Why Dr. Al's "Is Poker Socially Useful" Column is Wrong (Long)

[tipperdog]

I agree with Dr. Al that poker is socially useful, but I disagree entirely with his reasoning.

IMO, the reasons poker is socially useful are far simpler than he suggests, namely, poker 1) creates reasonably good jobs for dealers, cardroom staff, and more recently, TV producers, editors, grips etc, generating economic benefits that ripple throughout society; 2) provides an enjoyable leisure activity for millions of Americans (both players and TV viewers); and 3) does so in a way that is relatively harmless (consuming, for example, very few non-renewable environmental resources). We poker advocates would be foolish to pretend that our hobby has no downside (i.e. compulsive gambling and the negative consequences thereof), but I firmly believe these negative aspects are far outweighed by the positive.

Dr. Al makes a different argument for poker's social usefulness (though I suspect he wouldn't disagree with the above).

Dr. Al's fundamental argument is that poker is socially useful becuase it embodies and reinforces the kind of ruthlessly competitive attitude that we need more of today. I respectfully dissent.

First, I take issue with the way Dr. Al has used selected anecdotes to paint the entire educational establishment as anti-competitive borderline socialists (my words, but a fair characterization, I think). For example, he writes that:

* "Anti-competitive extremists" have taken over "much" of our educational system? Really? May I ask how much?

* "Some" schools prohibit breaking students into ability-based groups. Hmmm....Any idea how many?

* "A few" schools have eliminated grades. Interesting...how few?

* And "one idiotic principal" is singled out for discouraging competitive games at recess. One!

Drawing conclusions from these kinds of anecdotes is a dangerous game. Firstly, they're often highly isolated cases. I suspect this is the case here. I'm no education expert, but the schools with which I am personally familiar are highly competitive.

Secondly, they're often wrong. For example, if I'm thinking of the same school principal that he is (and she, no question, is an idiot), the school board reversed her policy less than one week after it was issued. Problem solved!

Thirdly, the motivation behind these anecdotes may be twisted and unfairly represented. For example, Yale Law (a very cutthroat group, I assure you) no longer assigns traditional letter grades to its students. This policy isn't designed to protect the fragile self esteem of future litigators; rather, the Yale faculty determined that other methods are more appropriate for evaulating student achievement. Is Yale correct? I don't know, but it's certainly wrong to imply that its grading policy is the result of some kind of Utopian hostile takeover of the Ivy League.

At its conclusion, Dr. Al's column favorably compares poker to other competitions, where past performance may bring current financial benefits. Dr. Al argues that this "resting on laurels" is injurious to society, because it fosters a disincentive to continue to achieve. Dr. Al writes:

[ QUOTE ]
in many competitions you can coast on your past accomplishments. Major league baseball teams pay millions to players with long term contracts who can no longer produce, and some corporations have given huge "Golden Parachutes" to people they fired for failing. But poker professionals must continue to excel: Many formerly great poker players now struggle to survive in small games. Nobody cares that they were once great. The only thing that matters is how well they play now.

This ruthlessly competitive attitude is precisely what America needs today.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so let's say that I'm a medical researcher and after 20 years of work, I invent a lifesaving medical device that saves thousands of lives. I retire and for the rest of my years, I live off the pension I earned and royalties from my patent. I am "resting on my laurels" freed from the obligation of "continuing to excel" each day.

In Dr. Al's world, I am less "socially useful" than a 30/60 Bellagio grinder, because he must "earn" his living every day. Respectfully, I submit that few objective observers would count the struggling poker pro as more socially useful than the medical researcher--certainly not the families of the patients whose lives were saved.

Fundamentally, the America Dr. Al seems to idiolize seems rather cold and nasty to me. Competition is core to our society, no doubt. But to imply that these values are vanishing (or are already gone) is a gross overstatement. Most importantly, I wouldn't want to live in an America where competition is the only value so highly venerated. I would respectfully submit that compassion, creativity, and the utilitarian desire to enhance the greater good also sets our nation apart--and that's a very, very good thing.

[cpk]

The "ruthless competition" Dr. Al speaks of is a prescription for dehumanization--the treating of people as material to be exploited and thrown away when they are no longer useful. In my opinion, we have far too much of this already.

I'm glad poker exists. As a microcosm of capitalism, it teaches me that a society based upon unrestrained and unmitigated capitalism would be a miserable place to live.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, the reasons poker is socially useful are far simpler than he suggests, namely, poker 1) creates reasonably good jobs for dealers, cardroom staff, and more recently, TV producers, editors, grips etc, generating economic benefits that ripple throughout society; 2) provides an enjoyable leisure activity for millions of Americans (both players and TV viewers); and 3) does so in a way that is relatively harmless (consuming, for example, very few non-renewable environmental resources). We poker advocates would be foolish to pretend that our hobby has no downside (i.e. compulsive gambling and the negative consequences thereof), but I firmly believe these negative aspects are far outweighed by the positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good definition of poker's usefulness.

It is the same basic reason that spectator sports, the movie industry, the book (fiction) industry, and many more industries exist and have a positive social usefulness.

[sabre170]

Maybe the best aspect of Dr. Al's piece is that it provoked this response from you. I look forward to more of your posts. Thank you for writing it.

Sabre170

[ZeeBee]

Hey, good post tipper.

I just whined at the article, you posted a better version.

ZB

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
Drawing conclusions from these kinds of anecdotes is a dangerous game.

[/ QUOTE ]


Poker is a dangerous game -- or didn't you see "Tilt" tonight?

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)
Buying a 9MM at 9AM

[BarronVangorToth]

My humorous retort aside, while you are free to think that Dr. Al is overestimating what is happening in our country, you certainly are underestimating it as a way to counterbalance (if his view even requires said measure, I'm not sure).

Things have gotten less competitive overall in many levels of scholarship. A few of my younger cousins I know for a fact are NOT graded -- yet not grading kids when I was a youngster was all but unheard of. Now it's becoming more acceptable.

I'm not sure if it is some strange offshoot of Political Correctness and a general universal sense of trying to make everyone "Feel Good," but his point is extremely valid and quite applicable.

Overdone? I don't know. I'm not an expert. However, that doesn't make it any less relevant and something we shouldn't think about.

That all said, I did enjoy your post, even if I don't agree with your overall viewpoint.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Oblomov]

Compliments on a very intelligent critique of Alan Shoonmaker’s piece. Though I found the Shoonmaker article interesting, I couldn’t help raising an eyebrow at the social-darwinist undertone that seems present in it.

/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Al Schoonmaker]

You wrote: "Anti-competitive extremists" have taken over "much" of our educational system? Really? May I ask how much?"

Do a Google search for "grade inflation." I just did it, and got 94,300 hits. I'll let you find your own articles so you won't claim I baised the data. One pointed out that more than half the grades at the Ivy League schools were "A's."
Another stated that in many schools more than half the students graduate cum laude or better.
I cannot count the number of universities which offer remedial English classes even to graduate students. I am NOT kidding. Some law schools have them because people got all the way through college without being able to write an intelligent sentence.

Did you know that American corporations spend many millions of dollars training people in basic LITERACY? Why? Because the people they hire -- who are almost all high school graduates -- don't know how to read and write.

You wrote that my position would be that "a medical researcher who retires is "less 'socially useful' than a 30/60 Bellagio grinder, because he must 'earn' his living every day. Respectfully, I submit that few objective observers would count the struggling poker pro as more socially useful than the medical researcher--certainly not the families of the patients whose lives were saved."

I certainly hope you are too intelligent to believe such silliness. I AM a researcher who co-authored two monographs and acted as an advisor on research methodology at The Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium. I value almost nothing as highly as I value research, particularly in medicine.

I never stated or implied that playing poker for a living is more social useful than ANY productive occupation. ALL I said is that it has some social utility because it develops competitive attitudes.

Nor did I say that competition is or should be the ONLY value "venerated." On the contrary, I have written extensively on the importance of knowing when to compete and when to cooperate.

Let me quote from a "Business is a poker game." "Overemphasizing competition is a TERRIBLE mistake. It has caused huge problems such as unnecessary wars, expensive lawsuits, and devastating strikes.
"You must be more flexible. Base your choice between cooperation and competition, not on your personal preferences or emotions, but on the demands of the situation."

Later in that book I spell out the situational factors you should consider when choosing competition or cooperation.

"Emphasize competition when
Your interests clearly conflict.
You are much more powerful.
You do not need or want a long term harmonious relationship.
You do not trust the other party.
The other party is competing.
"Emphasize cooperation when:
You have important common interests.
You are weaker or power is approximately equal.
You need or want a continuing, harmonious relationship.
You trust the other party.
The other party is cooperating.
"Despite this book’s competitive emphasis, I admit that the best results will generally occur when all the players are cooperating in an open, honest, trusting way. If everyone is acting that way, it would be extremely foolish to be competitive, deceptive, and so on. You would destroy the trust and information flow needed to work together cooperatively. Why, then, am I focusing only on competition?
"Because this book is ONLY about beating zero-sum competitive games. Many people simply cannot accept these games’ central premise: Everything you gain must be at other people’s expense. That reality does not come from anyone’s personality. It is an intrinsic element of the game itself. The people who are really troubled by this reality just deny it. They pretend that everything can be handled in a win-win, cooperative way. Winners know when to compete and when to cooperate, and their superior timing comes from their ability to assess situations realistically.
"If you want help only with cooperative games such as personal relationships, building teams, spiritual growth, mental health, and so on, don’t read this book. But, if you want to win, you usually can’t afford to be too cooperative. You must do what the situation demands, and the approach of the other parties is critically important. If you are against a competitor in a zero-sum game, and you act cooperatively, you will certainly lose. "

For more information on when to compete and cooperate, read chapter one of my "Negotiate to win" which was published by Prentice-Hall.

Let me close by thanking you for creating another thread about my article. I'm delighted to see so much interest.

Regards,

Al

[tipperdog]

Hello,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I hope you understood that my post was intended to stimulate discussion and provide some alternative thoughts to your article. In your reply post, I detected a bit of an annoyed tone. Sometimes, chat, email and other non-traditional communications vehicles can magnify these tones or create them out of wholecloth. So just for the record, I intended my post as part of a constructive dialogue with a respectful tone. I hope that came through in my original post.

Now on to business...

[ QUOTE ]
You [tipper] wrote: "Anti-competitive extremists" have taken over "much" of our educational system? Really? May I ask how much?"

Do a Google search for "grade inflation." I just did it, and got 94,300 hits. I'll let you find your own articles so you won't claim I baised the data [more deleted].


[/ QUOTE ]

First and just for the record, I never claimed you biased the data. My concern was rather that anecodates had substituted for data in the absence of hard information.

For example, I could cite many articles about overscheduled high school students juggling multiple AP courses and kids terribly overstressing about being rejected by Ivy League schools. I'm sure you've seen these stories in the news as well. In fact, I remember a recent news item about a student who committed suicide after being rejected by the Ivies! These anecdotes make great copy for newspapers, but they rarely tell the full story.

[ QUOTE ]

You [Tipper] wrote that my [Al's] position would be that "a medical researcher who retires is "less 'socially useful' than a 30/60 Bellagio grinder, because he must 'earn' his living every day. Respectfully, I submit that few objective observers would count the struggling poker pro as more socially useful than the medical researcher--certainly not the families of the patients whose lives were saved."

I certainly hope you are too intelligent to believe such silliness.


[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, I'm just dumb enough to believe it. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif.

Seriously, of course I don't think you'd hold that view; that's why I made up such an absurd example! Your column appeared to embrace the view that providing rewards for past success was wrong. Your piece argued that a "you're as good as your last act" (or poker session) mentality was good for America (hence, your critique of long-term sports contracts and "golden parachutes"). My example was intended to illustrate the counter-argument.



[ QUOTE ]

Nor did I say that competition is or should be the ONLY value "venerated." On the contrary, I have written extensively on the importance of knowing when to compete and when to cooperate.

Let me quote from a "Business is a poker game." "Overemphasizing competition is a TERRIBLE mistake.

[additional material deleted]


[/ QUOTE ]

I very, very much agree. Is this excerpted from a book you wrote? Sounds as though I'd like it. I did a quick Amazon search for "Poker as a Business" and came up blank. Any guidance?

Best,

--matt (aka Tipperdog)

[Al Schoonmaker]

Matt,

I was not at all annoyed by your post. In fact, I thanked you for it. I wanted to stimulate discussion, and I'm delighted that we've had three very active threads about it.

"Business is a poker game" is nearly finished. I expect to publish it in 2005.

You may like "Is poker socially useful?" Part II." It will appear in the next issue.

Thanks again for your interest.

Regards,

Al

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

I could cite many articles about overscheduled high school students juggling multiple AP courses and kids terribly overstressing about being rejected by Ivy League schools.




[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if you're pointing to the AP courses as causing the stress, but as far as "juggling" goes, if they can't handle the courses, they shouldn't be in them. In most cases these days, the AP courses being offered would've been the standard courses twenty years ago, as there is sort of a shift forward that has happened where remedial becomes regular and regular becomes AP. This is somewhat hidden by the overall standard being lowered, and isn't helped by the fact that the SAT's aren't a fixed quantity so the 1400 ten years ago could earn a far higher score now.

Stress in NOT getting into Ivy League schools -- if they can't handle the stress of not being accepted, are they expected to handle the actual curriculum?




Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[toss]

Let me shine a little more light on how highschool really is. In my LAUSD highschool there were three main types of students. The first group is composed of intelligent, hardworking students who took all the AP classes and put in the extra effort to get into a good college. The second group didn't give a rat's ass about school and were only there because they were because they had to. The third group also shared those AP classes with the first group, but were there only because their friends were. How did they manage take AP courses without the capabilities needed? They cheated.

Out of the 5000 students that attended this LAUSD highschool, (gotta love those 30+ student classes), I would say 4500 didn't care at all whatsoever. And by this I mean they didn't bother to do any of the work that they had to do. They didn't even pretend to do any work. How did people graduate? Well I'll talk about the teachers later.

Now of the 500 students left I'd say 300-400 of them made up Group 3. The cheaters. What kind of cheating you ask? They created some of the most sophisticated cheating methods I've ever seen. If only they put the same effort into schoolwork. During one A.P. test they used hollow erasers to communicate with students who knew all the answers. Through a method of subtle hand signals that would put a magician to shame they would know when the teacher was looking or not without ever having to look up. I can only imagine the number of students who unfairly received admission to the better colleges though cheating.

Now on to Group 1. This is what an average American student should be; hardworking and ambitious. We all worked hard and our results showed. How did we handle the stress of 4 college level classes on top of Sports and assloads of extra-curricular activity? Good time management and the ambition to work hard. If you want to have a better chance at a good life you MUST know that you'll have to work harder. I'm still astounded at how many people think they can work 15 hours a week and live an easy life. What astounds me further is that these are the same people who constantly whine about bad beats in life.

And finally the teachers. I'll try to make this short. Around 65% of them were there for the money. They cared as little as the students in Group 2. Now you know how they passed. The remaining teachers earnestly tried to help the students. They were there because they felt more fufilled from teaching. It was sad watching them try to spark an interest in the students that didn't care. This is a major part of the reason why a lot of teachers are disillusioned.

Bottomline is that our current school system is with serious flaws. Many students lacked basic skills in writing, math, science, etc. I wholeheartedly believe that we must create an atmosphere of competition to remedy our ailing schools.

[Nighthowl]

I have to quibble. Although I liked Al's book on poker psychology, I believe that the question he poses here is not itself socially useful. The only value in asking is to pander to some kind of irrelevant (IMHO) casuistry. Either the author is justifying his activities, or anticipating the criticisms of others (the casuists, dat rot 'em).

But why, outside of Cuba or North Korea, would anyone concern themselves as to whether an action that people freely engage in is socially useful? In the first place, it is not for them to judge, and in the second, it is probably impossible to quantify the manifold subjective and objective reasons for people to participate in such complex behaviour.

That said, ahem, I'd like to offer another reason that poker is socially useful. Poker is very useful in that it accelerates the process of taking small amounts of money consumed in an entertainment, and combining into larger amounts which are, disproportionately to other forms of financial exchange, turned into productive capital.

In other words, it efficiently takes from the poor and stupid and gives to the smart, productive, and increasingly wealthy, who, by investing their gains will provide more sensible things for the losers to do with their time. This is progress, IMAO.