Novistopheles

Discover and Defend

8:36AM

Sunday. This should be a relatively laid-back day. Yesterday was crazy. I woke up early, wrote my blog post, then got my gear ready for a Harley ride to Yarnell. The weather was perfect for it, and the Foothills HOG group turned out 10 bikes for the ride. Not big by some group standards; however, for an impromptu Saturday ride, it was very cool. Then I had to race back, take a shower, and get dressed for my EO Board Appreciation dinner at Puttshack. I am all about games and play. We had fun, then I had to race back to Tempe and join my wife and neighbors for game night. I felt like I was home for an hour, but it was all social, all fun, and all some of my favorite things to do with some of my favorite people. How can I complain? (Because I’m talented at complaining, that’s how! You will never hear me say, “I can’t complain”, because that would be a lie. I do not have things worth complaining about. This is true. However, my capacity to complain is excellent. I have a lot of skill there.)

So… Kids. Video games. Smartphones. As I recall yesterday, I left off with the hint that I was going to cover Discover and Defend mode. Well, that sounds like a good topic to bite into. As per usual, I will add my own thoughts and research I have done about kids and mindset to Dr. Haidt’s terms (I first heard these labels in his book The Anxious Generation). So… let’s get after it.

Slight distraction

As I have said before, my day job is CEO of GameTruck, the franchisee of the GameTruck Party concept. People often assume the job is fun, and mostly it is. Occasionally things go wrong and we mess up some kids' party. That is the worst, but then there are days like today when I wake up to a review like this:

New review for PDX on Google: “What an amazing time was had by ALL! This was a birthday part for my now 9 year old autistic son who was over the moon about the Game Truck! The employee was kind, professional and efficient, providing the kids with all the minutes we paid for by arriving early for set up and guiding kids into the experience into a unique experience they enjoyed thoroughly! One unexpected blessing I had not anticipated was a QUIET house during the party so I could continue to prepare for the food and cake portion of the birthday party! It was worth the cost, I would totally do this again and have already recommended to others!”

One of the things I tell our staff - we call them game coaches - is that they are very important in the lives of the kids. Why? Because they are an adult who is not a parent, teacher, or coach, and they play video games! This makes them someone the kids naturally look up to. They have an opportunity to have an enormous impact on these kids by role modeling what it looks like to be a good gamer, not just good at games, but good at being a human being. They are there, helping the kids play together, and the actions they take to make sure everyone is included give the kids a chance to see what that looks like, in person, up close and personal. For me, that is the best part of this job, inspiring kids even in the smallest ways to think that a good gamer is also someone who takes responsibility and looks out for others. You can be skilled and considerate. You can be capable and compassionate. Video games are not always about competition; they can also be all about connection.

Discover and Defend

Or… what are we doing to our kids?

On Raising “Good” Kids… What does that mean?

Well, hopefully what we are doing to our kids is raising them to be good people. There’s a lot of debate on what that means. One of my favorite authors is the neuroscientist Sam Harris (who also happens to be famous for being an atheist). I read Dr. Harris’s book, The Moral Landscape, and I found many of his arguments compelling. However, as much as Dr. Harris would like science to lead the charge into better living, he sees two deeply entrenched obstacles which he identifies in his book. According to Harris, the scientific and academic communities have by and large dropped the ball on establishing anything remotely like a moral framework (much to his chagrin), because of two entrenched beliefs:

1. Science is restricted to pointing out what is, not what ought.¹
2. Moral relativism disempowers academia from making any attempt at defining how people “should live."²

Facts and Values

The first limitation was created when the eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher David Hume argued:

that no description of the way the world is (facts) can tell us how we ought to behave (morality).

Hume was quickly followed by more philosophers building upon his conclusions; the likes of G.E. Moore and Karl Popper supported the idea, basically cutting off morality from all our forms of knowledge outside religion.

Consequently, science, the domain of “facts,” does not have to try to answer the question of how we should best live or even coming up with a working definition of good for that matter.

Science is about facts, not norms; it might tell us how we are, but it couldn’t tell us what is wrong with how we are. There couldn’t be a science of the human condition.

Anthropological Relativism

So if science can help us, what about academia? Again, Harris is frustrated in his attempt to create a non-religious moral framework because of the concept of moral relativism.

Harris believes that moral relativism is a reaction against colonialism and ethnocentrism. The philosophy gained traction as it led to the belief that all cultural practices and moral systems are equally valid. He suggests that this perspective has been perpetuated by certain academic disciplines, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, which often emphasize the importance of understanding cultural differences without making moral judgments.

Harris points to influential thinkers such as anthropologists Franz Boas and Margaret Mead. Harris’s frustration is that instead of using the best intellectual toolkit ever created for problem-solving; namely, the scientific method, we have declared analysis off-limits. Harris believes we have been cut off from determining if one mode of living is in fact better than another and left to our own devices. Therefore, instead of investigating and optimizing how we can improve human well-being, we must turn to matters of faith.

From my perspective, if science can’t (or won’t) tell us anything, and all moral systems are relative, then defining “good” becomes highly subjective. Conservative thinkers like Jordan Peterson raise the concern that this kind of thinking quickly leads to nihilism; the belief that nothing matters. Personally, I see nihilism as another form of learned helplessness.

I, for one, am not ready to make that leap, and I do believe there are better ways of behaving. Not all systems are equally effective, and while I agree we should not judge, I do believe we absolutely have an obligation to discern.

Human suffering is not an abstraction. Just ask any parent how abstract it all feels when they see their kids suffer.

I think about these things a lot. It started because as a Caucasian, conservative, Christian, heterosexual male business owner, I am the man. I don’t want to be part of the problem. I want to be part of the solution. And so far as I can tell, the advice given to “people like me” is, “don’t be a Nazi.” Well, lots of people are not Nazi’s. That’s a very broad and not terribly useful orientation. I wanted to seek something that oriented me toward maximizing the well-being of the people I care about and the people around me. As Simon Sinek wrote in his book The Infinite Game, you want to be for something. The old saying says, “what you resist persists.” So, I started my own research project to help raise my sons and challenge myself to be a good role model for them.

So, I’m going to go with the definition I have used in my own life. My goal as a parent was to raise decent, competent, capable, compassionate adults.

Aside: A Note about Decency. A behavior is decent when you can pretty much do it forever. Kindness, contribution. These behaviors are sustainable. Indecent behavior, on the other hand, tends to have a short life span. Drinking and partying will destroy your health if not your relationships. So, at a minimum, behaviors which lead to greater well-being tend to be decent. Those that lead to suffering tend toward indecent.

I say this because, in the short term, what kids are experiencing from the phone-based childhood does not look all that harmful, but over the course of their young lives, the distortions to their mental and emotional development can lead to long-term suffering.

A Model for Human Behavior

In his book, The Anxious Generation, Professor Jonathan Haidt talks about discovery mode and defend mode. He points out that animals have two default modes that a person can develop. They are like filters, or belief systems that regulate how we process the world.

We can use animals as images or metaphors for these two psychological states. Discovery mode is like a Labrador puppy, full of joy, energy, and a desire to explore the world. They believe they are fundamentally safe and they engage with the world through a lens of curiosity and wonder.

Defend mode, on the other hand, is characterized by a state of worry and fear. You can think of defend mode by imaging mice. Timid, shy, and overly cautious. They interpret everything as a threat.

This view of the unknown, however, extends beyond physical safety; it also affects how we process new information and new ideas. And this perhaps is the most concerning.

Discovery mode

When it comes to new information and new ideas, discovery mode is a state of openness and curiosity. When in discovery mode, individuals are more receptive to new ideas and willing to explore different perspectives. They are motivated by a desire to learn and understand, which allows them to engage in constructive dialogue and consider evidence objectively.

Defend Mode

In contrast, when a person is entrenched in defend mode, their approach to new information and uncertainty is characterized by a defensive and protective mindset. When in this mode, individuals are more focused on defending their existing beliefs and viewpoints. They are less open to new information and more likely to interpret evidence in a way that supports their pre-existing opinions. This mode is often triggered by perceived threats to one’s identity or beliefs.

It should be relatively simple to see that people who are more open, curious, and seeking to understand are more likely to engage positively with new viewpoints and new people. People primed in defend mode, on the other hand, are going to resist change and are likely to see new ideas (and people) as threats.

I also find it interesting that the book which kicked off this entire blog post series, Tiny Experiments, advocates for curiosity. From my perspective, Anne-Laure Le Cunff’s entire effort is to get us to treat our own personal experiences as one giant discovery mode. Be curious, be flexible, be open, explore, and learn. If we are priming kids to be defensive, closed-minded, and rigid out of fear, that runs counter to what we are learning about human flourishing.

Experiences Shape Kids' Default Mode

What does all of this have to do with kids? When children are encouraged to play freely and explore their world, when they have those:

• Face-to-face
• Synchronous
• High-commitment relationships

They are more likely to be primed to approach the world in discover mode. However, when they “come of age” in an environment defined by:

• Anonymity
• Asynchrony
• Abandonment from low-commitment communities

They are much more likely to be primed to act in defend mode. The technology-mediated experiences which are dominating their waking lives are cultivating them to act in defend mode.

In short, 24/7 access to the internet, whether it is games, online porn, or social media, is having a serious negative impact on kids. And with half of all kids having a phone or a tablet, they are growing up in a way that is making them more defensive, more rigid, more closed-minded, and more likely to view new information and new people as a threat.

Put another way, the phone-based childhood is training our children to fail the public goods game.

Healthy and Happy

One area of research that is skirting the line when it comes to understanding, if not morality, at least, how to improve human well-being is the area of Positive Psychology. Pioneer Martin Seligman about twenty years ago made an observation, followed by a question. His observation: “All we seem to do is study mental illness in psychology.” His question: “Why don’t we study human flourishing?” As president of the American Psychiatric Association, he was in a particularly influential position to both make the observation and ask the question. His inquiry sparked a decades-long foray into what is now known as “Positive Psychology.” It goes along the lines that the absence of illness is not the same as robustness of health. Dr. Seligman was a particularly well-qualified psychologist to ask this question, since his own research in the 1960s and 1970s established the concept of learned helplessness, which shows how exposure to uncontrollable stress can lead to depression-like behavior.

He might not be establishing a moral framework, but he is a huge proponent of using evidence-based approaches and practical tools for improving mental health. His methods are valued by both practitioners and researchers. I have often joked that I like being an engineer because I do not have to prove something is true, only that it works. That is my snarky way of admitting I am a practitioner, not a researcher. If a model works, I will apply it. However, Seligman is a bit of both. A researcher who cares about the applicability and utility of his findings.

And his model for humans is The PERMA Model. The five letters stand for:

• Positive Emotion
• Engagement
• Relationships
• Meaning
• Achievement

I want to point out two interesting but similar points in this model. First, positive emotion, what we call happiness or feeling good, only accounts for 1/5th of what we need to flourish. As Seligman himself said on Dr. Laurie Santo’s Happiness Lab Podcast, (I paraphrase)

Pursuing happiness alone is stupid because you are missing 80% of what you need to flourish.

I believe he meant that pursuing happiness, and only happiness, is a failing strategy. You need more to truly flourish. In a similar vein, Achievement also fails to produce flourishing for the same reason. As a member of the entrepreneurs organization, I have met many high-achieving financially successful founders and business owners who are miserable. When you pursue achievement at all costs, the costs are very high.

This leaves the three in the middle. What is Engagement? Seligman defines it as “Flow”, that state of timeless wonder when we are working at the edge of our ability. First described by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (say his name five times fast, I dare you) - the famous Check psychologist who studied and then described the phenomenon in his book Flow. Flow is a state of optimal engagement. Yes, I realize that is a circular reference, but Flow is highly related to Self-Determination Theory, which is why so many video games focus on creating it. When you have established a baseline of competency, and you are working on a challenge you find interesting, you can drop into a flow state. Add in a dollop of relatedness, like this challenge will help or benefit people you care about (such as your teammates, or clan members) and you have the key ingredients for a flow state.

That leaves the other two. Relationships. Seems pretty self-evident, but the final word, meaning is an interesting one. Viktor E. Frankl is the famous Austrian psychoanalyst who was imprisoned during World War II in the Nazi concentration camps. His book, Man’s Search for Meaning is often quoted for Frankl’s proposition that humans can determine the meaning of their lives. It is a choice.

But last year, I heard in a podcast that Seligman was updating his PERMA model to switch from Meaning to Mattering. It is not abstract meaning that helps us flourish, but the kind of meaning that is both personal and relational. We want to know that our efforts (the achievements that came as a result of our engagement), were noticed and appreciated - they mattered to people we related to.

If we want to raise healthy, happy children, then we also want to help them experience the PERMA model, which means yes, they should have positive emotions, but they also need to:

1. Learn challenging skills that align with their interests.
2. Learn how to relate to other people.
3. Focus on achieving work that
4. Matters to the people they care about.

This chain of challenging work which produces positive outcomes for people we care about is about the most concise way I can state the ideal.

Seligman’s implication, although not clearly stated, is that a person in a PERMA mindset is also a person in a Discovery Mode. They are curious, exploring, and fully engaged. This also happens to be highly correlated with Carol S. Dweck’s “Growth Mindset.” Children (and adults) with a “Fixed” Mindset more closely resemble Haidt’s defend mode mentality. You cannot work at the edge of your ability without embracing a certain degree of uncertainty. Fixed Mindset and Defend Mode are all about staying away from risks.

In other words, raising kids with smartphones primes them to do nearly the exact opposite of flourishing.

But What Can We Do About It?

This is the next part of the challenge. Removing smartphones from a kid’s life, or telling them to go outside and play with their friends, are not very effective strategies if everyone else they know has a smartphone and no one else is outside to play with.

And this is where I can come into the heart of my research. What can we do about it? I think I understand what is happening and why, but really digging into what we can do, especially as individuals, parents, and educators. This is going to be tricky and challenging.

So, I think the paths seem to fall along three lines. I see these as, in our homes, in our neighborhoods, and in our country.

1. Making informed decisions.
2. Working for change in our schools.
3. Advocating for change nationally.

Armed with better information, we can start to make the kinds of choices that give our kids a better chance for living a rewarding, fulfilling, flourishing life. When we know what is going on, we can try to support others in our community who are asking for change, like phone-free schools, and more intentional social interaction with other like-minded parents. Finally, together, we need to start advocating for the kinds of protections online that we get in the physical world.

Notes