Cinemorphosis

Category: Education in the AI Age

  • The Semester When Students Got Tired of AI Slop

    The Semester When Students Got Tired of AI Slop

    My critical thinking class this spring has produced something I have not seen in several years: essays that sound like they were written by human beings.

    The first two mini-essays show almost no signs of AI cheating. Students wrote about the theme of “optimization without integration” in the Black Mirror episode “Joan Is Awful,” and about toxic positivity and infantilization in “Rachel, Jack, and Ashley Too.” These are not easy concepts. Yet the writing has been thoughtful, uneven in places, occasionally clumsy—in other words, unmistakably human.

    Part of the explanation lies in the design of the assignments. I structured them as hybrids. Students begin with a single analytical paragraph about the episode itself. Then they pivot and connect the theme to their own lives. The second step is the key. AI can summarize television episodes all day long, but it has a harder time fabricating the peculiar messiness of someone’s actual life.

    But the assignments alone do not explain the shift.

    Conversations with students suggest something more interesting is happening: they are tired of AI. Not ethically troubled, not philosophically conflicted—simply exhausted. They complain about what they call AI slop: bloated paragraphs that say everything and mean nothing, prose that sounds like a motivational speaker trapped inside a thesaurus.

    They are burned out on the smooth, inflated voice of the machine.

    What they seem to want instead is something refreshingly primitive—authentic expression. The Black Mirror episodes help. The themes are sharp, strange, and slightly disturbing, which gives students something real to react to. They also appreciate that the assignments are short—well under 1,000 words. These essays function as warm-ups before the larger research papers later in the semester.

    The result, at least so far, is encouraging.

    After four years of watching AI creep into every corner of student writing, I may be seeing the beginning of a recalibration. Students appear to be treating AI less like a magic genie that produces instant essays and more like what it actually works best as: a tool for editing and cleanup.

    I could be misreading the moment. Trends in education are famous for evaporating the second you start feeling optimistic.

    But for now, the classroom sounds different.

    The paragraphs have fingerprints on them again.

  • The Sweet Tooth Age: How We Traded Depth for Dopamine

    The Sweet Tooth Age: How We Traded Depth for Dopamine

    In “The Orality Theory of Everything,” Derek Thompson makes a striking observation about human progress. One of civilization’s great turning points was the shift from orality to literacy. In oral cultures, knowledge traveled through speech, storytelling, and shared memory. Communication was social, flexible, and immediate. Literacy changed everything. Once ideas could be recorded, people could think alone, think slowly, and think deeply. Writing made possible the abstract systems—calculus, physics, modern biology, quantum mechanics—that underpin the technological world. The move from orality to literacy didn’t just change communication. It changed the human mind.

    Now the concern is that we may be drifting in the opposite direction.

    As social media expands, sustained reading declines. Attention fragments. Communication becomes faster, louder, and more performative. Thompson explored this shift in a conversation with Joe Weisenthal of the Odd Lots podcast, who draws heavily on the work of Walter Ong, the Jesuit scholar who wrote Orality and Literacy. Ong’s insight was simple but profound: when ideas are not recorded and preserved, people think differently. They rely on improvisation, memory shortcuts, and conversational instinct. But when ideas live in texts—books, essays, archives—people develop interiority: the capacity for reflection, precision, and layered analysis.

    It would be too simple to say we now live in a post-literate society. We still read. We still write. But the cognitive environment has changed. Our brains increasingly gravitate toward information that is fast, simplified, and emotionally stimulating. The habits required for what Cal Newport calls “deep work” now feel unnatural, even burdensome.

    A useful analogy is food. Literacy is like preparing a slow, nutritious meal. It requires time, effort, and attention, but the nourishment is real and lasting. The current media environment offers something else entirely: intellectual candy. Quick hits. Bright packaging. Strong flavor. Minimal substance. We have entered what might be called the Sweet Tooth Age—a culture that prefers pre-digested, entertaining fragments of ideas over sustained, solitary engagement. The concepts may sound serious, but they arrive in baby-food form: softened, sweetened, and stripped of complexity.

    After forty years of teaching college writing, I’ve watched this shift unfold in real time. In the past six years especially, many instructors have adjusted their expectations. Reading loads have shrunk. Full books are assigned less often. In an effort to get authentic, non-AI responses, more teachers rely on in-class writing. Some have abandoned homework entirely and grade only what students produce under supervision.

    This strategy has practical advantages. It guarantees original work. It keeps students accountable. But it also reflects a quiet surrender to the Sweet Tooth Age. The modern workplace—the environment our students are entering—runs on the same quick-cycle attention economy. Their exposure to slow thinking may be brief and largely confined to the classroom. When they transition to their careers, they may find that on-demand writing is no longer required or relevant. 

    Not just education but politics and culture are being swept by this new age of dopamine cravings. The Sweet Tooth Age carries a cost, and the bill will come due.

    The content that wins in the attention economy is not the most accurate or thoughtful. It is the most stimulating. It is colorful, simplified, emotionally charged, and designed to produce a quick surge of interest—what the brain experiences as a dopamine reward. But reacting to stimulation is not the same as thinking. Performance is not analysis.

    Performance, in fact, is the preferred tool of the demagogue.

    When audiences lose the habit of slow reading and critical evaluation, they become vulnerable to what might be called Kayfabe personalities—figures who are larger than life, theatrical, and emotionally compelling, but who operate more like entertainers than honest brokers. The message matters less than the performance. Complexity disappears. Nuance becomes weakness. Certainty, outrage, and spectacle take center stage.

    In such an environment, critical thinking doesn’t merely decline. It becomes a competitive disadvantage.

    This is why the Sweet Tooth Age is more than an educational concern. It is a political and cultural risk. A public trained to consume stimulation rather than evaluate evidence becomes easy to mobilize and difficult to inform. Emotion outruns judgment. Identity replaces analysis. The center—built on patience, evidence, and compromise—struggles to hold.

    When literacy weakens, the consequences do not remain confined to the classroom.

    They spread outward—into public discourse, institutional trust, and civic stability. The shift back toward orality is not simply a change in media habits. It is a shift toward immediacy over reflection, reaction over reasoning, spectacle over substance.

    And when a culture begins to prefer performance to thought, chaos is not an accident.

    It is the logical outcome.

  • College Essay Prompt: The Fyre Festival and the Psychology of the Con

    College Essay Prompt: The Fyre Festival and the Psychology of the Con

    The Netflix documentary FYRE: The Greatest Party That Never Happened tells the story of Billy McFarland’s spectacular fraud: a luxury music festival marketed as the ultimate cultural experience and delivered as a logistical disaster. Thousands of ambitious, status-conscious attendees bought into the promise of exclusivity, prestige, and social media glory—only to find themselves stranded in chaos.

    Write a 1,000-word argumentative essay that examines the following claim:

    Billy McFarland’s success as a fraud was less the result of his brilliance as a con artist and more the result of the attendees’ intense desire to be seen as culturally elite—so strong that they convinced themselves the fantasy was real. In this view, their suffering was not only the result of deception but also of their own willingness to believe.

    In your essay, support, challenge, or complicate this claim using evidence from the documentary. Consider questions such as:

    • To what extent did McFarland deliberately manipulate and mislead?
    • How did social media culture, influencer marketing, and the pursuit of status shape the audience’s judgment?
    • Were the attendees victims of calculated fraud, participants in a shared illusion, or both?

    Your analysis should move beyond summary to examine the psychological and cultural forces that made the disaster possible, including the allure of exclusivity, the fear of missing out, and the performance of identity online.

    Include a counterargument–rebuttal section. A strong counterargument might emphasize that the attendees were clearly victims of criminal deception, that McFarland engaged in systematic lying and financial fraud, and that blaming the audience risks excusing unethical behavior. In your rebuttal, respond thoughtfully: Where does personal responsibility intersect with manipulation? How do desire, status anxiety, and social pressure make people vulnerable to schemes like Fyre?

    Your goal is to produce a nuanced argument that explores not only who was at fault, but also what the Fyre Festival reveals about modern culture’s appetite for spectacle, exclusivity, and the illusion of being among the chosen few.

  • College Essay Prompt: The Cost of Happiness

    College Essay Prompt: The Cost of Happiness

    In Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” a radiant society rests on a brutal condition: one child must suffer so that everyone else may thrive. The story poses a disturbing question—does happiness always come at someone else’s expense?

    Write a 1,000-word essay that begins by answering this question in your introduction: Is your own success or pleasure part of a zero-sum system, where your gain depends on another’s loss? Draw on specific examples from your personal experience to support, challenge, or complicate this claim. Avoid generalities. Focus on moments in which your opportunities, comforts, or achievements may have intersected with someone else’s disadvantage—or where you discovered that life does not operate as a simple trade-off.

    Then extend your analysis beyond the personal. Imagine how a vegan might use Omelas as a moral framework to argue that eating meat is unethical—that human pleasure is built on the suffering of animals. Analyze the strengths of this argument. Where is the analogy persuasive? What moral insight does it reveal?

    Next, examine the weaknesses and limits of the comparison. Where does the analogy break down? What complexities—biological, cultural, economic, or philosophical—make the issue less absolute than the world of Omelas suggests?

    Your essay should move from personal reflection to ethical analysis, showing how Le Guin’s story sharpens your thinking about the hidden costs of comfort, the moral logic of sacrifice, and the question that haunts the story itself: When we benefit, who—or what—pays the price?

  • Colonel Lockjaw and the Cosplay Watches of the Soul

    Colonel Lockjaw and the Cosplay Watches of the Soul

    If I had to confess to one of my worst flaws, it would be this: I’m a virtuoso at diagnosing other people’s defects and a coward when it comes to inspecting my own. I can spot hypocrisy at fifty paces, write a character analysis of your blind spots, and deliver a withering critique of your moral laziness—while remaining blissfully obtuse about the same diseases raging in me. It’s not insight. It’s evasion. Instead of interrogating my own failures, I distract myself by putting others on trial.

    The hypocrisy deepens because I despise people who refuse self-interrogation. Over the years I’ve kept my distance from plenty of them—friends, colleagues, acquaintances—because their lack of self-awareness felt repellent. I judged them for their blindness without noticing I was practicing the same sin with better vocabulary. My watch hobby was an early case study in this delusion. I spent years buying grotesquely oversized timepieces—wrist-mounted monuments to masculine cosplay. In my private fantasy, I was Sean Penn starring as Colonel Lockjaw. In reality, I was a middle-aged man dodging a mirror. Why confront a crisis of purpose when you can drop five hundred dollars on a costume watch and call it identity?

    Eventually I sobered up—sold the ridiculous pieces, learned what real watches are, and cleared out my collection the way a dieter purges Doritos and Twinkies. But the damage was done: I’d wasted three years of a hobby because I refused to ask what my compensation phase said about me. I demanded self-interrogation from everyone else. I granted myself a permanent exemption. Do as I say, not as I do—the oldest creed of the unexamined life.

    That failure has been haunting me lately, triggered by a memory from thirty-five years ago: an English Department meeting that turned into a circus. I was a young instructor, terrified of tenure committees and power hierarchies, sitting quietly while the veterans argued about whether personal narratives belonged in college writing. One professor—let’s call him Foghorn Leghorn—was a legendary drunk who showed up to meetings in a black leather bomber jacket and a cloud of whiskey fumes. With disheveled silver hair and black horn-rimmed glasses, he declared that personal narratives were “sissy” assignments and that students needed “real-life” skills like argument and analysis. Susan, a colleague with more backbone than the rest of us combined, said that autobiographical writing gave students something called “personal enrichment.” Foghorn exploded. “What the hell does that mean?” he barked. “Personal enrichment? What the hell does that mean?” Susan backed down—not because she was wrong, but because there’s no winning an argument with a belligerent man auditioning for his own demolition.

    Back then, I kept my mouth shut. I was young. I was a lecturer on a non-tenure track. I was scared. But in the decades since, I’ve had time to think about Susan’s phrase. Personal enrichment. What does it mean—and should I, as a writing teacher, care? The answer is yes, and yes again. Personal enrichment is the cultivation of skills no standardized test can measure: moral clarity, self-honesty, the courage to look at yourself without flinching. In other words, self-interrogation.

    I learned that lesson early in my career without knowing what to call it. Around the same time Foghorn was grandstanding, I assigned a definition essay on passive-aggressive behavior. Students had to begin with a brutal thesis—passive aggression as cowardly hostility—then unpack its traits and finish with a personal narrative. I wanted them to stop admiring dysfunction as cleverness. The best essay came from a nineteen-year-old whose beauty could’ve launched a sitcom. She wrote about her boyfriend, a man who looked like life had given up on him. He was unemployed, proudly unwashed, and permanently horizontal—camped in her parents’ living room like a hostile occupier. He drank her father’s beer, ate his food, parked himself in his chair, and stank up the furniture with equal enthusiasm. Her parents hated him. Especially her father. And that was the point.

    She resented her father’s authority, so she punished him the only way she knew how—by sabotaging herself. Romantic self-destruction as revenge. When we discussed the essay, she told me something I’ve never forgotten: writing it forced her to see her behavior with unbearable clarity. She kicked the boyfriend out. Then, clumsily but honestly, she confronted her father. A personal narrative—mocked by my alcoholic colleague—did what no grading rubric ever could. It changed a life.

    Fifteen years later, I assigned another narrative, this one inspired by Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning. I asked students to write about a moment when tragedy forced them to choose between self-pity and courage. The finest essay came from a young mother who’d been abandoned by her own mother at two years old. She grew up with a hole in her heart, then gave birth to a daughter and decided she would be the mother she never had. In loving her child, she learned to love herself. I’ve taught for nearly forty years. Her story has moved me more than anyone’s.

    That’s why I assign personal narratives more than ever. Not just because they resist AI shortcuts, but because they demand moral inventory. And here’s the final irony: Foghorn Leghorn—the loudest critic of self-examination—was the man who needed it most. Last I heard, he’d burned down his kitchen while making dinner, lost his family, and was holed up in a cheap hotel drinking himself toward oblivion. The mansplainer who sneered at Susan ended up a tragic footnote in his own cautionary tale. I hope he found sobriety. If he did, it began where it always does—with honest self-interrogation.

    As for me, I’ll keep assigning personal narratives. I’ll keep asking students to look inward with courage. And I’ll keep reminding myself that the hardest essays to write are not on the syllabus. They’re the ones you compose silently, about your own life, when no one is grading you.

  • Doing Everything, Feeling Nothing: The Age of Engagement Dilution

    Doing Everything, Feeling Nothing: The Age of Engagement Dilution

    In “Ebooks Are an Abomination,” Ian Bogost delivers a needed slap across the face of our collective reading habits. His charge is simple and devastating: ebooks haven’t expanded reading—they’ve hollowed it out. People believe they’re reading because their eyes are sliding across a screen, but most of what’s happening is closer to grazing. The scandal isn’t that we skim; it’s that we’ve started calling skimming “reading” and don’t even blush. Bogost nails the fraud when he points out that the word reading has become a linguistic junk drawer—used to describe everything from doomscrolling Instagram captions to actually wrestling with dense prose. If the same word covers both scanning memes and grappling with Dostoevsky, then the word has lost its spine.

    It reminds me of people who announce they’re going to the gym to “work out.” That phrase now covers a heroic range of activity—from Arnold-style flirtations with death to leaning on a treadmill while watching Jeopardy! and gossiping about coworkers. Same building, radically different realities. One is training. The other is loitering with athletic accessories.

    Reading and working out have this in common: they are not activities so much as states of engagement. And the more soaked we become in technology, the more that engagement drains away. Technology sells convenience and dependency—the kind where you feel faintly panicked if you’re five feet from a device and not being optimized by something. But being a reader is the opposite of that nervous dependence. It’s happy solitude. It’s the stubborn pleasure of being absorbed by a book, of sinking into hard ideas—the epistemic crisis, substitutionary atonement, moral ambiguity—without needing an app to pat you on the head and tell you how you’re doing. Real readers don’t need dashboards. Real lifters don’t need Fitbits. If you’re truly engaged, you feel the work in your bones.

    And yet technology keeps whispering the same seduction: optimization. Track it. Measure it. Quantify it. But what this gospel of efficiency often delivers is something uglier—disengagement dressed up as progress, laziness rebranded as smart living. The name for this decay is Engagement Dilution: the slow thinning of practices that once demanded effort—reading, training, thinking—into low-grade approximations that still wear the old labels. What once meant immersion now means mere exposure. We haven’t stopped doing these things. We’ve just stopped doing them seriously, and we’re calling that evolution.

    To help you interrogate the effects of Engagement Dilution, you will do the following writing prompt.

    600-Word Personal Narrative That Addresses Engagement Dilution

    We live in an age where everything looks like participation—but very little feels like engagement. We “read” by skimming. We “work out” by standing near machines. We “study” by copying and pasting. We “connect” by reacting with emojis. The actions remain, but the depth is gone. This condition has a name: Engagement Dilution—the process by which practices that once demanded sustained attention, effort, and presence are thinned into low-effort versions that keep the same labels but lose the same meaning.

    For this essay, you will write a 600-word personal narrative about a time when you realized you were going through the motions without being truly engaged. Your story should focus on a specific experience in which you believed you were participating in something meaningful—school, work, fitness, relationships, creativity, reading, faith, activism, or personal growth—only to later recognize that what you were doing was a diluted version of the real thing.

    Begin with a concrete scene. Put the reader inside a moment: a classroom where you nodded but didn’t think, a gym session where you scrolled more than you lifted, a relationship where you listened with your phone in your hand, a book you “read” but can’t remember, a goal you claimed to care about but never truly invested in. Use sensory detail—what you saw, heard, felt, avoided—to make the dilution visible. Don’t explain the idea yet. Show it happening.

    Next, introduce the realization. When did it dawn on you that something essential was missing? Was it boredom? Frustration? Guilt? Emptiness? Did someone confront you? Did you fail at something you thought you had prepared for? Did you suddenly notice how different real engagement feels—how tiring, how uncomfortable, how demanding it is compared to the easy version you had settled for?

    Then widen the lens. Reflect on why engagement diluted in the first place. Was it technology? Fear of failure? Desire for comfort? Pressure to appear productive? Lack of confidence? The culture of optimization? Be honest here. Avoid blaming abstract forces alone. This essay is not about what society did to you; it is about the choices you made within that environment.

    Finally, confront the cost. What did engagement dilution take from you? Skill? Confidence? Meaning? Relationships? Momentum? And what did it teach you about the difference between looking active and actually being alive inside your actions? End not with a motivational slogan but with clarity—what you now recognize about effort, attention, and the price of avoiding difficulty.

    Guidelines

    • This is a narrative, not a sermon. Let the story do the thinking.
    • Avoid clichés about “finding balance” or “doing better next time.”
    • Do not turn this into a tech rant or a productivity essay. Keep it human.
    • Use humor if it fits—but don’t hide behind it.
    • Your goal is not self-improvement branding. Your goal is insight.

    What this Essay Is Really About

    Engagement Dilution is not laziness. It is the quiet substitution of comfort for commitment, convenience for courage, motion for meaning. Your task is to show how that substitution happened in your own life—and what it revealed about what real engagement actually costs.

    Write the essay only you could write. The more specific you are, the more universal the insight becomes.

  • Obsolescence With Benefits: Life in the Age of Being Unnecessary

    Obsolescence With Benefits: Life in the Age of Being Unnecessary

    Existential Redundancy is what happens when the world keeps running smoothly—and you slowly realize it no longer needs you to keep the lights on. It isn’t unemployment; it’s obsolescence with benefits. Machines cook your meals, balance your passwords, drive your car, curate your entertainment, and tuck you into nine hours of perfect algorithmic sleep. Your life becomes a spa run by robots: efficient, serene, and quietly humiliating. Comfort increases. Consequence disappears. You are no longer relied upon, consulted, or required—only serviced. Meaning thins because it has always depended on friction: being useful to someone, being necessary somewhere, being the weak link a system cannot afford to lose. Existential Redundancy names the soft panic that arrives when efficiency outruns belonging and you’re left staring at a world that works flawlessly without your fingerprints on anything.

    Picture the daily routine. A robot prepares pasta with basil hand-picked by a drone. Another cleans the dishes before you’ve even tasted dessert. An app shepherds you into perfect sleep. A driverless car ferries you through traffic like a padded cell on wheels. Screens bloom on every wall in the name of safety, insurance, and convenience, until privacy becomes a fond memory you half suspect you invented. You have time—oceans of it. But you are not a novelist or a painter or anyone whose passions demand heroic labor. You are intelligent, capable, modestly ambitious, and suddenly unnecessary. With every task outsourced and every risk eliminated, the old question—What do you do with your life?—mutates into something colder: Where do you belong in a system that no longer needs your hands, your judgment, or your effort?

    So humanity does what it always does when it feels adrift: it forms support groups. Digital circles bloom overnight—forums, wellness pods, existential check-ins—places to talk about the hollow feeling of being perfectly cared for and utterly unnecessary. But even here, the machines step in. AI moderates the sessions. Bots curate the pain. Algorithms schedule the grief and optimize the empathy. Your confession is summarized before it lands. Your despair is tagged, categorized, and gently rerouted toward a premium subscription tier. Therapy becomes another frictionless service—efficient, soothing, and devastating in its implication. You sought human connection to escape redundancy, and found yourself processed by the very systems that made you redundant in the first place. In the end, even your loneliness is automated, and the final insult arrives wrapped in flawless customer service: Thank you for sharing. Your feelings have been successfully handled.

  • Optimized to Death: When Improvement Outruns Personal Growth

    Optimized to Death: When Improvement Outruns Personal Growth

    Optimization without integration produces a lopsided human being, and the AI age intensifies this distortion by overrewarding what can be optimized, automated, and displayed. Systems built on speed, output, and measurable performance train us to chase visible gains while starving the slower capacities that make those gains usable in real life. The result is a person who can execute flawlessly in one narrow lane yet falters the moment the situation becomes human—ambiguous, emotional, unscripted. The body may be sculpted while the self remains adolescent; the résumé gleams while judgment dulls; productivity accelerates while meaning evaporates. AI tools amplify this imbalance by making optimization cheap and frictionless, encouraging rapid improvement without requiring maturation, reflection, or integration. What emerges is not an unfinished person so much as an unevenly finished one—overdeveloped in what can be measured and underdeveloped in what must be lived. The tragedy is not incompetence but imbalance: strength without wisdom, speed without direction, polish without presence. In an age obsessed with optimization, what looks like progress is often a subtler form of arrested development.

    To encourage you to interrogate your own tendencies to achieve optimization without integration, write a 500–word personal narrative analyzing a period in your life when you aggressively optimized one part of yourself—your body, productivity, grades, skills, image, or output—while neglecting the integration of that growth into a fuller, more functional self.

    Begin by narrating the specific context in which optimization took hold. Describe the routines, metrics, sacrifices, and rewards that drove your improvement. Use concrete, sensory detail to show what was gained: strength, speed, recognition, efficiency, status, or validation. Make the optimization legible through action rather than abstraction.

    Then pivot. Identify the moment—or series of moments—when the imbalance became visible. What failed to develop alongside your optimized trait? Social competence? Emotional maturity? Judgment? Confidence? Meaning? Show how this lack of integration surfaced in a lived encounter: a conversation you couldn’t sustain, an opportunity you mishandled, a relationship you sabotaged, or a realization that exposed the limits of your progress.

    By the end of the essay, articulate what optimization without integration cost you. Do not reduce this to a moral lesson or self-help platitude. Instead, reflect on what this experience taught you about human development itself: why improving a single dimension of the self can create distortion rather than wholeness, and how true growth requires coordination between capacity, character, and context.

    Your goal is not confession or nostalgia but clarity. Show how a life can look impressive on the surface while remaining structurally incomplete—and what it takes to move from optimization toward integration.

    Avoid clichés about “balance” or “being well-rounded.” This essay should demonstrate insight through specificity, humor, and honest self-assessment. Let the reader see the mismatch before you explain it.

    As a model for the assignment, consider the following self-interrogation—a case study in optimization gone feral and integration nowhere to be found.

    At nineteen, I fell into a job at UPS, where they specialized in turning young men into over-caffeinated parcel gladiators. Picture a cardboard coliseum where bubble wrap was treated like a minor deity and the only sacrament was speed. My assignment was simple and brutal: load 1,200 boxes an hour into trailer walls so tight and elegant they could’ve qualified for Olympic Tetris. Five nights a week, from eleven p.m. to three a.m., I lived under fluorescent lights, sprinting on concrete, powered by caffeine, testosterone, and a belief that exhaustion was a personality trait. Without meaning to, I dropped ten pounds and watched my body harden into something out of a comic book—biceps with delusions of automotive lifting.

    This mattered because my early bodybuilding career had been a public embarrassment. At sixteen, I competed in the Mr. Teenage Golden State in Sacramento, smooth as a marble countertop and just as defined. A year later, at the Mr. Teenage California in San Jose, I repeated the humiliation, proving that consistency was my only strength. I refused to let my legacy be “promising kid, zero cuts.” Now, thanks to UPS cardio masquerading as labor, I watched striations appear like divine handwriting. Redemption no longer seemed possible; it felt scheduled.

    So I did what any responsible nineteen-year-old bodybuilder would do: I declared war on carbohydrates. I starved myself with religious fervor and trained like a man auditioning for sainthood. By the time the 1981 Mr. Teenage San Francisco rolled around at Mission High School, I had achieved what I believed was human perfection—180 pounds of bronzed, veined, magazine-ready beefcake. The downside was logistical. My clothes no longer fit. They hung off me like a visual apology. This triggered an emergency trip to a Pleasanton mall, where I entered a fitting room that felt like a shrine to Joey Scarbury’s “Theme from The Greatest American Hero,” the soundtrack of peak Reagan-era delusion.

    While changing behind a curtain so thin it offered plausible deniability rather than privacy, I overheard two young women working the store arguing—audibly—about which one should ask me out. Their voices escalated. Stakes rose. I imagined them staging a full WWE brawl among the racks: flying elbows, folding chairs, all for the right to split a breadstick with me at Sbarro. This, I thought, was the payoff. This was what discipline looked like.

    And then—nothing. I froze. I adopted an aloof, icy expression so effective it could’ve extinguished a bonfire. The women scattered, muttering about my arrogance, while I stood there in my Calvin Kleins, immobilized by the very attention I had trained for. I had optimized everything except the part of me required to be human.

    For a brief, shimmering window, I possessed the body of a Greek god and the social competence of a malfunctioning Atari joystick. I looked like James Bond and interacted like a background extra waiting for direction. Beneath the Herculean exterior was a hollow shell—a construction site abandoned mid-project, rusted scaffolding still up, a plywood sign nailed crookedly to the entrance: SORRY, WE’RE CLOSED.

  • Experience Has Left the Building: Teaching Writing After Representational Displacement

    Experience Has Left the Building: Teaching Writing After Representational Displacement

    Christine Rosen’s The Extinction of Experience names the quiet catastrophe of our moment: experience itself has been replaced by its press release. We no longer meet the world face-to-face; we encounter its avatar—curated, quantified, filtered, and politely optimized for consumption. Reality arrives pre-processed. Life is no longer lived so much as represented. We scroll through it, measure it, track it, and somehow wonder why it feels thin. This is what I call Representational Displacement: a condition in which lived reality is steadily displaced by its mediated substitutes—screens, metrics, feeds, dashboards—until experience is filtered before it is even felt. The world is not encountered but managed, not inhabited but previewed. We live one remove away from our own lives, alienated not by scarcity but by overrepresentation.

    Rosen is clear about the cost. “Experiences,” she writes, “are the ways we become acquainted with the world. Direct experience is our first teacher.” Strip that away and education becomes a simulation of learning rather than the thing itself. And that is precisely what is happening in classrooms. Direct experience is contracting. AI-driven functions are expanding. Students are increasingly trained to manage outputs, assemble responses, and comply with systems rather than grapple with ideas, language, and uncertainty. The result is a generation at risk of becoming well-behaved functionaries—NPCs with decent syntax—rather than human beings engaged in Higher Learning as a transformative act. As a writing instructor, I refuse to let the classroom collapse into a content farm staffed by polite machines. My job now is counterinsurgency: designing assignments that restore friction, embodiment, memory, and lived encounter—work that forces experience back into the center of learning, where it belongs.

     One such counterinsurgency is the Memory-Specific Writing Prompt. It is deliberately designed to anchor writing in lived experience rather than transferable knowledge, requiring details that arise from a writer’s embodied past and cannot be convincingly generated by pattern recognition alone. It demands concrete, localized specificity—named places, obsolete objects, idiosyncratic rituals, sensory impressions, and personal contradictions—that exist only because the writer was physically present at a particular time. By tying meaning to unrepeatable memory rather than generalizable insight, the assignment makes fluency insufficient and forces authorship to matter. The result is writing that values presence over polish, consequence over coherence, and recollection over reproduction—conditions under which AI tools become at best marginal assistants and at worst obvious impostors.

    Dismissing this assignment as “merely creative writing” misunderstands both its purpose and its rigor. Memory-specific writing trains the same cognitive skills demanded by the so-called real world: sustained attention, accurate observation, causal reasoning, ethical self-representation, and the ability to translate raw experience into accountable language. Professionals do not succeed by producing generic prose; they succeed by noticing what others miss, explaining complex situations clearly, and grounding claims in evidence that can withstand scrutiny. This assignment treats memory as data, description as analysis, and narrative as a method for testing meaning rather than decorating it. In an economy saturated with frictionless text generation, the capacity to produce precise, credible, experience-based writing is not ornamental—it is a core competency, and one that cannot be automated away.

    One such prompt I’ll give you is titled “The Unlikely Happy Place”: Write an 800-word personal narrative essay about a place that was not designed to make anyone happy. The place was ugly, uncomfortable, mundane, or even faintly miserable—yet it became a genuine source of refuge or joy for you. The power of the essay should come from the contradiction between the place’s surface qualities and the deep meaning it held for you. Ground your writing in dense sensory detail and memory-specific facts: textures, smells, sounds, named people, obsolete objects, routines, and rituals that could only belong to that place at that time. Do not smooth over its flaws. Show how this unlikely happiness allowed you to escape, rehearse, or become. The goal is to show what your connection to this place said about your character, values, and personality. Here is a sample based on a gym that still haunts me from my teens:

    My Unlikely Happy Place–Walt’s Gym

    By the time I hit fourteen, my sacred sanctuary was none other than Walt’s Gym in Hayward, California—a temple of iron that had started its inglorious life as a chicken coop in the 1950s. The place was a veritable swamp of fungus and bacteria, a thriving petri dish of maladies eager to latch onto the unsuspecting. Members whispered in hushed tones about incurable athlete’s foot, the kind that made dermatologists throw up their hands in defeat. Some swore that the strains of fungus and mold festering in the corners were so exotic they had yet to be classified by the most intrepid of mycologists. Roosting among the fungal shower stalls was an oversized frog that the pro wrestlers had affectionately named Charlie. I never saw Charlie myself, but I often wondered if he was a real creature or a figment of the wrestlers’ imagination, birthed by too many concussions and late-night benders.

    The locker room was perpetually occupied by a rotating cast of characters who looked like they’d been plucked straight out of a grimy noir film. There was always some bankrupt divorcee draped in a velour tracksuit and a gold chain thick enough to anchor a ship, hogging the payphone for marathon sessions with his attorney. He’d discuss his sordid life choices and the staggering attorney fees required to sweep his past under a rug large enough to cover the entire state of California.

    Out back, an unused swimming pool lurked, its water murky and black—a cauldron of plague, dead rats, and God knows what else. Walt, the gym’s owner and part-time crypt keeper, had a peculiar ritual. Every so often, he’d saunter outside, brandishing a pool net like a scepter, and scoop up some unfortunate deceased creature. He’d hold it aloft for all to see, like a demented priest presenting an unholy sacrament. This grim ceremony was invariably met with a thunderous round of applause from the gym-goers, who treated Walt’s rodent exorcisms like a halftime show. Walt would then toss the cadaver into a nearby dumpster with all the flourish of a Shakespearean actor delivering a monologue, bowing deeply as if he’d just conquered a dragon.

    Walt’s Gym showcased a walking fossil named Wally, an octogenarian who swore he was the original model for human anatomy textbooks—perhaps ones etched on cave walls. We all loved Wally. He was a beloved gym fixture even though he could be a pain in the butt. Wally’s routine was the stuff of myth: He’d righteously correct everyone’s form whether they asked for his advice or not. He’d monopolize the gym for hours, his workout punctuated by monologues worthy of an Oscar about his deadbeat relatives who “borrowed” money, his former lovers who once graced the silver screen, and his eternal battle with arthritis. Between sets, he’d often deliver a Ted Talk on muscle inflammation and the sorry state of the national economy. He delivered these soliloquies with the gravitas of a news anchor, then spent an eternity in the sauna and shower, emerging like a phoenix from the ashes only to douse himself head-to-toe in talcum powder, turning into a spectral beacon of gym dedication. When Wally spoke, he was engulfed in such a thick talcum haze you’d swear a lighthouse was about to blare its foghorn warning.

    The radio played the same hits on a relentless loop, as if the DJ had been possessed by the spirit of a broken record. Elvin Bishop’s “Fooled Around and Fell in Love,” The Eagles’ “New Kid in Town,” and Norman Connors’ “You Are My Starship” echoed through the gym like a soundtrack to my personal purgatory. As a kid navigating this adult world, the gym was my barbershop, my public square, where I eavesdropped on conversations about divorces, hangovers, gambling addictions, financial ruin, the exorbitant costs of sending kids to college, and the soul-sucking burdens of caring for elderly parents.

    It dawned on me then that I was at fourteen the perfect age: old enough to start building biceps like bowling balls, yet young enough to be spared the drudgery and tedium of adult life. The Road to Swoleville, I realized, was all about sidestepping the real world entirely. Why bother with mortgages and 401(k)s when I could disappear into my true paradise, the gym? As Arnold himself wrote in Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder, the gym was the ultimate Happy Place: “The weight lifters shone with sweat; they were powerful looking. Herculean. And there it was before me—my life, the answer I’d been seeking. It clicked. It was something I suddenly just seemed to reach out and find, as if I’d been crossing a suspended bridge and finally stepped off onto solid ground.”

    My “solid ground” was the 1976 incarnation of Walt’s Gym, a germ-infested, rat-plagued wonderland where dreams of muscle-bound glory were forged—and quite possibly the greatest place I’ve ever visited on this planet.

  • The Sleepwalking Student: Why Friction, Not Optimization, Reawakens Learning

    The Sleepwalking Student: Why Friction, Not Optimization, Reawakens Learning

    Academic Anhedonia is what it feels like to keep advancing through your education while feeling absolutely nothing about it. The assignments get done. The rubrics are satisfied. The credentials inch closer. And yet curiosity never sparks, pride never arrives, and learning registers as a faint neurological hum—like an appliance left on in another room. You move forward without momentum, effort without appetite. AI language machines make this easier, smoother, quieter. The result is not rebellion but compliance: efficient, bloodless, and hollow.

    When I started teaching college writing in the 1980s, this condition didn’t exist. Back then, I suffered from a different affliction: the conviction that I was destined to be the David Letterman of higher education—a twenty-five-year-old irony specialist armed with a chalkboard, a raised eyebrow, and impeccable timing. For a while, the bit landed. A well-placed joke could levitate a classroom. Students laughed. I mistook that laughter for learning. If I could entertain them, I told myself, I could teach them. For two decades, I confused engagement with applause and thought I was winning.

    That illusion began to crack around 2012. Phones lit up like votive candles. Attention splintered. Students weren’t bored; they were overclocked—curating identities, performing themselves, measuring worth in metrics. They ran hot: anxious, stimulated, desperate for recognition. Teaching became a cage match with the algorithm. Still, those students were alive. Distracted, yes—but capable of obsession, outrage, infatuation. Their pulses were fast. Their temperatures high.

    What we face now is colder. Around 2022, a different creature arrived. Not overstimulated, but under-responsive. Years of screen saturation, pandemic isolation, dopamine-dense apps, and frictionless AI assistance collapsed the internal reward system that once made discovery feel electric. This isn’t laziness. It’s learning-specific anhedonia. Students can assemble essays, follow scaffolds, and march through rubrics—but they do it like sleepwalkers. Curiosity is muted. Persistence is brittle. Critical thinking arrives pre-flattened, shrink-wrapped, and emotionally inert.

    The tragedy isn’t inefficiency; it’s emptiness. Today’s classrooms hum with quiet productivity and emotional frost—cognition without hunger, performance without investment, education stripped of its pulse.

    If there is a way forward, it won’t come from louder performances, cleverer prompts, or better optimization. Those are the same tools that bleached learning in the first place. Academic anhedonia cannot be cured with stimulation. It requires friction: slow reading that refuses to skim, sustained writing that will not autocomplete itself, intellectual solitude that feels mildly wrong, and work that denies the cheap dopamine hit of instant payoff. The cure is not novelty but depth; not entertainment but seriousness. Struggle isn’t a design flaw. It is the design.

    To interrupt academic anhedonia, I use an AI-resistant assignment that reintroduces cost, memory, and embodiment: The Transformative Moment. Students write 400–500 words about an experience that altered the trajectory of their lives. The assignment demands sensory precision—the one domain where AI reliably produces fluent oatmeal. It insists on transformation, which is what education is supposed to enact. And it drags students back into lived experience, away from the anesthetic glow of screens.

    I offer a model from my own life. When I was sixteen, visiting my recently divorced father, he asked what I planned to do after high school. I told him—without irony—that I intended to become a garbage man so I could finish work early and train at the gym all day. He laughed, then calmly informed me that I would go to college and join the professional class because I was far too vain to tell people at cocktail parties that I collected trash for a living. In that instant, I knew two things: my father knew me better than I knew myself, and my future had just been decided. I walked out of that conversation college-bound, whether I liked it or not.

    I tell them about a friend of mine, now a high school principal, who has been a vegetarian since his early twenties. While working at a deli during college, he watched a coworker carve into a bleeding slab of roast beef. In that moment—knife slicing, flesh yielding—something inside him snapped shut. He knew he would never eat meat again. He hasn’t. Transformation can be instantaneous. Conversion doesn’t always send a memo.

    My final example is a fireman I trained with at a gym in the 1970s. He was a recent finalist in the Mr. California bodybuilding contest: blond shag, broom-thick mustache, horn-rimmed glasses—Clark Kent with a bench press habit. One afternoon, after repping over three hundred pounds, he stood before the mirror, flexed his chest, and watched his muscles swell like they were auditioning for their own sitcom. “When I first saw Arnold,” he said, reverent, “I felt I was in the presence of the Lord. ‘There stands the Messiah,’ I said to myself. ‘There stands God Almighty come to bring good cheer to this world.’”

    He wasn’t speaking only for himself. He spoke for all of us. We wanted to be claimed by something larger than our small, awkward lives. Arnold was the messiah—the Pied Piper of Pecs—leading us toward the promised land of biceps, triceps, and quads capable of crushing produce.

    I assign The Transformative Moment because I want students to recreate an experience no machine can counterfeit. I want them to remember that education is not credential management but metamorphosis. And I want them to interrogate the conditions under which real change occurred in their lives—what they were paying attention to, what they risked, what it cost.

    Transformation—actual forward movement—is the antidote to anhedonia. And it cannot be outsourced.