Artificial intelligence will do what we ask, and that's a problem - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/artificial-intelligence-will-do-what-we-ask-thats-a-problem-20200130/ <comment><USER3> The only thing worse than the "evil" genie giving us exactly what we ask for is the genie that decides its inferences about our actual intents/wants/needs/motivations based purely on our behaviors matter more than what we intentionally express as our intents/wants/needs/motivations.

The most obvious analogy, and I acknowledge the potentially controversial nature of it, is that of a date rapist attempting to defend their actions by pointing out the victim was dressed provocatively, gave all the "signals" that they wanted sex, and when they expressly said "no" the rapist knew from their prior behavior that they actually did want it (or had some inner heretofore unexpressed need for it).

The true underlying motivation for such a rewrite of Asimov's laws lies in the paragraph that follows Russell's new list. "...developing innovative ways to clue AI systems in to our preferences, without ever having to specify those preferences." Perhaps he can start by ceasing to write and speak and instead clue in his audience to his preferences via behavior, since specifying them is somehow undesired.

Asimov's Three Laws exist to place boundaries around the genie's means of achieving our wishes. Russell's laws remove not only the genie's boundaries to means but also lets the genie make the wish as well. After all, it knows better than you what you want.

<comment><USER4> > The only thing worse than the "evil" genie giving us exactly what we ask for > is the genie that decides its inferences about our actual > intents/wants/needs/motivations based purely on our behaviors matter more > than what we intentionally express as our intents/wants/needs/motivations.

It's not worse.

> a date rapist

A rapist shares 99+% of definitions and values with you as a fellow human being. AI won't (unless you somehow program them in). Rapist has his evil motivations, but won't suddenly invent a virus that kills the whole human species because you asked him to stop neighbor kids trampling your garden. AI might. If you tell it not to kill anybody it might destroy our civilization to prevent us from killing ourselves with global warming. Why not - it only makes sense.

Simplest way to ensure safety for the maximum number of human beings is to anesthetize everybody and put them on life support till their natural death. Perfect record is possible - you might cure addicts and prevent crimes and wars. If you specify people have to be awake as often as they usually are - <USER2> can keep them awake but restrained. You want people to have freedom of movement? Ok - you just released the whole prison population :) Keeping criminals in prison is OK? Then it may make everybody a criminal for a quick fix. Or just drug everybody to WANT to be restrained. And so on, and so on.

There's infinite number of possible courses of action that we discard without consciously thinking about them because of our assumptions. You have to put these assumptions in the AI, each and every one of them, and they are very subtle and invisible for us most of the time. And they often border on philosophy and morality, and defining them is political by definition.

It's probably impossible to code all our values and assumptions in by hand. That's a much bigger problem for safe general AI than a post-factum explanations that rub your morality the wrong way.

> Asimov's Three Laws

Are self-contradictory and useless for anything except literature.

<comment><USER3> And a drug addict, by analysis of behavior, is committing suicide so the AI should help them achieve their inferred goal based on that behavior. Nevermind asking them if that is their intent, it knows better because it sees the behavior.

Russell's laws encode NO limits and doesn't even demand the AI check its judgment with the so-called beneficiaries of its decisions. That is most assuredly worse.

<comment><USER4> Decoding the preferences of people from their behavior is just a first step, it's not the only rule, it's a rule that makes writing other rules safer than they would be otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What is more immediate problem to solve: AI-to-Zuck or AI+Zuck alignment?

1) AI-to-Zuck alignment problem: Align AI to it's master(s).

2) AI+Zuck alignment problem: Align AI and it's master(s) to the rest of the humanity.

Zuck is just stand-in variable name for any tech billionaire CEO, corporation or governing body, could be people running OpenAI, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, China or Pentagon. 2) seems like the problem for humanity and 1) as the problem for Zuck.

<comment><USER6> > Zuck is just stand-in variable name for any (...)

Very badly chosen variable name, because it singles out one special case instead of reflecting the broader concept, which could confuse other devs picking up from here.

It's like defining a variable that stands for "vegetable" and naming it "carrot".

<comment><USER7> Maybe it would be more appropriate to say that Zuck is an instance of the CEO/Tech Billionaire/Governing Body/Corporation/PotentialAIMaster object.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This problem is already solved with humans, some of whom are also very intelligent and goal oriented. It's done by noticing when those rare individuals do things we don't want and formalizing our preference in law. So many people agree on the concept of respecting the law that we all cooperate to enforce it. The law is an ugly mess of rules made to plug gaps in itself as they were taken advantage of. Nobody could have worked it all out up front and programmed it into a robot. It evolved along with the intelligent humans it was meant to control. It's precarious though - if the majority of humans don't keep vigilantly maintaining it, an intelligent human might move too fast and gain enough power to take control of the updating of the law! Then we have something like a tyranny. Which can and does sometimes kill all the humans (within its influence) in pursuit of its goals. So as long as we don't let robots move too fast for us to notice what's happening, we should be able to just keep writing more and more laws for them to follow. Not moving too fast for us to keep an eye on them might be the first one!

<comment><USER9> The problem is "move slow" is itself a rule that is subject to violation, and "move fast" might be so fast that its nearly instantaneous in its catastrophe (say an AI that nukes the entire world)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> 3\. The ultimate source of information about human preferences is human behavior.

Great so the robot would see climate activist flying around in private jets pumping out several thousand times the average persons output, and promptly destroy the environment by assuming our actual goal is to destroy the environment with more CO2.

<comment><USER11> That's not the conclusion _any_ sufficiently advanced intelligence would draw from the facts.

<comment><USER12> That's the conclusion that a sufficiently advanced intelligence would draw from our _behaviors_. People act at odds to their stated and felt goals all the time, that's why "self control" is meaningful as a skill that different people have to different degrees.

<comment><USER13> The example behavior has a long term goal that a sufficiently advanced intelligence would deduce.

<comment><USER9> plenty of human behavior is directly harmful and counter to long term goals.

<comment><USER13> We are talking about a specific example here, not human behavior in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think authors do not understand basic rules of Asimovs universe.

Robotics laws are unbreakable limits hardwired into every positronic brains. On top of those you can put some other programming (servant, mining machine, space ship...). It is not possible to create brain without those rules.

Asimov universe explores machine learning, autonomous weapons, humanity etc using those principles.

New proposed laws are just tautology, "do what people want". No limits, no orders...

What should machine do if no people are around? Just sit idle?

What if majority behaves in "wrong" way (vote extremist politician)?

I would expect some other laws, for example there should be always an option for people to opt-out or leave country.

</comment><comment><USER15> This sounds like a terrible rewrite. If I can think of places they fail, surely real life can come up with more. Essentially, this would lead to either:

a) The tyranny of the majority, or

b) The tyranny of those with strong preferences.

Let's say 51% of a population wants to get rid of the other 49% and wishes they were dead. What would stop the machine making it happen?

Let's say a super-person is born, who just wants stuff more than anyone else alive. Maybe he's had a bad childhood and been through terrible things, so now those things that he wants reach the level of desperation for him. Wouldn't this make the worth of his values more than other people to the machines?

Finally:

> Still, Russell feels optimistic. Although more algorithms and game theory > research are needed, he said his gut feeling is that harmful preferences > could be successfully down-weighted by programmers

... so we're back to square one. We've created a learning machine that can come up with its own morality. But... we're going to have to down-weight certain behaviours just to be sure. Doesn't that simply recurse to:

a) Down-weighting removes the learning, and

b) We have to trust ourselves to correctly program and define the down- weighting.

<comment><USER16> > Let's say a super-person is born, who just wants stuff more than anyone else > alive. Maybe he's had a bad childhood and been through terrible things, so > now those things that he wants reach the level of desperation for him. > Wouldn't this make the worth of his values more than other people to the > machines?

I've blogged about this recently.

Morality, thy discount is hyperbolic: [https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2020/01/08/morality- th...](https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2020/01/08/morality-thy-discount- is-hyperbolic/)

Normalised, n-dimensional, utility monster: [https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2018/01/21/normalised-...](https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2018/01/21/normalised- n-dimensional-utility-monster/)

Disclaimer: although I do have a formal qualification in philosophy, I did not get a very good grade.

<comment><USER15> Cool!

Have you seen this cartoon? It's something I remembered from way back, and finally found it again!

[http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569](http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569)

<comment><USER16> Thanks :)

That SMBC looks familiar, but I can't be sure — the comic has so much interesting philosophical and transhumanist content, it can sometimes blend together.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> NOTE: Hacker News changed the title, so my comment might make less sense. The title was "Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics have been updated"

1\. The machine's only objective is to maximize the realization of human preferences.

Not all humans are the same. How would a robot deal with incongruent preferences? Or cultural differences that conflict?

2\. The machine is initially uncertain about what those preferences are.

So am I... We often don't even know what our own preferences are. This has been studied. Given too many options of snow cone flavors, humans are less likely to even pick one! [0]

3\. The ultimate source of information about human preferences is human behavior.

What?! The phrase "Do as I say, not as I do" comes to mind. Many people behave against their own intuition, best interests, or even their preferences, given the situation, peer pressure, or blackmail.

This "rewrite" is less preferable to Asimov's. Humans are fallible. I wouldn't want a robot to follow our lead.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice)

<comment><USER18> I definitely agree with your points, although I think this reframing of the problem from "we need to explicitly state what we want" to "we should teach robots to want to learn what we want" is at least conceptually very useful and interesting.

I think the part about "robots could learn what Russell calls our meta- preferences: 'preferences about what kinds of preference-change processes might be acceptable or unacceptable.'" is what would be used to resolve preference conflict issues. People tend to be biased in consistent/similar ways so it doesn't seem implausible that a machine that could infer preference from action could take the extra step to infer circumstances affecting that preference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The submitted title ("Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics have been updated") broke the site guidelines, which ask: " _Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don 't editorialize._" ([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html))

Cherry-picking a detail from an article and putting it in the HN title is the quintessential kind of editorializing. Because threads are so sensitive to initial conditions, it ends up skewing an entire discussion. It also causes comments to make less sense when moderators come along and revert the title, as we've done here.

Submitting a story on HN doesn't convey any special right to frame it for other readers. If you want to say what you think is important about an article, please do that in the comments. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22level%20playing%20field%22&sort=byDate&type=comment)

<comment><USER20> > Because threads are so sensitive to initial conditions, it ends up skewing > an entire discussion.

I haven't thought about this before on HN, but it makes a lot of sense. I'm curious if you or others have written about this intuition and your experience with it -- I'd like to understand it more.

<comment><USER19> I've written about it in comments over the years. You might find some interesting cases in there: [https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20threads%20initial&sort=byDate&type=comment). It's one of the more reliable phenomena we observe on HN.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I was expecting there to be an additional law or something. This doesn't seem to be an update, but a complete replacement.

</comment><comment><USER22> The article's main example of an AI fail is YouTube's recommendation engine optimizing for extremist content. But it didn't seem to explain how "inverse reinforcement learning" would solve it - don't people's clicks already model their desires?

Nothing in here seems to be an advancement towards AGI. I'm sure their robot can learn the optimal rules for driving in a simulator, but what about the unexpected in the real world? We don't even have a clue as to how human creativity actually works, much less how to make a creative machine (ie an AGI).

<comment><USER3> In fact that example argues against Russell's third law. The recommendation engine is observing the user's behavior and inferring that watching a video means the user agrees with the video, and so starts an escalation until it sees a refusal to click/watch.

Simply watching a video is not an expression of agreement nor an endorsement of the content. Any of us read articles and books with which we may disagree if for no other reason than to fully understand the opposing viewpoint, and this is no less true for videos, audio, etc etc.

Want to know if the user actually likes the content? Ask them. Stop thinking that statistical inference is better or even equal to directly measured data from a specific entity, especially when dealing with qualitative concepts rather than quantitative.

<comment><USER22> Thanks. You should've written this article :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I don't know how any one can believe that AI will be so smart that it can turn the entire world into paperclips yet so stupid that it won't know that it's a bad idea.

<comment><USER24> Yeah I know what you mean.

Frankly, I feel there's major problems behind the concepts of AI and even intelligence itself - and it's difficult to articulate why. It's as if these terms require aggrandizing to the point of impossibility or they lose all their apparent meaning. Which is why I feel we'll never achieve what we call (Strong/General) AI, or if we do, we will find ways to be unimpressed by it...

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is fine for AI tools that aren't remotely intelligent like the ones over- hyped today; but for any hypothesised AGI, the idea of programming it to be fundamentally constrained by updated Asimov laws is naive, technically stupid, and - in its implications of a sentient slave species - morally repugnant.

</comment><comment><USER26> >In his recent book, Human Compatible, Russell lays out his thesis in the form of three "principles of beneficial machines," echoing Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics from 1942, but with less naivete.

It is a recent trend to brush off Isaac Asimov's laws without an actual critique. Which betrays a lack of concrete thought in the matter.

It's not that Asimov's laws are flawless, but that countering them seems easier than it really is. I have seen various bad, hand-wave dismissals but I can't recall any careful critiques.

I have the new book, Human Compatible, and I buy Russell's argument but note that his rules are much more abstract, and therefore it is perhaps harder to counter.

<comment><USER27> Just read the Asimov novels that introduce the rules.

Every single one of them fails in dramatic ways and that's what drives the story forward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The whole evil genie thing is pretty unlikely imo. You're postulating an AI that is too stupid to not understand that it shouldn't take your wishes in some dead literal sense (make my home eco friendly => bulldoze it and plant some trees) but also do intelligent that it can summon the resources and make those idle wishes come true in a terrible grandiose way. There are many dangers around AI but this particular popular fantasy is not well thought out.

</comment><comment><USER29> There's a 1946 sci-fi story called A Logic Named Joe, which nails this.

AIs are programmed to do what people ask unless it's bad, and one day, that "unless" mechanism fails. Joe starts doing everything people ask of it. Stalking that would make Zuckerberg proud....

[http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200506/0743499107___2.htm](http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200506/0743499107___2.htm)

</comment><comment><USER30> Not really a comment super relevant to the article in the post, but seems to touch on some interesting subjects and probably a good conversation starter: one of the videos by Isaac Arthur - Technological Singularity ( [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXYcvxg_Yro](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXYcvxg_Yro) )

</comment><comment><USER31> Is there such a set of rules/traits that are being defined to be maximized? I remember Elon saying to "maximize human freedom" as a goal but I could be out of context or misquoting.

</comment><comment><USER32> The argument at the beginning of the article includes YouTube recommendations front more extreme, but isn't the reason that happens because of these new proposed 3 laws?

</comment><comment><USER33> this moves the conversation from 'arabian nights' to 'the tempest'

then what?</comment>


Grooveshark booted from Google's App Market; still easy to install... - <AUTHOR> http://techland.time.com/2011/04/06/google-yanks-grooveshark-from-android-market-but-chrome-app-remains/

<comment><AUTHOR> But, since Android is open (for certain values of "open"), the app's still perfectly easy to install...</comment>


The High Price of Delivery App Convenience - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/technology/personaltech/the-high-price-of-delivery-app-convenience.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur <comment><USER2> Overall I think it's good that we now have a pretty direct way to pay upfront for increased convenience of faster delivery time. This value is akin to the (opportunity) cost of actually going out to physically buy something if you want/need it almost immediately but starting to increase the market of goods beyond just that you can get in local shops.

Minor niggle: They mention the Amazon Prime Now $8 fee for one hour delivery but neglect to mention there is no additional fee for delivery within only two hours. There is of course the recommended "tip" which sits at around 10%, but for a fairer comparison with the other mentioned services generally providing delivery within a day, I think the free option within two hours is more comparable.

</comment><comment><USER2> Existing discussion here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10508629](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10508629)</comment>


Australian prime minister runs private e-mail server, uses Confide and Wickr - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/australian-prime-minister-runs-private-e-mail-server-uses-confide-and-wickr/ <comment><USER2> Of course. Everybody should run private email servers, and not go thru centralized corporations that spy on you, and let the NSA and other secret services spy on you.</comment>


Nethack: The Greatest Game You Will Ever Play - <AUTHOR> http://thegreatestgameyouwilleverplay.com/

<comment><USER2> I love the challenge of the early game, but more than one character has died to bit rot once I've got a full ascension kit and something drags me away.

It's just so tiring to slog through the last levels, when there are 80 messages about monsters missing to read every turn and the crazy summoners have you surrounded with 800 weak monsters. Sure, you can wipe the floor with them for the most part, but you die if you get a little too careless with your HP.

That said, I might just roll up another of my favorite neutral human wizards for fun. Mindflayer meat is just so delicious....</comment>


Rooftop solar panels overloading electricity grid - <AUTHOR> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-plan/rooftop-solar-panels-overloading-electricity-grid/story-fn99tjf2-1226165360822 <comment><USER2> The big costs in a solar installation are not the panels themselves, but the voltage regulator/converter and battery systems.</comment>


What Science Says to Do If Your Loved One Has an Opioid Addiction - <AUTHOR> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-science-says-to-do-if-your-loved-one-has-an-opioid-addiction/ <comment><AUTHOR> OP here.

An interesting takeaway I had was the importance of community. Does anyone know any non-profits or startups working to increase people's sense of community at a mass scale? It seems this is missing from large parts of the western world and has many consequences.

<comment><USER2> It reminds me of things Mother Teresa (who was at times a horrendous person, her Nobel acceptance speech is pretty disturbing and cruel) said about American/western society. She remarked that although a person in India might be radically more poor, even if they were starving in the street, they knew people would reach out to them and cared for them. In America, no matter how rich you are, you feel far more alone than that.

<comment><USER3> > (who was at times a horrendous person, her Nobel acceptance speech is pretty > disturbing and cruel)

Wait what? Because she brought up abortion? [https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979...](https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/teresa- acceptance_en.html)

<comment><USER4> I don't know about the speech particularly, but I think Catholic notions about poverty and suffering bringing people closer to Christ rub some people the wrong way. At least that seems to be a lot of the motivation behind "Mother Teresa was awful" stuff I see.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Consequently, do not try to use legal consequences as a way to help people > you love, and if possible, bail them out if they get arrested for drug > crimes. This doesn't mean you shouldn't hold them accountable, but do so in > ways that are less likely to lead to lifelong problems. Meaningful > employment is an important factor in recovery — and few things are more > harmful to the chances of getting a good job than having a criminal record.

This is one area that's crying out for some kind of reform.

<comment><USER5> I've been thinking about similar things in the context of a basic income. If we were to just pass a law and guarantee a significant basic income I think it would have disastrous effects and fail miserably. A guaranteed income is a good goal, but before we do that we need to figure out how to replace meaningful employment with other meaningful activities. People need a purpose.

If we can alter our culture and separate a person's purpose from their employment, then we might be able to get to a Star Trek future. If I can get anything I want from a replicator in the wall, what are my incentives to still better myself and work towards something?

<comment><USER4> > I've been thinking about similar things in the context of a basic income. If > we were to just pass a law and guarantee a significant basic income I think > it would have disastrous effects and fail miserably. A guaranteed income is > a good goal, but before we do that we need to figure out how to replace > meaningful employment with other meaningful activities. People need a > purpose.

I don't think so. I think people can find a purpose without us imposing one on them.

> If I can get anything I want from a replicator in the wall, what are my > incentives to still better myself and work towards something?

Why do people get really good at chess when there is little extrinsic motivation in it? If some people just want to hang around, is that really a "problem" we need to address?

<comment><USER5> > I don't think so. I think people can find a purpose without us imposing one > on them.

I didn't mean to say a purpose should be imposed. Today it kind of is. A purpose is often closely tied to a job and a job is pretty much required to survive.

I was trying to convey that we should look for more ways to help people _find_ a purpose or whatever you want to call some activity that is meaningful and fulfilling to that individual and socially healthy.

> If some people just want to hang around, is that really a "problem" we need > to address?

Maybe, maybe not. If they are hanging around because it's what they want to do and they are happy and healthy doing so, then I don't see a problem.

<comment><USER4> Well you said there shouldn't be a universal basic income because people wouldn't have a purpose without the job being imposed on them, which seems to take as its premise that people need to have some kind of purpose imposed on them. The big reason unemployed people feel purposeless is because we live in a society where everyone is supposed to have a job or else is a drain on society/shamefully failing to support their families/whatever else. In a world where there's no need to have a job to support yourself who's to say that's still the case? That's not to say there aren't other potential problems, but I'm not sure "purpose" is the real one.

<comment><USER5> > I'm not sure "purpose" is the real one

 _Purpose_ might not be the right word. I think people need meaningful lives.

<comment><USER4> Well, no, I think that's the right word to convey that. I don't see life as meaningful because of the amount of time I spent at my job really.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> An addiction tries to replace a void in someone's life. Chances are big the environment of the addicted played a role in cerating the void.

<comment><USER7> That's not helpful at all. Yes, addiction is "filling" "something" "broken". Now what?

<comment><USER2> It is extremely helpful. It is very incovenient, to be sure, but it is very helpful. If you want people to not use drugs, then you have to provide them with a fulfilling life or the opportunity for such. If your desire is to operate a society that grinds people down, restricts them in ways that feel burdensome to them, insults them, and also does not have people using drugs? You might as well wish to fly. Because your wish is as realistic, and as worthy of ridicule.

It comes down to whether you want to stop people using drugs because you don't like that they get happy so easy, or whether you want people to stop using drugs of their own accord and have happy lives. If it's the second - help.

<comment><USER8> Never mind people who get addicted after being prescribed medication for an injury, then? Never mind that the new generations of opioids were marketed as safer/less addicting when they probably were _more_ addicting, and thus prescribed even more out of perception of their safety?

<comment><USER9> Althogh this has certainly become the narrative of late, TFA seems to discount this fairly strongly;

"To that point, pain treatment is not the most significant risk factor for addiction. Far greater risk comes from simply being young and from using alcohol and other recreational drugs heavily. Ninety percent of all drug addictions start in the teens — and 75 percent of prescription opioid misuse begins when (mainly young) people get pills from friends, family or dealers — not doctors. Opioids are rarely the first drug people misuse."

<comment><USER7> And whether or not it is the most, least, or somewhere in the middle, risk factor, makes no difference in treatment. The article is about effective treatment for that addict and TFA suggests medication. It does not suggest addressing addiction issues, except as mean to getting the addict into actual treatment.

Filling voids and seeking happiness aren't mentioned in TFA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I read this, as a recovering addict that went through my own hell mostly from alcoholism, and wondered where the "science" part was?

For instance this sentence "More than 13 percent of its participants died after treatment,1 mainly of overdoses that could potentially have been prevented with evidence-based care." The argument is that they "could" have been prevented but how do they really know that? How many people in general die of an overdose after X number of stays in a rehab? Through my own experiences going to rehab, I have known of many people who die. The fact is you can't predict which people will "get" it any better than you can predict if it will rain next month.

I also disagree with this notion that being on suboxone or methadone indefinitely is a legitimate solution. Like what? You're advocating to stay on a drug the rest of your life? That isn't recovery at all, it's a band-aid that will likely lead to relapse and promotes a perpetual notion of being sick.

I also disagree that their supposed evidence that CRAFT gets twice as many people into rehab has much relevance. How many of those people relapsed? How many of the people that didn't go to rehab ended up overdosing OR recovering? We don't get the whole picture so the "evidence" is mute.

They knock 12-step which is fine but it turns out that it works for millions of people.

There is no silver bullet here.

While I have mixed feeling about the "tough love" approach, I can tell you from personal experience that the only reason I'm not buried right now is because at a certain point the floor dropped out too low, my family and friends abandoned me, I lost everything for a moment, and the pain and horror reached a level that finally I had a change of psyche on my OWN and realized I wanted to get better.

In my own humble opinion the only "science" that matters on this subject are the opinions of those whom have lived it and recovered. Go survey the opiate addicts that didn't end up dead and find out what worked for them.

<comment><USER11> First of all, thank you for sharing your experience. It was insightful, and I completely agree with your criticism of the article.

I would like to make a small, and perhaps somewhat pedantic comment regarding your last statement:

>In my own humble opinion the only "science" that matters on this subject are the opinions of those whom have lived it and recovered. Go survey the opiate addicts that didn't end up dead and find out what worked for them.

There is a problem of silent evidence and survivor bias here. What is important is not what they did that led to their recovery, but what they did _differently_ (or, more generally, what was different in their circumstances) from those that tried to recover, but didn't.

So, IMHO, what is needed is not _just_ the opinions of those that recovered, but a longitudinal study to identify which, out the many factors that were involved in the recovery process, have been the most instrumental.

<comment><USER12> While I agree with your points about collecting empirical and unbiased data, I want to point out that when it comes to opioids, "Science" is moving the goal posts. They are measuring social acceptability of a subject while under the influence of doctor-prescribed dope, while ignoring the numerous addicts who maintain similar levels of social acceptability while using Street dope, then declaring their method a "success".

<comment><USER11> Yes, fair point. This is a common problem for social studies. One must keep in mind and be explicit about the population the study sample is drawn from; and very cautious about extrapolating the findings to other populations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think the saddest part of this article is perhaps the glancing statement it makes about how prison isn't a place of recovery and rehabilitation. The prison system here really is too focused on punishment and locking people up forever rather than helping them get back on their feet and being productive members of society

<comment><USER14> Unfortunately, the drug war and punishing users of non-sanctioned drugs is embedded deep in America's political and social DNA - but seeing how much has changed in some areas of drug policy especially with variations from state to state - I hold out some hope that we might see some changes there too - but I just wouldn't hold my breath.

<comment><USER15> It's not just America's DNA. Many countries around the world base their drug policy off of US drug policy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also interesting and related: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15241874](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15241874)

"Psychedelics Help Reduce Opioid Addiction, According to New Study"

<comment><USER10> Have you also read "Abstinence Helps Reduce Opioid Addiction, According to New Study"?

<comment><USER16> Oh, is this like the "abstinence based sex education" that increases teenage pregnancy and STD rates?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Now that the opioid crisis is a problem for white people, science makes an appearance in the policy discussion.

Contrast to the crack epidemic in the 80s: fuck'em, throw them all in prison.

Edit to add: I wish the best of luck to those who have been caught up in this crisis: I'm rooting for you, and I hope every last one of you find the treatment you need. For those of us who aren't affected, it's time for some deep introspection about what we allow our politicians and (yes) our neighbors to get away with.

<comment><USER18> >Contrast to the crack cocaine epidemic in the 80s: fuck'em, throw them all in prison.

That's overly reductive to the point of being wrong. There was never a particularly strong feeling that crack addicts should be thrown in prison any more than other types of addicts. People were strongly in favor of throwing crack _dealers_ in prison because they were turning neighborhoods into war zones as they fought for lucrative turf.

And it wasn't just white people, either. The strongest advocates you'll find of drug criminalization are black people who lived through the crack epidemic in the '80s.

<comment><USER19> crack vs cocaine sentencing doesn't agree with you. It was clearly making the "black" crime of crack possession worse than the "white" crime of coke possession.

Obama got a whole law passed in _2010_ to address it!

<comment><USER20> Y'all realize that black legislators and community organizers pushed for and voted for those "racist" crack sentences? They were trying to save their own communities.

Edit: for the uninformed down voters: [https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...](https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2016/02/why_many_black_politicians_backed_the_1994_crime_bill_championed_by_the.html)

<comment><USER21> Have you heard the theory that racism might be institutionalized?

<comment><USER22> I do not recollect with precision, but there is an article posted on HN few years ago, showing the 80s archives of New York Times, in it NYT was squarely arguing for harsher sentencing and so were African American civic leaders.

May be there is racism that is institutional, but the point is most people even those who are against harsher sentences today thought it was a remedy. We will be failing ourselves if we cannot examine that fact and simply hitch and re-assign every "fucked up" decision to racism.

<comment><USER23> > May be there is racism that is institutional, but the point is most people > even those who are against harsher sentences today thought it was a remedy.

That's exactly the irony of institutional racism: it's so rarely _consciously_ racist. It is often "colorblind".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> If there were one article this year I could force my family to process adequately, it's this one. Addiction is still seen in our group as a failure of character -- not raised right, not religious enough, not following the right path. This kind of advice is seen as 'soft', and that's a shame.

<comment><USER14> I would also recommend listening to an NPR podcast "The Fix" by RadioLab: [http://www.radiolab.org/story/addiction/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/addiction/)

While the description talks about taking a pill to solve your addiction problems (some very interesting insights into the latest research at that time 2015 and also many absurd regulatory hurdles), it's the interviews with researchers and addicts that are truly eye opening - and address many of the issues you mention. After listening to it I personally will never reduce someone who has an addiction to failure of character.

<comment><USER25> In the words of Neal Stephenson, they are '[opiate]-seeky.' They have a tendency dug in at the neurological level to seek opiates, even if they aren't doing so at the moment. The distinction offered by Stephenson is that '*-seeky' is an adjective that modifies an individual, rather than a noun such as 'addict' which overshadows and eclipses an individual.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I do not agree with much of what is stated in this article, nor do I feel that this article represents "what science says" should be done if a loved one has opioid addiction (although it really goes into addiction as a general topic). Treating someone with addiction is a remarkably nuanced and challenging situation, and the author tries to present certain treatment options as not worth doing based on science, when their own citations do not back up those claims.

As someone who has had a loved one go through addiction, and ultimately die from that addiction, I find the binary nature of a lot of this self-described "evidence based guide" dangerously black and white. Proclaiming that abstinence based programs "have not been found to be effective" is total nonsense. What the study found in GB was that psychological only based treatment is less effective at preventing death than replacement therapy, on average. For many, replacement therapy may very well be the best option. For other, abstinence programs may give them an opportunity to fully reclaim their life. How about we empower medical professionals with the ability to treat the disease with a number of weapons, rather than creating this false dichotomy, which is _not_ represented in the data. This guide would potentially discourage someone, or a family member, from choosing a very viable option for treatment, by overstating results.

While I'm not a medical professional, the best example I can think of is with how we treat depression. For some people, active psychotherapy is the best treatment option. For others, a regime of anti-depressants is sufficient treatment. For others, a combination of both is the optimum treatment option. What we don't do, as scientists, is say, "Option 2 has a 30% better outcome, thus we _only_ will treat depression with option 2." That's just absolute junk. What it means is that we will look at what cohorts tend to respond best to option 1, 2, and 3, and understand _why_ , so we can choose a treatment option that makes sense for that individual, without having to try 1, 2, and 3. It doesn't mean that we just toss out the other options wholesale.

The 538 politics podcast does a, "Good use of polling" and "bad use of polling" intro during many of their podcasts. This article would clearly fall under the category of "bad use of polling". I hope to see better out of 538 in the future on these topics.

</comment><comment><USER27> In short, the published science says to addict the patient to methadone or suboxone instead of whatever they are on, for a lifetime of perpetual treatment.

Actual drug users are likely to recommend using kratom to alleviate withdrawal symptoms and ibogaine (or another powerful hallucinogen) to permanently remove the addiction.

"Science" does not recommend this, because politics has made the hallucinogens --and research into their therapeutic uses--at least as illegal as the opioids that cause all the problems. As someone with an opioid addiction is likely already routinely breaking some rather serious laws, and frequently courting sudden death by overdoses or adulterants, it may be worth trying the single dose of ibogaine before choosing the lifelong maintenance therapy.

</comment><comment><USER28> Interesting question: The replacing opioid addiction with maintenance drugs... I could understand that drug being an okay interim solution, but in the end the person still needs to go through withdrawal, the drug just replaces withdrawal with another drug.

Withdrawal is hard. Yes. But at least the person is in the right mindset to go through it once they are off the compulsory addiction, even if it takes a year to get to that point.

As kchoudhu points out and many have pointed out to me before this article, certainly once a bunch of white kids have this problem, suddenly they are "victims" not "criminals". Yet we have destroyed so many lives between the 80s and now, especially with the mandatory minimums and such.

<comment><USER29> I'm physically dependent on caffeine. Why bother fixing that when it is cheap legal and available?

<comment><USER30> In case you're looking for a sincere answer: being physically dependent on any otherwise unnecessary drug is a drag. You constantly have to seek it out to feel better. Even though caffeine is easily obtainable, I still have found it to be inconvenient when I've been at high levels of consumption. Plus, it does have health effects. It may not be so, but you'll likely feel a lot better without it.

<comment><USER31> I've gone cold turkey on caffeine a couple of times (takes me about a week of headaches, I'm not an especially heavy user), mainly because I was making hot drinks to avoid work out of boredom, so switched to ginger teas and such like.

Anyway, there doesn't appear to be consensus on whether coffee/tea drinking in moderate amounts is good or bad, but I've seen more suggestions that it's beneficial than otherwise. Any input to that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Annoying how this 538 article immediately bemoans the lack of regulation -- as if the only solution is to grow the government and pass more laws.

</comment><comment><USER32> What science says nothing about because of the DEA's inane scheduling: hallucinogens.

<comment><USER33> Yes, Ibogaine is literally 10x more effective than Methadone. It's risky if you've weakened your heart with stimulants though.

<comment><USER34> Source?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Hands down, Naltrexone is the only thing that helped my loved ones with alcohol addiction. Please look into it and watch "one pill" documentary. You have a choice other than AA meetings.

</comment><comment><USER2> Great article, but if your loved one has an opioid addiction and wants to quit without suffering the devastating withdrawal, I would strongly recommend investigating kratom. It is a non-opiate tree which grows primarily in Thailand and similar regions. It contains an alkaloid called mitragynine. This alkaloid is a selective opioid receptor agonist. Specifically, research shows that it is an agonist to several opioid receptors but particularly an antagonist of the receptor which causes respiratory system depression, and is thought responsible for the primary addictive nature of most opiates and synthetic opioids.

It is legal in most of the US (I believe there are 1 or 2 states which have banned it, it has a long history by now in US law. A year or so ago the DEA announced to Congress the intention to schedule it (ban it) under their 'emergency' powers (which is bullshit since there are no deaths from it, and it remains mostly unknown, those 'emergency' powers are simply abused). After that announcement, they were required to consult research and doctors, along with opening a public comment period. Afterward they withdrew their intent to schedule it. So, for now, it remains legal.

Its effect upon a person with no opioid dependence is at low doses similar to caffeine without the 'jittery' part and without the crash afterward. In larger doses it has mild analgesic and sedative properties. I've taken Vicodin after I had my wisdom teeth removed, and have also tried kratom, and not even in large amounts have I ever experienced it giving any sort of similar 'high'. It is mildly habit-forming of itself, but very mildly compared to opiates. Withdrawal after extensive use might consist of having the sniffles and feeling a bit restless for a day or two. With tapering dosages down rather than sudden cessation, nothing is likely to be noticed.

Reportedly, kratom ameliorates most, if not all, withdrawal symptoms from things like Oxycontin, heroin, etc. Expecting people to go through withdrawal is inhumane and stupid. We can deal with it without the suffering. Kratom can be gotten online from multitudes of vendors. Please steer clear of the "legal high" and 'weed shop' variety of places. In addition to being radically overpriced, their association does active harm to the community of people who use kratom reasonably. Stay away from extracts and concentrated forms (although those seem to have mostly gone away from most outlets, they were big for awhile and were bordering on dangerous) and just get simple crushed leaves. If you or a loved one wants to quit, kratom will let you do so without ruining your life.

If your loved one does not want to quit, because doing so would expose them to the full pain (emotional, physical, OR psychological) of a life they hate and which they feel traps them... your problem and theirs is not the drug.

<comment><USER30> Thank you for your detailed and educating post. I came into the comments here after Ctrl+F "kratom" on the article and finding no results. Kratom is life saving for opioid/opiate addictions, but as well as for chronic pain. My wife has been in constant chronic pain for the past few years, to the point of mostly being bedridden the entire day and not working. But doctors haven't found anything wrong with her. Perhaps it is a rare autoimmune disorder, but it remains yet undiagnosed. In the meanwhile, we're grateful to have discovered kratom, where with it she can actually get through the day nearly normally.

<comment><USER2> I am very lucky myself, as I have mostly watched kratoms story from the sidelines. I've never had an opiate addiction and I don't have any chronic pain or anything like that. I tried it originally just out of curiosity after reading some of the research, and still occasionally use it in small doses for the energizing effect. I don't find larger doses useful to me personally. But I've encountered many people that have had their lives saved due to kratom, and witnessing the way some politicians and authoritarians just so rabidly pursue anything because it's LIKE something else is disturbing. Milk has opioid receptor agonists in it. And we give milk to babies. The opioid receptors in our brains are not there as some sort of evolutionary boobytrap to enslave us to poppy plants. And there are a variety of different receptors to boot, with them not being equal.

I often do not mention kratom in public forums intentionally. It's odd. I do not hold my tongue about hardly anything, I am very talkative. But I am always afraid that one message about kratom will get read by a busybody with an axe to grind and they'll spearhead a movement to have it banned. I am glad to have seen the multiple places around the country where states tried to ban it but were met with both doctors and police stepping up and telling them "this is not a problem. Stop trying to make it one for your own aggrandizement."

But when I come across someone who deals with addicts, I always try to explain it as best I can.

<comment><USER30> Yeah, you do make a great point about when to mention something or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > evidence-based medicine

non-evidence based medicine that uses the made-up-on-the-spot holistic approach is upheld by the idea that there is no scientific method available because it is about the body as a whole.

I think that rebuttal is reductionist and that there could be a method that is applicable to that form of treatment.

does anybody have thoughts on that?

<comment><USER10> posting my response above but I am with you...

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Sympathetic support I'd fine for people interested in kicking a habit. But when the addict doesn't want to quit? What then?

</comment><comment><USER38> Nothing about NAD therapy? Sadly, it's an underutilized treatment for opioid addiction.

</comment><comment><USER12> "Science"'s answer to opioid addiction: prescribe opioids, declare addict cured.

PS I'm not an advocate of treatment because they also employ shortcuts to "recovery".

</comment><comment><USER39> (2016)

</comment><comment><USER40> Fun fact: The current standard within the US is AA/NA.

AA and NA are not only wholly unscientific, being invented of whole cloth by a layperson in the early 20th century (for context, lobotomy was a _totally accepted psychological treatment_ for decades after 1935). There was no science whatsoever involved in AA, and indeed Alcoholics Anonymous _actively resists any data collection about the efficacy of its techniques whatsoever_.

It's main advantages from a US perspective are a) it's free. The costs are borne mostly in the form of churches providing basements and meeting rooms. and b) it's super churchy. We love churchy stuff around here.

So basically we kicked addiction under the rug for the entire 20th century in favor of religious hokum that refuses any objective evaluation of its efficacy, or changing its methods.

I should say, for the record, that there's a lot of people that have been helped by AA and NA, and there's indisputably good work being done there. But it's not perfect and categorically refuses to get better, and its longevity is IMHO more a result of our collective refusal to take the problem of addiction seriously in the US than anything else.

<comment><USER41> Got any better suggestions? Genuinely interested, not sarcasm. (Mostly.)

<comment><USER40> It's happening, it's just happening slowly.

Point of fact, addiction is a disease and must be treated like a disease. This is pretty mainstream and not really all that controversial. The issue we're working through, glacially, is that in the US healthcare is for-profit and junkies are not profitable. So we just.... throw those people in the garbage. I think that's both immoral and economically wasteful. I know former junkies. Personally. And they're not garbage-- they have value and if you can get them well, they want to live a productive life.

The plain fact of the matter is that there's no business case for treating these folks-- the government is going to do it or nobody is going to do it. And the status quo is "Fuck it, send them to church. I'm not paying for a bunch of crackheads to get clean. They need to find jesus." Which is another way of saying "Let them eat thoughts and prayers."

<comment><USER41> While I appreciate the "US healthcare sux!!" sentiment, that's a pretty naive viewpoint that underestimates the difficulty of the situation imo. Are there other non "for profit" healthcare countries that have substantially better results in this area?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> > When a family member, spouse or other loved one develops an opioid addiction > — whether to pain relievers like Vicodin or to heroin — few people know what > to do. Faced with someone who appears to be driving heedlessly into the > abyss, families often fight, freeze or flee, unable to figure out how to > help.

OK, if someone wants to be an opioid addict, why not just let them? The "driving heedlessly into the abyss" aspect seems mainly due to opioids being illegal and expensive. I mean, do we use such language about diabetics? Do we expect them to manage their diabetes through diet alone?

I'm not aware of solid evidence for health risks associated with chronic opioid use alone. Excluding opioid addiction, I mean. But please do share.

<comment><USER43> A lot of people are dying from overdoses.

[https://www.asam.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/opioid- add...](https://www.asam.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/opioid-addiction- disease-facts-figures.pdf)

<comment><USER42> People are dying of overdoses because opioids aren't available legally, with regulated strength and purity, and at reasonable prices. If opiods with regulated strength and purity were as readily available as liquor, few people would be overdosing. In parts of the Middle East, where alcohol isn't available legally, methanol poisoning isn't uncommon.</comment></comment></comment>


Is your site IPv6 ready? - <AUTHOR> http://ready.chair6.net/ Submit a URL and have a few simple tests run to determine IPv6 readiness.
Tests for AAAA records, IPv6 connectivity, and IPv4 literals (e.g. http://127.0.0.1) in HTTP/HTTPS-retrieved content. Example URLs to try? brocade.com, he.net, ipv6.google.com, www.v6.facebook.com.
My simple little project that took more work than initially planned .. comments/suggestions, fire away. <comment><AUTHOR> Submit a URL and have a few simple tests run to determine IPv6 readiness.

Tests for AAAA records, IPv6 connectivity, and IPv4 literals (e.g. <http://127.0.0.1>) in HTTP/HTTPS-retrieved content. Example URLs to try? brocade.com, he.net, ipv6.google.com, www.v6.facebook.com.

My simple little project that took more work than initially planned .. comments/suggestions, fire away.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the tool, very handy. However, I guess my site isn't IPv6 compatible yet... oops.</comment></comment>


Notes of a native tiger son: it's a weird time to be Asian-American - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2011/01/notes-of-a-native-tiger-son-part-1/69748/ <comment><USER2> This observation hit me like a two-by-four:

 _"The Immigration Act of 1965... created preference categories for science, math and engineering-trained immigrants to come over. [Asian countries] were producing a surplus of college-educated adults but lacked a sufficiently developed domestic economy to adequately absorb them. The 1965 Immigration Act, in trying to bolster America's own domestic needs, inadvertently helped absorb that surplus [and] influenced the American perception that Asians were somehow naturally gifted in math and science because there was a disproportionate number of immigrants coming from Asia with those skills."_

<comment><USER3> Contrast that with for 60 years before that, we had this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act>

Later extended to cover all Asian immigrants.

There was certainly demand to emigrate to the US, but it was forbidden. This act alone I think goes a long, long way to explaining why Asian Americans are a fairly recent phenomenon and "weird" to American culture.

<comment><USER4> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy>

Just to let you know, you're not alone there as a country.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This piece definitely hit home for me, a 2nd generation Asian American.

As a kid in the 90s, I remember talking to an older friend about future career advice. I mentioned acting or dancing as possible paths for Asian Americans. He scoffed, telling me that the only place for Asians in American pop culture was in martial art films. Out of all the memories, that particular conversation stuck with me for years.

My father's immigration to the states was squarely in line with the Immigration Act of 1965. He was at the top of his class (and really, the country) in Taiwan, and came to study for his PhD at Yale. I grew up in a household not too far off from Chua's advice. There are pros and cons to this way of parenting (I won't go into all of those). What I know for sure is that emulating it to a T is bad.

The most dangerous aspect of the Chua-way of parenting isn't the borderline academic abuse: it's the blindness to opportunities. Sharply focusing on math and science, and then aiming to get into an "old" profession like being a doctor or lawyer, prevents the child from ever exploring or even considering other possibilities.

Growing up, I really didn't consider other career opportunities besides getting a PhD like my dad and pursuing an electrical engineering career. I have since deviated from that path, but it took me a long time and a halfway pursued PhD. Now I'm happily doing web development and design for my job, a longtime hobby of mine ever since childhood.

I have always wondered what would have happened if my parents had let me explore outside of the usual math and science career paths. Maybe I would have jumped into web development earlier and more seriously. Or, maybe I would have been a dancer or chef. The possibilities I could have explored in college, but didn't because of guilt, still keeps me up at night.

In the end, I did finally find my passion and am pursuing it full time. But, I know a lot of my Asian peers who are now stuck in a career choice that was thrust upon them by their parents. And now they can't, or don't have enough motivation to get out.

I have no idea what tactic I will use to parent my own children someday. But I know for sure that I will let my child explore career choices outside of my own, and to let them mold their own career path.

<comment><USER6> _Sharply focusing on math and science, and then aiming to get into an "old" profession like being a doctor or lawyer, prevents the child from ever exploring or even considering other possibilities._

That's exactly the point. They fear that their children will pursue one of those other possibilities the way you or I would fear our children becoming drug addicts. I don't think it's restricted to East Asians; it seems consistent among recent immigrants. I mentioned to a friend from Iran that I had high LSAT scores and could have gone to law school -- I didn't even say a _good_ law school -- and she was astonished. To her, the higher income and prestige of being a lawyer was decisive; it was bizarre that I chose a lower- paid path that resulted in me existing beneath lawyers in the social pecking order. How could I choose to make less money, live in a smaller house in a less posh neighborhood, drive a cheaper car, and go on less lavish vacations?

High-paid professions with stable demand and high, meritocratic barriers to entry are ideal vehicles for recent immigrants, whether they want to ensure their class (if they come from an upper class in a society where falling out of the upper class is catastrophic) or their financial security (if they come from a country where economic existence is precarious and subject to great disruptions.)

Upper-middle-class Americans are a little weird in that we are just as obsessed with class as anyone else, yet we often subordinate class to lifestyle factors when choosing a career. In fact, unlike upper-class, lower- class, or most other middle-class Americans, we are stuck in a kind of catch-22 where it is considered gauche to show concern for maintaining or improving our class status. We also sacrifice security, but I don't think it is conscious: we just can't viscerally comprehend economic insecurity. To my friend, I shrugged and said, "I wouldn't have enjoyed being a lawyer. I might as well choose a career I enjoy. After all, no one is starving." I never had any artistic or musical interests, so my blasé attitude toward class was never tested by the prospect of a sub-middle-class career, but I never questioned it when it came to opportunities to move _up_. Doctor, lawyer, meh, doesn't sound fun. That attitude horrifies many immigrant parents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've thought a lot about this subject. I have come to conclusion that asian parents hating comes from internalized self-hatred of being yellow and yet at the same, being unable to express one's Asian values in a Western society.

Almost everything against the Asian parents are against how their values are different from typical "American" parents: strict vs. lenient, off-putting vs. dotting. "I have to sit at home doing SAT practice sets and violin lessons while other kids are going to Chemical Romance concerts." A lot of anger comes from if my parents didn't prevent me from doing X (electric guitar) or forced me to do Y (volin), I could have been Z (football quarterback/rockstar/kissing the prom queen). These reasons may be true, but it's irresponsible to put all your shortcomings on your parents and it's dangerous because I know people who are in their late 20's, 30's long after they have moved out their parents house still playing the blame game.

On the other hand, American culture is so different than Asian culture and no matter how Americanized you get, you still have some Asian influences. For instance, when I'm out with my Asian friends, we interact like we are kindergarten teachers, always very attentive to others' egos and emotions whereas with my American friends, we interact like we are in prison, joking and bustin' each other balls and never showing vulnerabilities. Sometimes I get frustrated at the "games" you have to play chasing American chicks or "bromance," where you have to put a "confidence" facade instead of expressing yourself as is.

But I have come to accept Asian parents for what they are. I'm grateful for what mine has taught me and not grateful for their old ingrained concepts that runs counterproductive to living in a Western society. But one thing is constant always however, you can't teach old dogs new tricks. I could bang my head against the wall to try to explain to my parents American values and they won't understand (because maybe I myself and really anyone else don't even comprehend what American values are). But it's more practical and beneficial for me to accept responsibility for my own issues and work on them myself.

<comment><USER8> I feel like I have to drop my own anecdote here to counter yours - I didn't have nearly the same experience growing up.

> _"For instance, when I'm out with my Asian friends, we interact like we are > kindergarten teachers, always very attentive to others' egos and emotions"_

Whereabouts did/do you live? My Asian friends around here act no differently than any other human being I regularly interact with. I really don't get the "heightened emotional sensitivity" part. Similarly, nearly all of my western friends aren't the bromancing invulnerable types. Methinks this is less about race and more about hanging around with the wrong crowd.

As a further anecdote, as a westernized Asian, "sticking with your own kind" is not always advisable. Sadly, to this day when I meet a particularly Asian Asian, my initial reaction is one of wary distrust. I have yet to face anywhere near the same type of racial/cultural hatred from any white, brown, or black person as I have from my fellow yellows, for being "too white".

FWIW, I don't hate my parents - quite the opposite in fact. Then again, they weren't the stereotypical hyper-traditional Asian parent, so that might be something. What I _do_ find sad yet hilarious is the number of Asian parents who spend years convincing their children to eschew any life skills in favor of academic achievement... and then get on their case when they end up with a boring dead-end desk job, no hobbies, and are generally miserable. Well, duh.

<comment><USER7> > Whereabouts did/do you live?

I grew up in the East Coast; I'd venture a guess that you probably live on the West Coast. The Bay Area/LA/Vancouver, etc.

> As a further anecdote, as a westernized Asian, "sticking" with your own > kind" is not always advisable.

I grew up in Connecticut first where I was the only Asian kid on the block and hanged out with white kids. Then I moved to Washington D.C where I went to an Asian-majority high school. So I could empathize on one hand, you feeling distrust from "Asian Asian," and on the other hand, my personal experience is that my closest friends are Asians who could relate to things that my Caucasian friends could not relate to.

> I have yet to face anywhere near the same type of racial/cultural hatred > from any white, brown, or black person as I have from my fellow yellows, for > being "too white".

Maybe the hatred is mutual? Maybe you dislike "Asian Asians" for being "too Asian". I have to be honest, don't take it personally, but I have a extreme distrust when I meet a particularly white-washed Asian. I have yet to face anywhere near the same type of racial/cultural hatred as I have from my fellow yellows, for being "too Asian." There's saying, in America, the 1st generation tries to keep their customs, 2nd generation tries to assimilate desperately, and the 3rd generation tries to seek their roots. I'm trying to span all three generations at once.

<comment><USER8> > _"Maybe you dislike "Asian Asians" for being "too Asian"."_

I don't have a problem with Asians-Asians (aka FOBs). It does seem that some of them have a problem with me.

My experience with "my own people" is somewhat colorful. In an attempt to have me keep more of my heritage, my folks saw fit to send me to Chinese school when I was younger. As one of the more westernized kids there we were subject to ridicule, condescension, and outright hostility - from teachers _and_ students alike. It was the most emotionally fucked up thing I've experienced to-date, and that's after going through the wringer of shitty/abusive college profs and evil exes. Where I grew up, whites picking on Asians was rare, and certainly never systemic. Yet I found myself at the butt end of racism, from my own kind, on a regular basis. I've been through some tough shit, but this remains the only time in my life where I've ever contemplated suicide. It is also the only time of my life where I'd considered myself truly bullied.

And more galling, the teachers were complicit, encouraging, and sometimes even _participatory_ in this sort of thing.

It's erased _any_ sense of racial solidarity I ever had. Prior to that point I used to actually believe that a Chinese might look out for another Chinese - after all, we were all in another country, in the same rickety immigrant boat. So much for that.

Those years have basically soured my ability to approach "Asian Asians" with anything better than a vague distrust. I do not treat Asian-Asians with hostility, but I certainly cannot readily welcome them into my circles as I can anyone else.

FWIW, I'm a 1st-gen. I was born and raised in Asia, and have every claim to my heritage as any other Asian on this continent. Yet, I've been welcomed in every single community I've ever approached except my own.

There's a silver lining though - after I got myself the hell out of that place, I diversified my social circles greatly and became more or less color- blind. I no longer hung out with the "other Asians" - even the westernized ones. I'm happy to say that my social circles span the entire racial spectrum in a way that none of the more traditional Asians I know have done.

[edit] Curious note: I have a lot of very Asian-Asian Korean and Japanese friends, and we have no trouble getting along. So it's not the _Asian-ness_ that seems to be the issue. If I had to take a wild poke at it, I'd say it's because there's not the constant insinuation that I'm a traitor to all Chinese-kind for daring to embrace Western culture. _shrug_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _As a result, throughout my childhood—and most of my adulthood—we mostly contended with a slim parade of different, sometimes contradictory, caricatures: lotus blossoms and dragon ladies, math nerds and martial artists, refugees and gang-bangers. Ad nauseum._

The amount of presumption that I have to deal with from strangers on a regular basis is still disturbing. Such interactions only comprise a small fraction of the total, but a modern urban setting is sufficiently populated to generate a regular supply. No, I look nothing like Jackie Chan. Please don't treat me like someone wearing a costume at Disney World. I'm not a cartoon and I'm not your instant Asian friend. Yes, I was born here. English is my first language. I know next to nothing about martial arts. I'm not bad but still not that good at math. No, I don't think I'm better than you, I don't need to be shown up, you're not making the world a more beautiful and better place by doing that. (Still, all of those are better than the instant Asian=target of abuse idiots or the weird psycho-sexual vibes from certain kinds of middle-aged white guys.)

I observe the little dance that people go through when they get to know each other. I notice the little verbal and non-verbal signals being passed and being noticed. I'd really like to notice more of those transactions and stop wondering about their relative lack coincident with these big globs of presumption coming out of nowhere.

<comment><USER10> "The amount of presumption that I have to deal with from strangers on a regular basis "

Seriously? Where the hell do you live, Georgia? But, I suppose being white I don't see it.

And that psycho-sexual thing is called a "rice queen." Uh, fyi, I guess.

<comment><USER11> It still happens even in major metropolitan centers like NYC. I still vividly recall being gawked over by a crowd of extremely rowdy girls on Halloween day, having "Look, it's Jackie Chan!" thrown at me. They were pretty much shrieking about it and on the subway, no less. Nothing to do but have to actually listen to that nonsense. It shocked and sickened me for a while.

Granted, the girls in question seemed to be from generally poorer, low- education areas. That still doesn't excuse it in my book though.

<comment><USER9> Having your features be an instant mark of attention is unsettling. Women often understand this, as they're subject to being hollered at by random guys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Following the media frenzy that is the aftermath of Chua's article i cannot help but feel that there is a larger macro narrative at play here.

There is no doubt, the article struck a nerve for many Asian-Americans, some of which try to either validate the way they grew up or the understandable resentment of others who feel cheated from some vocation that didn't materialize because of the Math/Violin issue.

Then there is this large group of what seems to be largely white who either figured there was something there for the upbringing of their children, and those who cry abuse.

As I was raised in another country, this conversation, whether of Asian origin or Caucasian, strikes me as a genuine american cultural phenomena. There is an anxiety here about children and the way they are brought up and educated that is unmatched anywhere else that i have seen. This discussion and the discussion of yesterday about the treatment of all males as defacto criminals in their approach to children, feeds from the same root, that strikes me at times as some kind of hysterical episode.

</comment><comment><USER13> The author points out something he may not have even intended: that parenting might not matter at all, despite the raging discussions about which parenting style is better.

In fact, lots of research on twins and adopted children suggests that parenting matters very little in shaping a child's personality and skills, while biology and peer groups matter a lot. Identical twins turn out quite similar regardless of whether they grow up in the same family, while adopted siblings are as different as any random people. (Check "How the Mind Works" by Pinker for a great overview.) People have a hard time accepting this, since most would like to believe that they have a power to shape their children, but this does not make it any less true.

> the Immigration Act of 1965... didn't just abolish racial quotas, it also > created preference categories for science, math and engineering-trained > immigrants to come over.

Ah, so Asian immigrants to the US are far from an unbiased sample of their original populations! This explains a lot more than bitter fights over parenting.

<comment><USER14> I have a hard time accepting it because there is significant evidence to the contrary:

<http://www.cdc.gov/ace/findings.htm>

[http://www.frasermustardchair.ca/resources/what-does-the- evi...](http://www.frasermustardchair.ca/resources/what-does-the-evidence- tell-us/)

<comment><USER13> From what I could tell, the links you posted are no evidence to the contrary.

First, child abuse is beyond what most would call "parenting"; that term is mostly applied to things like strictness with respect to school homework, video games, pressure to choose certain careers, etc. My argument was that those of us that care about giving their children the best should not sweat too much over where precisely to draw the lines, because the effect of these decisions on the child's personality and life outcome is minimal.

Second, it is very possible that the same genes that increase the chance of a person being a child abuser also increase the chance of their child being, say, an alcoholic or criminal.

<comment><USER14>
      "Lulu handed me her 'surprise', which turned out to be a card,"
      writes Chua in her explosive new memoir... "More accurately, it was
      a piece of paper folded crookedly in half, with a big happy face on
      the front. Inside, 'Happy Birthday, Mummy! Love, Lulu' was scrawled
      in crayon above another happy face. I gave the card back to Lulu. 'I
      don't want this,' I said. 'I want a better one – one that you've put
      some thought and effort into. I have a special box, where I keep all
      my cards from you and Sophia, and this one can't go in there.' I
      grabbed the card again and flipped it over. I pulled out a pen and
      scrawled 'Happy Birthday Lulu Whoopee!' I added a big sour face. …
      'I reject this.'"

I would certainly call that child abuse, although I suppose Chua would call it "parenting"? To coerce Lulu into piano practice, Chua prevented her from using the washroom, and withheld food and affection until she could perform to her mother's satisfaction. That would qualify as abuse according the Adverse Childhood Experience Study. A lot of child abuse is rationalized by the perpetrator as just "strictness".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Oliver Wang is totally right on this.

But i'm slightly more ambivalent than he is on the subject. What Chua wrote did hit a resonant note in American cultural stereotypes, and that's bad, BUT, i don't think it invalidates Chua's points particularly either.

Chua's approach is a particular style of child rearing, but her own piece was so filled with nebulous caveats, that i found it hard to believe that anything she particularly said was rooted in being Chinese.

The real problem in the end, i guess, is just that she was an Asian woman saying these things. Not that she's got some of the overbearing qualities shared by strict mothers everywhere.

<comment><USER16> I'm putting a lot more trust in _responses to_ Chua, from other Asian- Americans talking about their own experiences, than in Chua herself. Once the WSJ op-ed became That Thing On The Internet Everyone Was Talking About, she started walking back, saying that the WSJ quoted fragments of her book out of context. Then she told a newspaper columnist "I'm an unreliable narrator", saying that the book as a whole was an exaggeration. ([http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/13/...](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/13/apop011311.DTL&ao=all#ixzz1BGR62v6z)) So... what is really going on with Chua and her kids, not to mention her husband? About all I can safely infer is that the woman has, as they say, Issues.

<comment><USER17> _she started walking back, saying that the WSJ quoted fragments of her book out of context_

I haven't read the book, but I have seen evidence that the WSJ extracts were highly selective. In fact in the Guardian piece below, in which her children are also quoted, it says that she completely changed her approach when she realised the effect that it had. Her daughter is quoted as saying:

 _"The other day, I messed up a math test. I texted my mom that I got an A- and she replied, 'Who cares! Mummy loves u!'"_

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/15/amy- chua-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/15/amy-chua-tiger- mother-interview?INTCMP=SRCH)

[Edit for those who don't want to read the linked article: The Guardian piece casts the book as a confessionary "these are the things I did because I thought they were right and boy, it just made my kids miserable so I stopped" rather than the WSJ-implied tone of "this is the way I raised my kids and you wussy Westerners should do it like this or be squashed"]

<comment><USER16> On the one hand, I have a low opinion of the WSJ editorial pages, so I _want to_ believe that the editors crafted the op-ed to portray Chua in a way that reflects their own political and racial biases, rather than the image that Chua wanted to present of herself. (I know personally a family that signed up for one of those "reality TV" shows, and I cringe at how they were portrayed.) On the other hand, framing her this way appears to be helping her sales figures. Back on the first hand, would she have wanted to project this image of herself to a national audience just to spike her book sales?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Anybody want to weigh in on why Asians give their kids Western first names in the US? Why don't they use Chinese first names? Why don't they change their last names also? Serious question.

<comment><USER19> Several reasons:

\- a lot of Asian families are Christian, so they get Christian names

\- racism and discrimination. "li guo" just isn't as cool as "pierre"

\- there's no real great way to spell a lot of Asian names, so might as well just adopt a Western name

\- many Asian children have an Asian name and a Westerner name. Both are valid aliases for the person.

<comment><USER20> Racism is not an issue here, since the last name is still Asian, I guess.

A friend of mine from China said the main reason is that some Chinese names are hard to pronounce for an English-speaker. Also other Asian nations (Indians, for examle) seem to leave their names as is, and also give Indian names to kids, I am just wondering, is it something Chinese specific?

<comment><USER21> Racism isn't the issue - discrimination is.

"Richard Kim" means I grew up in America and will have no problem talking to you.

"Han Yong Kim" means you're going to have trouble communicating with me in the workplace.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Flash Games Community Kongregate Gets $5 Million To Bankroll Key Developers - <AUTHOR> http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-flash-games-community-kongregate-gets-5-million-from-greylock/ <comment><USER2> I think I just found my new favorite site for when I'm bored and out of ideas.

BTW...one of the top games listed there is 'Desktop TD 1.5'. If you liked WarIII TD's, give it a shot. Very addictive.

I wonder if they can get (or already have?) the guy who makes all the orisinal.com games. Those are some of the nicest Flash games around. Simple, beautiful, and fun.

</comment><comment><USER3> Same business plan as Scribd, Anywhere.fm and, oh yeah, YouTube. In this case it happens to be Flash games. Take something that's spread out all over the net and hard to upload/create/host, put it all in one place, make it easy to view in your browser and add browsing and community features. I love it. I think these are pretty solid propositions.</comment>