Agree on the limits of post-hoc reasoning.

In my limited experience, these kids may reacting positively not due to anything specific about chess or the program, rather to the fact that people seem to care about their development and options. Plus the fact they are being put through a non-antagonistic and less dangerous program than juvie.

I also think it's a great idea.

In the same vein, it's unfortunately pretty common for pilot programs like this to be successful, in part because there's lots of attention and focus on success. Then you scale it up and the good results evaporate.

Agree. Who do you get to do the pilot program for this sort of thing? The person who really has a passion for chess and believes that everyone can learn and even excel at it OR the person who's just trying to avoid going home where they have their own problems they are trying to avoid.

Also, which person do you imagine having a good effect on troubled youth.

And finally which person do you imagine they'll get when they mainline the program.

Particularly true if your "scaling up" assumes you can reduce costs at the same time (other than economies of scale).

Yes, if this had backfired I wonder if people would talk about how chess "Makes you see everything in black and white. You win or lose, or rarely draw. There is no team work!"

It would be interesting to know if chess is more effective than, say, reading or making movies. There is something intellectual about it.

I imagine there's something beneficial in the fact that it's competitive, and therefore non-solitary. You're forced to interact with your opponent.

Depends on the definition of interaction. In professional chess you aren't allowed to interact with opponent (talk etc) at all. All you do is greet, make moves, record them and offer draw, resign or accept resignation. You can have some interaction later.

To bring it full circle...

any program that stimulates them, invests time and effort into them, and gets them passionate is going to result in philosophical statements like "everything I know about life, I learned playing rugby" or "In life, like chess, every move has a consequence."

How is making an analogy for action and consequence is hyperbolic post-hoc reasoning?

ramblerman interprets "In life, like chess, every move has a consequence" to mean "The reason this program is effective is it teaches offenders that moves have consequences" and considers that a post-hoc explanation.

I work in an industry which encourages ADD. Chess is one of the ways I maintain my attention span. My game tells me when I’m tired, stressed, inattentive or missing forests for trees.

Me too. I notice a distinct drop in my tactic exercises when I'm underslept.

Not sure what that has to do with my initial point though.

Some times people just like to say things that add to the conversation without driving someone else's point. It's not a problem.

Reminds me of the NBA ads claiming life and basketball are "so similar".

These creative sentences are great when they work, but are there any checks and balances on this? What if a judge thinks religious studies are the best way to reform a child? Are they obligated to participate, or is it an option for the kid to go to juvenile hall instead?

It's not that every move has a consequence, it's that chess requires you to think about the long-term ramifications of each move. Petty criminals often become so because they lack the capacity for such long-term thinking ability, or so goes the popular psychological theory, in which case chess may be an easy way to develop it.

That's a huge leap. Impulse control is an emotional/subconscious behavior, not a failure of planning. People with poor impulse control (most "stupid" criminals), can make plans but fail to execute them. Similar goes for ADD (which affects criminals and non-criminals).

Yea I think that's spot on, at least the long-term thinking in chess part. I think that thinking about future actions is more often involved in chess than soccer or many other activities. In soccer the players on the board change positions too quickly to think very far ahead.

Besides, if we skip science, the tetris analogy seems way more accurate than chess.

I’ve been exploring the idea of an alt-prison startup.

I imagine things like nature, skills, community, art, trauma healing, etc. could all be a big part of it.

I've thought about these ideas, as well.

One concern I've had to add to my thinking: That non-incarcerated people also have access to these things. Nature, and all the rest. And simply time to seek them out and take advantage of them.

We shouldn't get to the point, where incarceration is the means by which such things become accessible.

Making sure they're accessible, outside of incarceration, might help to prevent incarceration in the first place.

I'm all for rehabilitation. Just, it should start before things come to law-breaking. In other words, focus on quality of life as a primary "deterrent".

Quality of environment seems a fundamental part of that.

I agree with this of course.

I’d want our education system to be modeled after these ideas as well.

Ironically, many schools look and function a lot like prisons.

It’s been said the way a society treats it’s prisoners is a bellweather of its health.

Perhaps by bringing cutting edge practices to prison we can lift the entire society.

> > In life, like chess, every move has a consequence.

> This is all pretty hyperbolic post-hoc reasoning.

Sure, but OTOH it is literally true.