, then they are just leeches on society and don't deserve my attention at all.

[tmckearney.livejournal.com]

But, then again, I'm a prick

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

It's funny; I thought that about you in 1991 when I first walked into the CS lab and you told me to go away. But, I've grown to like you over the years. I don't think you are a prick. :)

[tmckearney.livejournal.com]

I don't specifically remember that instance, but I was easily annoyed back then (and only slightly less now). I am glad that I have changed your mind over time :)

Hey... I am going to be in NYC the 30th through the 2nd of April. Are you going to be around? Maybe we can get some coffee or something and have a chat. My wife will be along too.

T