Cinemorphosis

Category: Health and Fitness

  • Restraint Is the Superpower You Need

    Restraint Is the Superpower You Need

    In a few months I will turn sixty-five, and at first glance I appear to be doing everything right. I swing kettlebells. I pedal my Schwinn Airdyne with the determination of a man trying to escape a prison camp. I accumulate sweat at an industrial scale. My workouts are filled with muscle, stamina, grit, and a willingness to suffer that borders on the theatrical.

    Yet I deserve no bragging rights.

    In fact, I deserve a large serving of Humble Pie with a side dish of Contrition.

    Why?

    Because after decades of lifting, pedaling, sweating, straining, and pretending to be a rugged disciple of physical culture, I somehow missed the memo about the true superpower of fitness.

    The superpower is restraint.

    Not deadlifts. Not kettlebells. Not interval training. Not grit.

    Restraint.

    The real challenge arrives not during a workout but fifteen minutes before one, when a tiny twinge of hunger appears and whispers seductive nonsense into your ear.

    “Perhaps a small snack?”

    The suggestion seems harmless enough. Maybe some apple slices. A few crackers. A little hummus. Nothing excessive. Nothing worthy of a confession.

    But this is where adulthood enters the arena.

    The inner child says, “I’m hungry.”

    The inner adult replies, “You’ll survive.”

    The child says, “Let’s eat something.”

    The adult says, “No. This feeling is temporary.”

    The child says, “But I’m uncomfortable.”

    The adult says, “A little discomfort is not an emergency.”

    The child says, “What if I starve?”

    The adult says, “You weigh 230 pounds. Starvation is not currently on the agenda.”

    The child says, “I need fuel.”

    The adult says, “You need self-control.”

    The child says, “You’re mean.”

    The adult says, “Finish your workout.”

    This conversation, repeated thousands of times over a lifetime, turns out to matter far more than any exercise program.

    Unfortunately, while I spent decades cultivating muscle and stamina, I neglected to cultivate authority over my rapacious inner child. The result is that I carry roughly thirty extra pounds around like a monument to unfinished business.

    My doctor wants me to get my annual blood work done—cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, and the rest of the alphabet soup. But I find myself reluctant.

    Why?

    Because the last time I took the test I weighed 230 pounds.

    A year later, I still weigh 230 pounds.

    Why spend money confirming what I already know?

    Part of me wants to send my doctor a message:

    “Dear Doctor,

    I am currently too fat to appreciate another blood test. The numbers will simply inform us that I remain exactly as fat as I was last year. Instead, I am attempting to acquire the superpower of restraint. Once I possess it, I shall happily report for blood work so that both of us may enjoy the pleasant novelty of improved results.”

    The power of restraint is difficult to overstate.

    Right now I train six days a week and hover around 230 pounds. I suspect I consume something close to 3,000 calories a day.

    If I consistently reduced that intake to around 2,200 calories, I could probably eliminate half my training volume. I could abandon hours of cardio, keep a few weekly kettlebell sessions, and gradually become a lean, muscular 200-pound version of myself.

    That realization is both liberating and humiliating.

    For years I treated exercise as the hero of the story.

    Exercise is important, but restraint is the executive producer.

    Exercise burns calories.

    Restraint prevents them from arriving in the first place.

    Exercise can strengthen your body.

    Restraint changes your body.

    Exercise can improve your health.

    Restraint determines whether the improvements are visible.

    Training can carry you only so far. At some point you arrive at a fork in the road where sweat stops being the limiting factor and appetite takes over.

    That is where the battle is won or lost.

    Restraint is the exit sign leading away from adiposity and self-reproach.

    Restraint is the quiet force that makes training matter.

    Restraint is what allows effort to cash its check.

    And so, as I prepare for today’s workout, there will be no pre-exercise snack. No crackers. No apple slices. No hummus.

    Just a tall glass of Contrition.

    And perhaps, if I am fortunate, a small sip of adulthood.

  • The Greatness Trap

    The Greatness Trap

    At fourteen, after watching Pumping Iron, I stared at Arnold Schwarzenegger’s physique with the reverence medieval peasants reserved for cathedral stained glass. His muscles seemed less like anatomy than a supernatural event. I concluded, with the confidence available only to teenage boys, that all men should look like Arnold. Failure to do so was a form of degradation. You were not a man so much as a tomato with four toothpicks sticking out of it, wobbling through life in a state of preventable mediocrity.

    The disease did not stop with bodybuilding.

    In college, I encountered Franz Kafka and Vladimir Nabokov. Their prose represented another form of muscularity. Their sentences flexed. Their imaginations performed feats of strength. Later, listening to Sviatoslav Richter play Sergei Rachmaninoff, I experienced the same sensation. Arnold had built impossible muscles. Kafka built impossible stories. Richter built impossible beauty. All of them seemed to occupy a realm beyond the ordinary, and they inspired me to believe that I must do the same.

    Thus I spent much of my life trapped in what I call The Greatness Trap: the belief that happiness, self-respect, and fulfillment can only be earned through exceptional achievement. Under its spell, ordinary life appears not merely insufficient but vaguely shameful. A quiet existence becomes a form of failure. Every accomplishment must lead to a larger accomplishment. Every summit reveals another mountain. Every victory quickly curdles into dissatisfaction.

    Like Arnold, who once spoke of wanting to be remembered thousands of years after his death, I wanted to leave a mark. I wanted my existence to strike the world with such force that its impact could be called Clout Fist: the invisible power exerted by a person, institution, or cultural force that shapes the thoughts and behaviors of others. Without such influence, I feared my life would dissolve into obscurity. If I was not spectacular, what was I?

    This anxiety lies at the heart of Joshua Rothman’s essay, “Why Is It So Hard to Be Ordinary?” Rothman observes that excellence and ordinariness coexist uneasily because modern society relentlessly pressures us toward optimization. We are told to maximize everything: our careers, our bodies, our relationships, our finances, our hobbies, our personal brands. Existence itself becomes a self-improvement project. Unless we leave a mark, we fear we do not count.

    The result is a culture of hype. Everything must be bigger, faster, richer, more influential, more disruptive, and more unforgettable. We become trapped in an endless escalator of status. Climb one rung and another immediately appears above it. Achievement ceases to satisfy because satisfaction would end the game.

    Rothman points to philosopher Avram Alpert, who describes this condition as greatness thinking—the belief that greatness can somehow cure the disappointments and imperfections of life. Yet greatness, by definition, is rare. If everyone could be extraordinary, the word would lose its meaning. The pursuit therefore condemns most people to a perpetual feeling of insufficiency. We become disappointed not because our lives are inadequate but because our expectations are delusional.

    What, then, is the exit sign?

    Alpert’s answer is to abandon the obsession with being spectacular and embrace Aristotle’s concept of arete—the fulfillment of one’s potential. Under this view, the goal is not to transform yourself into someone else. It is to become the best version of the person you already are. You cultivate your moral and rational faculties. You seek integrity rather than applause. You pursue excellence not because you crave admiration but because you wish to live well.

    These ideas animate Alpert’s book The Good-Enough Life, though his argument collides with a long tradition of thinkers who demand more. Immanuel Kant viewed human beings as obligated to develop their capacities as fully as possible. Friedrich Nietzsche urged us to stretch ourselves toward the Übermensch, a higher form of human existence. Compared to these visions, Alpert’s philosophy can sound almost suspiciously modest.

    Yet Rothman points out that the greatness-oriented philosophies of Kant and Nietzsche often collide with our intuition that ordinary life possesses genuine value. What if greatness is not required? What if a life marked by decency, moderation, friendship, competence, and love is enough?

    I suspect the answer lies somewhere between these extremes. We should not surrender our aspirations. Human beings are built to grow, create, test themselves, and pursue excellence. Yet neither should we allow a culture saturated with dopamine, hype, vanity, and status anxiety to convince us that greatness and fame are synonymous. Alpert is correct that being “good enough” is often a worthy goal. But I am not convinced that the choice is binary.

    Perhaps the real challenge is to cherish ordinary life while still striving toward extraordinary achievement. Perhaps we can enjoy a family dinner and write a great novel. Perhaps we can appreciate a quiet walk and pursue ambitious goals. Perhaps we can cultivate arete without becoming addicted to applause.

    In that case, the true enemy is not greatness. The true enemy is the delusion that greatness alone can save us.

  • The Great E-Bike Menace

    The Great E-Bike Menace

    I live in Torrance, where over the past few years I have watched an invasive species establish itself on our streets: the teenage e-bike rider. They dart through traffic at unpredictable speeds, weave between cars as though participating in an unauthorized video game, perform wheelies in busy intersections, blow through stop signs with religious devotion, and occasionally taunt motorists who have the misfortune of sharing the road with them. Most appear blissfully unaware of the danger they create. A smaller but more troubling minority seem fully aware and simply do not care.

    The problem has steadily worsened. A few months ago, during a night of heavy rain, I watched three teenage e-bike riders navigate the intersection of Torrance Boulevard and Anza Avenue. The roads were slick, visibility was poor, and the conditions were dangerous even for experienced drivers. Yet there they were, riding through the storm with the confidence of young people who have not yet learned that physics is undefeated.

    For that reason, I was not surprised to read Salvador Hernandez’s Los Angeles Times article, “California’s New Hell’s Angels: Teens on E-Bikes Cut a Path of Danger.” Hernandez describes much of what residents like me have witnessed firsthand. Among the incidents he recounts is the death of an elderly man who was struck by a fourteen-year-old riding recklessly on an e-bike. The problem has grown serious enough that law enforcement agencies are developing specialized responses. Police departments have begun cracking down on illegally modified e-bikes that exceed state regulations, and in Orange County authorities have created dedicated task forces to pursue dangerous riders.

    Many parents remain unaware that California recognizes three distinct classes of e-bikes.

    Class 1 bikes use pedal assist only and have a maximum speed of twenty miles per hour. They are permitted for riders of all ages and require helmets.

    Class 2 bikes combine pedal assist with a throttle and are also limited to twenty miles per hour. They too are available to riders of all ages and require helmets.

    Class 3 bikes use pedal assist and can reach twenty-eight miles per hour. Riders must be at least sixteen years old and wear helmets.

    All three classes are required to display a visible label identifying their classification, though one suspects that some of today’s young speed merchants regard regulatory labels with roughly the same respect they show stop signs.

    Like many public-safety problems, this one seems destined to become worse before it gets better. Driving in Los Angeles was already a test of patience before the arrival of the e-bike era. The city had long mastered the arts of congestion, stress, discourtesy, and occasional road rage. The addition of e-bikes has introduced a fresh layer of chaos. Every morning when I drive my daughters to school, I encounter a gauntlet of obstacles: teenagers weaving through traffic, ignoring traffic laws, and treating the safety of others as an optional consideration.

    The irony is that e-bikes themselves are not the problem. Used responsibly, they are efficient, economical, and environmentally friendly. The problem is the culture that has developed around them—a culture that often treats traffic laws as suggestions and regards reckless behavior as a form of entertainment.

    Where I live, pulling to the side of the road for emergency vehicles is a routine occurrence. We have both Little Company of Mary and Torrance Memorial nearby, and sirens are part of the local soundtrack. Perhaps the increase in emergency activity has nothing to do with e-bikes. Perhaps it is merely my imagination. But after watching teenagers launch themselves through intersections on machines capable of twenty-eight miles per hour while possessing the judgment of teenagers, I cannot help suspecting that at least some of those sirens are chasing the inevitable consequences of youthful overconfidence meeting the laws of motion.

  • Every Day Feels Like an Arm-Wrestling Match with Sin

    Every Day Feels Like an Arm-Wrestling Match with Sin

    Every day it feels as though I wake up to an arm-wrestling match with sin. Don’t feel sorry for me. I’m an addict. What am I addicted to? That’s a stupid question. The better question is what am I not addicted to? In any event, that’s not the point of the story just yet. The point is that there are tens of millions of us. I know I’m not special. My life is defined by the constant challenge to overcome vice, corruption, and the habits that make it nearly impossible for me to forgive myself for being the wretched and loathsome individual that I am. 

    But forgive myself I must. Forgiveness is the only way I can mend my broken self. Forgiveness is a commitment to become someone different from the recalcitrant sinner that fills my life with regret. 

    Some say I am too hard on myself, but they are mistaken because once I understood that life is a continual test of character, the stakes became much higher. Every day presents opportunities to choose integrity over temptation, discipline over indulgence, and virtue over vice.

    To be honest, however, there is something discouraging about viewing life as a daily battle against temptation. I cannot always defeat sin in an arm-wrestling match. Even on my best days, victory is incomplete. If I overcome temptation half the time, I still fail the other half. The prospect can feel exhausting. How can I forgive myself if I remain locked in a struggle I never fully win? How can I live with peace if temptation is always waiting and I never know whether I will emerge victorious?

    The answer may be that the object of forgiveness is not perfection but perseverance. The purpose of self-forgiveness is not to transform me into a flawless person. It is to transform me into a person who continues striving toward the good despite repeated failures. The measure of my character is not whether temptation disappears, but whether I continue returning to the fight. Forgiveness allows me to rise after every fall rather than define myself by the fall itself. The truly unforgivable life is not the life marked by failure. It is the life that abandons the struggle altogether.

    Of course, talk is cheap. Character is revealed through action, not rhetoric. And modern life has become extraordinarily efficient at encouraging surrender.

    You can retreat into a climate-controlled cocoon furnished with streaming services, snack foods, delivery apps, and algorithmically engineered distractions. You can spend years drifting from one dopamine hit to the next while the world applauds your consumption and politely asks if you would like another. Temptation no longer lurks in dark alleys. It arrives in bright packaging and offers free shipping.

    The world will not object if you quit the struggle. On the contrary, it will happily assist you. Fresh temptations will appear on your phone, your television, your computer, and eventually your doorstep. At some point, however, a terrible realization emerges. You are no longer directing your life. Your cravings are directing it for you.

    At that moment, you cease to be the protagonist of your own story. You become a supporting character in a drama written by your appetites, a bit player taking orders from every craving that wanders onto the stage. Perhaps you will grow numb to this reality and drift into a comfortable spiritual death, cushioned by convenience, entertained into submission, and surrounded by enough snacks and streaming content to dull any remaining sense of alarm. Or perhaps the discomfort will refuse to leave. Perhaps it will linger like a splinter in the soul. Perhaps it will haunt you until the life you have built begins to resemble a horror movie disguised as a luxury resort.

    That haunting may prove to be a gift. It may force you to confront the fact that you have been living in your own version of the Sunken Place, sinking ever deeper into passivity while your impulses seize control of the steering wheel. The tragedy is not that temptation exists. The tragedy is that you have mistaken indulgence for freedom and captivity for comfort. At some point, if you are fortunate, a voice will break through the fog. It will not whisper. It will not negotiate. It will issue a command as urgent as any ever spoken in a Jordan Peele horror film:

    Get out.

  • The Forgiveness Paradox

    The Forgiveness Paradox

    Learning to forgive yourself would become far less difficult if you understood what self-forgiveness actually is. It is not indulgence. It is not self-flattery. It is not a permission slip to ignore your failures and move on as though nothing happened. Genuine self-forgiveness demands the opposite. It requires you to clarify your moral code, raise the standard of your conduct, and commit yourself to a life that justifies forgiveness. The goal is not to erase the past but to answer it with better behavior.

    When you refuse to forgive yourself, however, you become haunted by the worst versions of your former self. Old humiliations emerge uninvited. Forgotten acts of selfishness return with startling clarity. You cringe, wince, and recoil as though the memories possess physical force. Part of the pain comes from the distance between who you were and who you are now. You look upon your former self with disbelief and wonder how you could ever have acted that way. Yet instead of moving toward redemption, you become trapped in a kind of moral purgatory—a psychological limbo in which you endlessly replay past wrongdoing without arriving at either genuine repentance or genuine forgiveness. You remain suspended between condemnation and redemption, unable to reach either shore.

    Paradoxically, this unforgiven state often makes you more likely to repeat the very behaviors that trouble your conscience. Burdened by guilt, you seek relief. Instead of confronting your pain directly, you look for escape in distractions, compulsions, and addictive pleasures. Whether the refuge is food, alcohol, entertainment, gambling, pornography, or some other dopamine-rich diversion, the purpose is the same: to silence the accusing voice within. The relief is temporary. The guilt soon returns, accompanied by fresh reasons for self-reproach. What follows is a guilt-dopamine loop, a self-perpetuating cycle in which unresolved guilt drives a person toward unhealthy pleasures for relief, only to create new guilt that deepens the original wound.

    The way out is not punishment but transformation. To escape guilt properly requires two acts. First, you forgive yourself. Second, you dedicate yourself to living with greater integrity, clearer intentions, and a moral seriousness that defies your former conduct. In doing so, you embrace what might be called the Forgiveness Paradox: the truth that people often become more virtuous after forgiving themselves than they ever were while punishing themselves. Endless self-condemnation rarely produces wisdom or character. Forgiveness, when joined to genuine moral renewal, often does. It allows you to stop staring at the wreckage behind you and begin building the life that your better self has been calling you toward all along.

    If you resist forgiving yourself, you must confront an uncomfortable possibility: on some level, you derive satisfaction from your own self-punishment. You rehearse old failures, revisit old humiliations, and keep your guilt alive as though tending a wound that has already begun to heal. But do not mistake this habit for moral seriousness. Self-flagellation is not a sign of piety, humility, or virtue. More often, it is a sign of someone unwilling to leave the familiar misery of guilt behind. It is easier to remain trapped in the guilt-dopamine loop—oscillating between self-condemnation and temporary escape—than to undertake the harder work of forgiveness and renewal. Genuine moral growth requires the courage to step out of the mire, accept that the past cannot be changed, and begin the difficult task of becoming a better person. The purpose of guilt is not to imprison you forever. Its purpose is to teach you what kind of life you must now live.

    Another way to understand self-forgiveness is to think of it as laying down a predicate. A predicate is incomplete by itself; it requires an object. What, then, is the object of forgiveness? It is the deliberate renunciation of your former way of life and the commitment to a new one. The purpose of forgiveness is not merely to erase guilt but to make moral renewal possible. When a person is forgiven, the message is not simply, “You are absolved.” It is also, “Go and sin no more.” Forgiveness is therefore not a form of moral amnesia. It is a moral summons. It calls you to become the kind of person whose present conduct stands in defiance of a shameful past. In this sense, forgiveness is not free. It imposes an obligation. Forgiveness is the predicate; a life of integrity is its object.

    Failing to forgive yourself lays down a very different predicate. It becomes a permission slip to remain trapped in the guilt-dopamine loop, endlessly oscillating between self-condemnation and temporary escape. The longer you remain in that cycle, the more you surrender your sense of agency. Instead of directing your life, you become directed by your cravings, compulsions, and darker passions. Whatever your station in life, such submission is a profound failure because it places your impulses in command and reduces your capacity for self-governance.

    To be ruled by your passions is to live in a kind of bondage. You may possess degrees, professional accomplishments, and worldly success, but you have not received the deepest form of education. As author and professor Luke Burgis argues, the purpose of education is to become the protagonist of your own life. A truly educated person is not merely informed; he possesses the freedom and discipline to shape his own destiny rather than being dragged along by appetite, resentment, or fear.

    Forgiveness is therefore not a luxury but a necessity. Without it, you remain chained to your past, allowing old failures to dictate the terms of your present existence. With it, you reclaim authorship of your life. You step out of the role of a passive observer, a background character, a non-player character reacting mechanically to circumstance. Self-forgiveness allows you to become the protagonist of your own story, capable of choosing a better path and living a life that is no longer defined by the worst things you have done.

  • Can Philosophers Keep Their Souls in Silicon Valley?

    Can Philosophers Keep Their Souls in Silicon Valley?

    In “Someone Finally Wants to Hire Philosophers,” Lila Shroff reports what would have sounded like a punchline only a decade ago: philosophy majors may finally be getting the last laugh. For years, philosophy occupied an awkward place in the public imagination—a discipline associated with coffee-shop debates, existential handwringing, and the noble art of explaining to relatives why you were unemployed. At best, the philosopher was a thoughtful gadfly. At worst, a professional overthinker. But the rise of artificial intelligence has suddenly transformed philosophy from an intellectual curiosity into a marketable skill. Major technology companies are hiring philosophers. Universities are recruiting scholars who specialize in both AI and philosophy. The old joke about philosophy leading nowhere is beginning to age badly.

    As Shroff notes, this development should not surprise us. Philosophers have been wrestling with questions about intelligence, consciousness, morality, and the possibility of artificial minds for centuries. Long before Silicon Valley executives promised to change the world, philosophers were already asking whether a machine could think, reason, or possess something resembling a mind. Today, thinkers such as Nick Bostrom have become influential voices in the AI conversation. His book Superintelligence warned more than a decade ago that humanity might create machines whose capabilities outstrip our ability to control them. What once sounded like speculative science fiction now reads more like a boardroom agenda.

    The marriage between AI and philosophy arises from a practical concern. Technology companies want their products to appear ethical, trustworthy, and safe. A machine that accidentally promotes fraud, discrimination, or social chaos is difficult to market. Consumers are more likely to embrace AI systems that project wisdom, fairness, and restraint. In the increasingly crowded AI marketplace, virtue has become a product feature. Safety, ethics, and responsibility are not merely moral concerns; they are branding opportunities.

    Yet Shroff’s essay leaves several uncomfortable questions lingering in the air.

    First, philosophers disagree about nearly everything. That is practically the job description. If ethical questions routinely produce competing schools of thought, which philosophers do AI companies choose to hire? A utilitarian, a virtue ethicist, a libertarian, and a nihilist might evaluate the same problem and arrive at wildly different conclusions. When an AI company claims to be guided by philosophy, whose philosophy is it talking about?

    Second, corporations do not operate in a vacuum. They pursue growth, market share, influence, and profit. Given those incentives, it seems unlikely that technology companies will eagerly recruit philosophers whose views fundamentally conflict with corporate objectives. The philosopher who questions the legitimacy of the enterprise may not receive the same warm welcome as the philosopher who helps polish its public image.

    Third, what happens to philosophy itself when it becomes a lucrative career path? If technology firms reward certain ethical frameworks and ignore others, philosophers may gradually adapt their views to become more employable. Intellectual independence has always been easier to defend when no one is writing the check. Once prestige, influence, and six-figure salaries enter the picture, even the most principled thinkers may find themselves sanding off inconvenient beliefs.

    This is why I remain skeptical of any celebration of philosophy’s new status in the AI economy. There is no such thing as pure philosophy floating above human ambition. There are only human beings, complete with incentives, blind spots, loyalties, and self-interest. The partnership between AI and philosophy may produce genuinely useful ethical guidance. Or it may become an elaborate exercise in corporate virtue theater—a dazzling display of moral concern performed beneath bright lights while the machinery of profit hums steadily backstage. Whether philosophers become the conscience of artificial intelligence or merely its public relations department remains an open question.

  • The Loneliness Crisis: Social Isolation and the Rise of American Hostility (college essay prompt)

    The Loneliness Crisis: Social Isolation and the Rise of American Hostility (college essay prompt)

    Read David Brooks’ essay “How America Got Mean” and Derek Thompson’ essay “The Anti-Social Century.” Then watch Roy Wood Jr.’s comedy special Lonely Flowers.

    In the comedy performance Lonely Flowers, Roy Wood Jr. argues that increasing loneliness and social disconnection are contributing to rising anger, hostility, tribalism, and violence in American culture. Brooks and Thompson similarly describe a society that is becoming more fragmented, isolated, distrustful, and emotionally brittle. Together, these works raise an important question: What happens to individuals and societies when meaningful human connection begins to collapse?

    Write a 1,200-word argumentative essay analyzing the claim that social isolation is a major cause of America’s rising hostility, cruelty, and social dysfunction. Your essay may support, challenge, or complicate Roy Wood Jr.’s argument, but you must engage deeply with the ideas presented by Brooks and Thompson as you develop your position.

    As you develop your argument, consider how these writers and performers describe the psychological and cultural effects of loneliness, alienation, and declining social trust. How do social isolation, digital life, political tribalism, economic pressure, social media, declining community institutions, and weakened friendships contribute to anger and resentment? To what extent do modern Americans increasingly experience one another not as neighbors or fellow citizens but as abstractions, enemies, audiences, or online avatars?

    You should also consider competing explanations for cultural hostility. Is loneliness truly the central problem, or are broader forces—economic inequality, political polarization, consumer culture, technological addiction, family breakdown, declining religion, or social media algorithms—more responsible for rising social tension? Does loneliness cause hostility, or does hostility itself drive people further into isolation?

    In addition to analyzing the ideas presented in these works, examine how each creator communicates their message. Consider the differences between Brooks’ social criticism, Thompson’s cultural analysis, and Roy Wood Jr.’s use of comedy, storytelling, exaggeration, and observational humor. Why might comedy be an especially effective way to address painful subjects such as loneliness, disconnection, and social fragmentation?

    You must include at least one counterargument and rebuttal. For example, some critics may argue that modern technology and online culture have actually expanded social connection rather than weakened it. Others may argue that Americans are not truly isolated but are instead forming new kinds of communities online. Respond to these objections by evaluating the quality and depth of modern social relationships.

    As you conclude your essay, consider the larger implications of these works. What do they suggest about the future of friendship, community, empathy, and civic life in America? If loneliness and social fragmentation continue to grow, what might happen to the culture, politics, and mental health of the nation?

    Requirements:

    • 1,200 words minimum
    • MLA format
    • Use evidence from all three works
    • Include a clear thesis with mapping components
    • Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
    • Analyze specific examples, scenes, or passages rather than merely summarizing
    • Develop a focused argument about loneliness, social fragmentation, and cultural hostility
  • The Sin of Outsourcing Humanity

    The Sin of Outsourcing Humanity

    For Tyler Austin Harper, there is only one word that captures the gravity of dehumanization: sin. And to be clear, dehumanization is rampant—in the form of robot companions, digital girlfriends, and AI therapists. To call these developments merely wrong is an understatement. He writes, “They feel to me like something deeper and darker.” In his essay “There Is Already a Word for the Deep Moral Failures of AI: It’s Sin,” Harper argues that to understand the depths of what is happening to us, we need Christian guides because Christianity provides a framework for understanding dehumanization. You cannot understand dehumanization unless you first understand what it means to be fully human. Harper turns to Christian critics of AI to trace this trajectory from human to subhuman through the misuse of technology.

    These misuses emerge when people overemphasize the business, pragmatic, and utilitarian uses of AI at the expense of humanity, a Faustian bargain as old as sin itself. To champion technology and “outsource the most interesting aspects of our life and labor to machines” without considering the effects on the human soul is to threaten human dignity and meaning.

    Christianity frames us as fallen creatures who long to return to our Maker. The burden of being human is struggling with our fallen nature and seeking grace through God. When we look to machines for salvation, we outsource the burden of what it means to be human. In doing so, we forget that this burden entails suffering and that suffering itself can be a gift from God, pointing us toward humility and the true path. In Harper’s words, “Christianity has a clear ‘anthropological vision,’ asserting that the purpose of the human species is to exist in the image of its creator, to love God and one another, and to spread life on Earth and steward its creatures.” To move toward this purpose is to become fully human. We conform to God and fulfill our humanity. Conforming ourselves to machines, by contrast, becomes a desecration of what it means to be human.

    Harper argues that outside the Christian framework, we become confused about what it means to be human in the first place. He writes, “Many secular thinkers can struggle to articulate a clear definition of what humanity is.” He points to Christian writer Carl Trueman, who observes that the term dehumanization loses its force if the secular definition of humanization remains an “empty cipher.” Secularists and techno-believers have reduced humanization to a narrow set of superficial behaviors that fail to capture what it truly means to carry the burden of having a soul.

    Harper describes himself as “a not especially observant Presbyterian” and is not arguing that we must embrace religious orthodoxy to “fully appreciate the challenge posed by the rise of AI.” However, he insists that we “must start from the premise that humans have some kind of universal nature or essence that must be safeguarded from technological encroachment.”

    Harper’s article reminds me of the dangers of Liquid Modernity, a concept developed by Zygmunt Bauman. Bauman describes a social condition in which stable institutions, identities, relationships, careers, moral frameworks, and communities dissolve into constant flux, instability, and adaptation. In the context of dehumanization and the rise of AI, Liquid Modernity refers to the transformation of human beings from rooted persons with durable social bonds into endlessly flexible, data-driven consumers and performers who must continuously reinvent themselves to survive technological and economic disruption.

    Societies that lack a tradition defining humanization may ultimately surrender to the doctrine that Liquid Modernity is both desirable and inevitable—a condition in which human beings outsource the burden of being human to machines.

  • The Warrior Waiting Outside My Classroom

    The Warrior Waiting Outside My Classroom

    You can begin with the proposition that helping others is one of the few reliable antidotes to the degrading swamp of self-pity. Human beings are not designed to sit motionless inside their own grievances indefinitely. If you possess intelligence, talent, strength, or charisma, those gifts demand meaningful expression. They are not decorative features. They are forms of energy.

    That energy animates your being like electrical current running through a machine. It must move outward toward purpose, discipline, service, creation, or struggle. If it cannot find meaningful release, it turns inward and begins poisoning the person who contains it. The result is psychic rot: floundering, festering, curdling resentment, compulsive behavior, addiction, rage, nihilism, and self-consumption. The gifted person without purpose often becomes a danger to himself. He drinks greedily from the trough of self-pity until he sinks into a stagnant emotional mire.

    I have been thinking about this principle of repressed talent for the last month or so.

    When I walk to teach my classes at the college, I often pass a group of four young men gathered outside the classroom next to mine, waiting for their instructor to arrive. Among them is a young man I will call Lance. Even standing still, Lance commands attention with the gravitational pull of someone built for collision rather than passivity.

    He is in his mid-twenties, about six foot four, perhaps 230 pounds, heavily muscled and covered in tattoos. His blond hair is shaved close against his skull, emphasizing a sculpted jaw that looks almost mythic in proportion. Behind thick black-rimmed glasses are serious eyes carrying the alertness of a man who has spent years expecting conflict. Lance possesses the unmistakable physical presence of someone who could either lead men into battle or get thrown out of a casino at three in the morning for fighting three bouncers simultaneously.

    He told me he moved to California from Michigan after years of self-destruction that resulted in several felony convictions. He admitted openly that he struggles with aggression and anger. He appears to possess almost no tolerance for stupidity, dishonesty, or weakness. Yet despite the volatility simmering beneath the surface, he also projects unusual charisma and intelligence. He is studying business now and trying, in his own words, to “get his life together.”

    From my limited conversations with him, I suspect Lance possesses what I would call a Warrior Personality.

    Some people are psychologically constructed for intensity. They thrive on challenge, competition, danger, pressure, confrontation, and high-stakes environments that demand disciplined aggression. These individuals often deteriorate in passive, stagnant, emotionally neutered settings. They require struggle the way racehorses require motion. If they fail to find meaningful outlets for their intensity, the energy mutates into self-destruction.

    I can easily imagine Lance succeeding as an athlete, coach, entrepreneur, counselor, firefighter, or leader in some other high-pressure field requiring resilience and force of will. But I can equally imagine him drifting toward destruction if that energy remains undirected.

    What concerns me is what I would call Warrior Displacement Syndrome: a condition in which highly aggressive, competitive, high-intensity individuals fail to discover purposeful outlets for their temperament and therefore redirect those impulses toward addiction, criminality, rage, compulsive behavior, or nihilism. The warrior instinct, denied honorable expression, mutates into chaos.

    Modern society often misunderstands such people. We frequently pathologize intensity itself rather than helping channel it constructively. But strength without direction becomes volatile. A powerful temperament deprived of purpose becomes psychologically radioactive.

    Lance still has rough edges that he will likely need to soften as he adapts to adult life. Yet I suspect much of his struggle comes not from an excess of strength but from the absence of a worthy battlefield upon which to deploy it.

    There are two weeks left in the semester. If I see Lance outside my classroom again, I may tell him some version of what I have written here. Perhaps the idea of the Warrior Personality will resonate with him. Perhaps not.

    But increasingly I suspect that in another version of my life, I would not have become a college writing instructor at all.

    I would have become a counselor for lost men trying to redirect the dangerous energy burning inside them before it consumed them whole.

  • Mackenzie Shirilla: The Girl Who Became Her Feed

    Mackenzie Shirilla: The Girl Who Became Her Feed

    It was difficult to watch the Netflix documentary The Crash, which chronicles the horrifying case of two young men killed in a car crash after prosecutors argued that the driver, Mackenzie Shirilla, deliberately floored the gas pedal of her Toyota Camry to nearly one hundred miles per hour in an act deemed premeditated murder. The documentary is disturbing not merely because of the violence of the crash, but because of the portrait it paints of a young woman whose identity had become inseparable from her online performance. Mackenzie appeared trapped inside the exhausting machinery of self-curation, sculpting and broadcasting her existence with the kind of manic persistence social media now rewards as normal behavior. Her digital persona no longer seemed like an accessory to her life. It had metastasized into her life.

    Today, while listening to the podcast Blocked and Reported, I heard Jesse Singal and Katie Herzog discuss Gen Z’s eerie fluency for turning existence itself into a livestream. Both millennials sounded genuinely alienated by the phenomenon, as though they were describing a species only slightly adjacent to their own. Jesse referenced Mackenzie Shirilla’s relentless online presence as depicted in The Crash, pointing to the unsettling ease with which younger generations curate themselves for permanent digital exhibition. Yet one of the influencers discussed on the podcast commands nearly a million followers—a level of attention powerful enough to hijack almost any fragile human nervous system. Social media platforms have effectively industrialized validation, converting attention into a neurochemical slot machine that pays out in intermittent bursts of relevance, envy, and simulated affection.

    Attention itself is not the enemy. Human beings need recognition. Writers, artists, teachers, comedians, philosophers, and musicians all seek an audience because they are attempting to contribute something meaningful to the ongoing argument about what it means to be alive. But attention detached from substance becomes false gold. It glitters, intoxicates, and ultimately leaves the soul spiritually bankrupt. The dopamine cycle masquerades as significance while quietly hollowing out the self.

    The danger comes when a person can no longer distinguish between authentic identity and algorithmic performance. The online persona begins as branding, then evolves into compulsion, and finally hardens into pathology. It becomes louder, crueler, more narcissistic, and more detached from ordinary human proportion. The person starts living not for reality itself, but for its documentation. Meals become props. Relationships become content. Suffering becomes theater. Even grief gets optimized for engagement metrics. At that point, the self is no longer steering the machine; the machine is steering the self.

    Mackenzie Shirilla appears to have crossed that line. She allowed the curated self to consume the actual self. What remained was not individuality but a kind of digital possession—a consciousness warped by attention addiction, performative intensity, and emotional exhibitionism. The tragedy of The Crash is not merely that lives were destroyed in a violent instant. It is that modern culture increasingly trains young people to confuse visibility with meaning, performance with identity, and online relevance with human worth. Mackenzie lost that distinction entirely. In the end, the algorithm did not merely shape her personality. It devoured it.