Good, Evil and Technology

Are you a good person? How can you know? Rarely to we seriously inquire into our own morality and unless we’re kicking puppies and stealing lunches from homeless children most of us believe we’re good enough. But not being bad is not the same as being good. And when it comes to making products and technologies similar rules apply. We are unlikely to be good at assessing how good or evil we, or the things we make, actually are.

Good and evil demystified

A quick trip to the dictionary yields the following basic terms:

Good: Being positive, desirable or virtuous; a good person. Having desirable qualities: a good exterior paint; a good joke. Serving the purpose or end; suitable: Is this a good dress for the party?

Evil: Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

But how does this apply to technology? Are there good products and evil products? Rarely. Most things fall in between: tools are often, but not always, amoral. A hammer or a pencil has little inherent moral qualities. They both work just as well whether you are building homeless shelters or when you’re writing recipes for orphan stew. If we want to claim that the things we make are good we have to go beyond their functionality. Goodness, in the moral sense, means something very different from good in the engineering sense.

What is the point of technology?

But what is the alternative? The answer depends on how you value technology. There are (at least) 5 alternatives:

• There is no point. The universe is chaos and every confused soul fends for themselves. Therefore technology, like all things, is pointless. Software and it’s makers are just more chaotic elements in the random existential mess that is the universe. (Patron saint: Marvin the robot from Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy).
• There might be a point, but it’s unknowable. Technology may have value but we are incapable of understanding it, therefore our attempts at making things will tend to be misguided and even self-destructive, especially if we believe the promises of the corporations who make most of the things we use. (Patron saint: Tyler Durden, Fight club).
• The point is how it’s used (the pragmatic moral view). The point is that technology enables people to do things. How the technology is used, and the effect it has on people in the world. In this line of thought a good technology is one that enables good things to happen for people and helps them live satisfying lives and what we make should be built on the tradition of shelter, fire, electricity, refrigeration and vaccination (Patron saint: Victor Papanak, author of Design for the Real World).
• The point is how it makes the creator feel (the selfish view). What matters is how the creator of the thing feels about the thing. This is an artistic view of technology in that programming or building is an act of expression whose greatest meaning is to the creator themselves. (Patron saint: Salvador Dali)
• The point to technology is its economic value. The free market decides what good technology is, possibly giving creators resources for doing morally good things. But the moral value of the technology itself is indeterminate or unimportant. (Patron saint: Gordon Gekko)

I’m not offering any of these as the true answer: there isn’t one. But I am offering that without a sense of the moral purpose of technology it’s impossible to separate good from bad. There must be an underlying value system to apply to the making of things. I’m partial to the pragmatic view, that technology’s value is in helping people live better lives (or even further, that a goal of life is to be of use to people, through technological or other means), but I’m well aware that’s not the only answer.

Technological value

But if you do identify a personal philosophy for technology, there are ways to apply it to the making of things. Assuming you see good technology as achieving a moral good, here’s one approach.

For any technology you can estimate its value to help individuals. Lets call that ability V. Assuming you know how many people use the technology (N), V * N = the value of the technology. Here’s two examples:

A heart defibrillator can save someone’s life (V=100). But may only have a few users (N=1000).

V * N = 100,000.

A pizza website allows me to order pizza online (V=1). It may have many users (N=50,000).

V * N = 50,000.

We can argue about how to define V (or the value of online pizza delivery), but as a back of the envelope approach, it’s easy to compare two different technologies for their value, based on any philosophy of technology. Should you happen to be Satan’s right-hand man, change V to S (for suffering) and you’re on your way.

However, one trap in this is the difference between what technology makes possible and what people actually do. I could use a defibrillator to kill someone, or use the pizza website to play pranks on my neighbors. Or more to my point, I might not actually use the technology at all, despite purchasing it and being educated in its value. So the perceived value of a thing, by the thing’s creator, is different from the actual value the thing has for people in the real world.

Here are some questions that help sort out value:

• What is possible with the technology?
• How much of that potential is used? Why or why not?
• Who benefits from the technology?
• How do they benefit?
• What would they have done without the technology?
• What are the important problems people have? Is a technological solution the best way to solve them?
• (Also see Postman’s 7 questions)

The implications of things

Many tools have an implied morality. There is a value system that every machine, program, or website has built into it that’s comprehensible if you look carefully. As two polarizing examples, look at these two things: a machine gun and a wheelchair.

Both of these have very clear purposes in mind and behind each purpose is a set of values. The wheelchair is designed to support someone. The machine gun is designed to kill someone (or several someones).

Many of the products we make don’t have as clearly defined values. However, as I mentioned earlier, the absence of value is a value: not being explicitly evil isn’t the same as being good. If I make a hammer, it can be used to build homes for the needy or to build a mansion for a bank robber. I can be proud of the hammer’s design, but I can’t be certain that I’ve done a good thing for the world: the tool’s use is too basic to define it as good or bad.

It’s common to see toolmakers, from search engines to development tools, take credit for the good they see their tools do, while ignoring the bad. This isn’t quite right: they are equally involved in the later as they are in the former.

The conclusion to this is that to do good things for people requires a more direct path than the making of tools. Helping the neighbor’s kid learn math, volunteering at the homeless shelter or donating money to the orphanage are ways to do good things that have a direct impact, compared to the dubious and sketchy goodness of indifferent tool making.

The creative responsibility (Hacker ethics)

Computer science has no well-established code of ethics. You are unlikely to hear the words moral, ethical, good and evil in the curriculum of most degree programs (However some organizations are working on this: see references). It’s not that computer science departments condone a specific philosophical view: it’s that they don’t see it as their place to prescribe a philosophical view to engineering students. (The absence of a philosophy is in fact a philosophy, but that’s not my point). But the history of engineering does have some examples of engineering cultures that took clear stances on ethics.

Freemasons, the ancient (and often mocked) order of builders, has a central code that all members are expected to uphold. It defines a clear standard of moral and ethical behavior and connects the building of things to those ideals.

More recently, the early hacker culture at MIT defined a set of rules for how hacks should be done.

A hack must:

• be safe
• not damage anything
• not damage anyone, either physically, mentally or emotionally
• be funny, at least to most of the people who experience it

The meaning of the term hacker has changed several times, but the simplicity and power of a short set of rules remains. Do you bind the decisions you make in creating things to a set of ideals? What are they?

Defining our beliefs

Even if we don’t define rules for ourselves, we all believe one of three things about what we make:

• I have no responsibility (for how it’s used)
• I have some responsibility
• I have total responsibility

Most of us fall into the middle view: we have some responsibility. But if that’s true, how do we take on that responsibility? How do our actions reflect that accountability?

Nothing prevents us from making sure the tools we make, and skills we have, are put to good use: donated to causes we value, demonstrated to those who need help, customized for specific purposes and people we think are doing good things. It’s only in those acts that we’re doing good: the software, website or machine is often not enough. Or more to my point, the best way to do good has less to do with the technology, and more to do with what we do with it.

• “The purpose of technology is to facilitate things. On the whole, I think, technology can deliver, but what it is asked to do is often not very great. “ – Neil Postman
• “Let the chips fall where they may” – Tyler Durden
• “I think the technical capabilities of technology are well ahead of the value concepts which we ask it to deliver. “ – Edward De Bono
• “If you want to understand a new technology, ask yourself how it would be used in the hands of the criminal, the policeman, and the politician” – William Gibson
• “With great power comes great responsibility” – SpiderMan
• “Our technology has surpassed our humanity” – Einstein

First published November 15, 2005 [minor edits 2/21/2015, 2/23/2018]

References

• Technopoly, Neil Postman. One of the most important books I’ve read in the last decade.
• Why the future doesn’t need us, Bill Joy
• Being Digital, Nicholas Negroponte. The founder of MITs media lab’s collection of essays on the future of technology.
• The age of spiritual machines, Ray Kurzweil
• OnlineEthics.org, Case Western Univerisity’s engineering ethics group.
• Computer professionals for social responsibility, Tech-sector folks interested in the impacts of technology.
• Benetech, a non-profit dedicated to using technology to help people.

I can change with the times, my blog is "my" study hall / notebook

 I "was" looking up certain information for others, I had thought about the fun educational online games that I gave prizes for but nah, I won't do any of it anymore. People don't appreciate shit and it's sad.
 A couple of Mensa associates said that this day would come but my silly ass believed in the humaneness of other people.

 I have a plan "if it all goes wrong", how about you?

I'm going to walk it out, take care

This reminded me of a time long gone

 If anyone remembers, "Open Minds 2012' or American Citizen's Admin" they'll remember when I gave out restaurant vouchers, money orders, gift cards and the like for successfully completing "online learning tasks".
 In Aguadilla, Puerto Rico I shared my small profits 100% with the students at the local college because they assisted me in looking up information which saved me time.
 I use to receive thank you "letters" not emails and I also received cookies, cakes and gift cards.
 Those days are no more! I'll even be taking down the contact form on this blog soon, if you don't care, why should I?

 I've been asked about money often and typically when I filed for patents there was a group that benefitted, not this time, it will only be me. I created the 6 new ideas and will just keep any and all profit to myself, thanks.

I was asked is "Sys Nica" successful

 It took me a moment but my answer was, "For all intents and purposes, it may be successful". When asked to explain I simply said, "Most people are not going to change no matter what they learn, it may be successful in having changed one life other than my own".

Nearly half of Americans can’t afford the basics to live

By Herb Scribner
@HerbScribner
Published: May 19, 2018 7:00 am

SALT LAKE CITY — A new study released this week found that nearly half of Americans can’t afford the basics of life, including rent and food.

The United Way ALICE Project released the study, which found 51 million households don’t earn a monthly income that can pay for food, child care, housing, transportation and a cell phone.

In total, that’s about 43 percent of American households, with California, New Mexico and Hawaii having the most struggling families with 49 percent in each of those states. North Dakota had the lowest at 32 percent.

The study found 16.1 million homes live in poverty. Meanwhile 34.7 million were dubbed as “ALICE,” which stands for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed.

Stephanie Hoopes, the project's director, told CNNMoney this group of people makes less than what’s needed to have a basic middle-class lifestyle.

"Despite seemingly positive economic signs, the ALICE data shows that financial hardship is still a pervasive problem," she said.

When it comes to Utah, 10 percent of the 941,094 households were deemed as living in poverty. About 29 percent were labeled as ALICE.

That puts Utah’s total share of struggling families around 39 percent, which is about middle of the road on the ALICE scale, which ranges from 32 to 39 percent.

Hoopes told NJ.com that wages haven’t risen to meet the growing cost of living.

40 comments on this story
"I think we feel that in our communities," Hoopes said. "There's a sense of frustration or even anger because people are being told that they're doing better but they aren't."

Worst, she said, is the fact those families are unable to save money over time.

"A lot of people had their savings wiped out during the recession," Hoopes said. "A lot of people lost their jobs. And we're finding, when they were rehired, it was for less and they've been unable to replenish those savings."

People with depression are more likely to say certain words

From the way you move and sleep, to how you interact with people around you, depression changes just about everything. It is even noticeable in the way you speak and express yourself in writing. Sometimes this “language of depression” can have a powerful effect on others. Just consider the impact of the poetry and song lyrics of Sylvia Plath and Kurt Cobain, who both killed themselves after suffering from depression.

Scientists have long tried to pin down the exact relationship between depression and language, and technology is helping us get closer to a full picture. Our new study, published in Clinical Psychological Science, has now unveiled a class of words that can help accurately predict whether someone is suffering from depression.


Traditionally, linguistic analyses in this field have been carried out by researchers reading and taking notes. Nowadays, computerized text analysis methods allow the processing of extremely large data banks in minutes. This can help spot linguistic features which humans may miss, calculating the percentage prevalence of words and classes of words, lexical diversity, average sentence length, grammatical patterns, and many other metrics.

So far, personal essays and diary entries by depressed people have been useful, as has the work of well-known artists such as Cobain and Plath. For the spoken word, snippets of natural language of people with depression have also provided insight. Taken together, the findings from such research reveal clear and consistent differences in language between those with and without symptoms of depression.

Content
Language can be separated into two components: content and style. The content relates to what we express—that is, the meaning or subject matter of statements. It will surprise no one to learn that those with symptoms of depression use an excessive amount of words conveying negative emotions, specifically negative adjectives and adverbs—such as “lonely,” “sad” or “miserable.”


More interesting is the use of pronouns. Those with symptoms of depression use significantly more first person singular pronouns—such as “me,” “myself,” and “I”—and significantly fewer second and third person pronouns—such as “they,” “them” or “she.” This pattern of pronoun use suggests people with depression are more focused on themselves, and less connected with others. Researchers have reported that pronouns are actually more reliable in identifying depression than negative emotion words.

We know that rumination (dwelling on personal problems) and social isolation are common features of depression. However, we don’t know whether these findings reflect differences in attention or thinking style. Does depression cause people to focus on themselves, or do people who focus on themselves get symptoms of depression?

Style
The style of language relates to how we express ourselves, rather than the content we express. Our lab recently conducted a big data text analysis of 64 different online mental health forums, examining over 6,400 members. “Absolutist words”—which convey absolute magnitudes or probabilities, such as “always,” “nothing” or “completely”—were found to be better markers for mental health forums than either pronouns or negative emotion words.


From the outset, we predicted that those with depression will have a more black and white view of the world, and that this would manifest in their style of language. Compared to 19 different control forums (for example, Mumsnet and StudentRoom), the prevalence of absolutist words is approximately 50% greater in anxiety and depression forums, and approximately 80% greater for suicidal ideation forums.

Pronouns produced a similar distributional pattern as absolutist words across the forums, but the effect was smaller. By contrast, negative emotion words were paradoxically less prevalent in suicidal ideation forums than in anxiety and depression forums.

Our research also included recovery forums, where members who feel they have recovered from a depressive episode write positive and encouraging posts about their recovery. Here we found that negative emotion words were used at comparable levels to control forums, while positive emotion words were elevated by approximately 70%. Nevertheless, the prevalence of absolutist words remained significantly greater than that of controls, but slightly lower than in anxiety and depression forums.

Crucially, those who have previously had depressive symptoms are more likely to have them again. Therefore, their greater tendency for absolutist thinking, even when there are currently no symptoms of depression, is a sign that it may play a role in causing depressive episodes. The same effect is seen in use of pronouns, but not for negative emotion words.

Practical implications
Understanding the language of depression can help us understand the way those with symptoms of depression think, but it also has practical implications. Researchers are combining automated text analysis with machine learning (computers that can learn from experience without being programmed) to classify a variety of mental health conditions from natural language text samples such as blog posts.


Such classification is already outperforming that made by trained therapists. Importantly, machine learning classification will only improve as more data is provided and more sophisticated algorithms are developed. This goes beyond looking at the broad patterns of absolutism, negativity, and pronouns already discussed. Work has begun on using computers to accurately identify increasingly specific subcategories of mental health problems—such as perfectionism, self-esteem problems, and social anxiety.

That said, it is of course possible to use a language associated with depression without actually being depressed. Ultimately, it is how you feel over time that determines whether you are suffering. But as the World Health Organization estimates that more than 300 million people worldwide are now living with depression, an increase of more than 18% since 2005, having more tools available to spot the condition is certainly important to improve health and prevent tragic suicides like those of Plath and Cobain.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

Scientists found a new way to slow Alzheimer’s progress

One of the biggest tragedies of Alzheimer’s is by the time patients suspect something is wrong, there’s usually not a whole lot that medicine can do to help.

The disease causes buildups of amyloid plaques and tau protein tangles that irreversibly degrade the brain, which leads to symptoms like confusion and forgetfulness. At the moment, there are only handful of medications available to treat the disease. Most are targeted at maintaining memory, and there’s nothing to stop symptoms from getting progressively worse to the point where they become fatal. There also isn’t a lot of new development in the field. Pharma giants like Pfizer, for example, have discontinued their research in further treatments in part because so many clinical trials fail.


However, in a recent pilot study, researchers at Ohio State University found a potential alternative: deep brain stimulation.

Deep brain stimulation works by continuously tickling neurons in the frontal lobe of the brain with electrodes. Over the course of two years, three patients who had these electrodes implanted maintained more of their mental faculties than a group of control patients, who started out at similar stages of the disease. One woman in the test group even started making meals for herself—an ability she had lost in 2013.

Deep brain stimulation has been used to treat hundreds of thousands of patients with Parkinson’s, another kind of neurodegenerative disease. Researchers have also tried using it to treat Alzheimer’s, but only to mixed success. Most of these studies have targeted brain regions associated with memory and spatial awareness—usually some of the first to be destroyed by amyloid and tau.

In the Ohio State study, the researchers chose a different target: the frontal lobe, which is an outer region of the brain, and tends to suffer the effects of Alzheimer’s much later in the disease’s progression. This is the region that we use to make plans, cook, run errands—essentially, the skills needed to live alone.


“We chose this target that focuses on these cells that are still functioning pretty well, not actively degenerating like the memory circuits,” says Douglas Scharre, a neurologist and lead author of the paper. For reasons scientists don’t totally understand, “use it or lose it” is true when it comes to cognitive function. Stimulating these neurons with electrodes apparently keeps them active enough to slow down destructive chemical buildup around them.

The work, which was published (paywall) Jan. 30 in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, isn’t promising to reverse Alzheimer’s-related brain damage, or stop it’s progression entirely. All three patients still worsened over the course of the study. But the level of independence they maintained—assessed through a Clinical Dementia Rating scale—was higher than those who did not receive this kind of stimulation. Notably, all of them chose to keep the stimulation going after the trial period ended because they liked its effects.

America is becoming the land of bitches

  Many American citizens will cry, piss and moan about anything > Things cost too much, he made a fat joke, she used the word "faggot", he said fuck the states, the police were profiling, he eats meat, she smokes, he voted for the war and it goes on and on and on.

 And at the end of the day, all that whining and bitching hasn't produced one grain of rice for your family.

8 Success Quotes That Will Upgrade Your Thinking

Do you have big goals you long to achieve?

Do you feel like you’re behind schedule? Fear you might not have what it takes?

You’ve been tricked by a bogus lie. That success is reserved for a chosen few.

The truth is…normal people who consistently make winning choices can enjoy massive success.

How do you make winning choices?

They come from winning thoughts. Here are 8 paradigm-shifting quotes to power up your thinking.

1. Don’t give up.
“…if you really look closely, most overnight successes took a long time.” — Steve Jobs
In her research study, Dr. Angela Duckworth found that Grit, “perseverance and passion for long-term goals,” predicted success “better than any other predictor.”

It makes sense. No one who quits a goal achieves it.

Plus, we’re way more likely to give up than to encounter a truly unbeatable obstacle.

What could we accomplish if we simply didn’t quit?

2. Be consistent.
“Successful people are just those with successful habits.” — Bryan Tracy
When you’re chasing a big goal, the kind that takes months or years to accomplish, your biggest enemy will be complacency — letting days go by without any forward motion.

Set yourself up for daily progress with productive habits. Instead of cramming when you feel like it, do a little every day.

In one year, a person working only 15 minutes every day will invest almost twice as much time as someone cramming in a two hour session every other week.

Small wins lead to big results.

3. Failure is normal.
“Success is the ability to go from failure to failure without losing your enthusiasm.” — Winston Churchill
We’re raised to believe that some people are born for success while others are born for failure. But the truth is, everyone is born for failure. And the people who learn how to win with failure, get to enjoy success.

Today, Sir James Dyson has an estimated net worth of $4.2 billion, but when he was trying to invent the bagless vacuum, his first 5,126 prototypes failed to produce the results he wanted.

Dyson learned from each experiment, and on his 5,127 attempt, he found the design he was looking for.

Successful people fail more because they try as long as it takes. Are you willing to do the same?

4. Ego stunts growth.
“It doesn’t matter how many times you fail. You only have to be right once and then everyone can tell you that you are an overnight success.” — Mark Cuban
The world’s greatest inventors, innovators, storytellers, and entrepreneurs have all walked a similar path.

They looked incredibly stupid until they looked incredibly smart.

If you want to succeed faster, start looking stupid.

Try things. Learn things. Failure is the tuition you pay to become a master.

As Sanctus Real sings, “Cool is just how far we have to fall.”

5. Reject imaginary limits.
“All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure.” — Mark Twain
According to the science of self-efficacy, believing you can accomplish a goal is a crucial first step to achieving it.

Everyone has areas of strength and areas of weakness.

Your weaknesses won’t disappear overnight, or maybe ever.

But normal people accomplish amazing things every single day, in spite of their weaknesses.

You start by believing you can.

6. Own your results.
“The best years of your life are the ones in which you decide your problems are your own. You do not blame them on your mother, the ecology, or the president. You realize that you control your own destiny.” — Albert Ellis
If you feel trapped by the burden of unmet potential, stop waiting to be rescued and start planning your escape.

Don’t wait for support. Seek it. Don’t wish for more talent. Cultivate it. Don’t hope for a lucky break. Prepare to capitalize on the breaks each of us receive.

Do we control everything? Absolutely not.

But how much do we control?

By my math…less than we’d like and more than we think.

7. Do what you love.
“Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful.” — Herman Cain
Although Cain is a controversial figure, I wholeheartedly agree with this quote.

Ted Dekker is a New York Times bestselling novelist who has sold over 10 million copies. But his first five books went unpublished.

Writing a novel is tough. Ted did it five times with nothing to show. No one would have blamed him if he’d just given up. Why didn’t he?

Ted explains, “Writing gives me clarity.”

While no job is 100% fun, to persevere through setbacks and failures, you need to find meaning in the work, not just the outcome.

8. Live boldly.
“Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.” — Hellen Keller
Why do we play everything safe?

What are we protecting?

Life is short. Pride is stupid.

Will you work for what you want this week, especially when it scares you?

Tell me in the comments.

And if this post encouraged you, please help more people see it by clicking the green heart.

Want to go deeper?
Do you have big goals you long to achieve? The biggest threat to your success is simply giving up.

Why Teen Employment Numbers Are Down

We look at the reasons why the number of teenagers looking for summer jobs has dropped over the past few decades.

NOEL KING, HOST:

It is summertime. And that means teenagers are working summer jobs - or at least looking for them. But this year, not so much. Teen employment numbers are down from previous decades. Stacey Vanek Smith and Danielle Kurtzleben with our daily business podcast The Indicator looked into what's going on.

DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN, BYLINE: Since I was doing a story on teen summer jobs, of course I had to call up the place where I had my first real summer job. It's called The Barn, a restaurant and golf course in an actual refurbished barn in rural Iowa. Mark Krull, the current owner, said he doesn't see a lot of teenagers applying to work there anymore, which makes sense, given what's happening in the labor market.

MARK KRULL: We get some. But it seems like they're all so busy, they can never work when we want them to work.

STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: The number of teens who go out and get summer jobs has plummeted in the last few decades. On top of all that, though, it hasn't really picked up all that much since the Great Recession, even though unemployment on the whole is as low as it's been since 2000.

KURTZLEBEN: Last July, nearly 37 percent of teenagers were working. But back in the 1980s and 1970s, there were a few summers where that teen employment rate was at or near 60 percent.

VANEK SMITH: That is a big change since Paul Harrington had his first job.

PAUL HARRINGTON: I was a gas station attendant. I think I was about 14 then.

VANEK SMITH: Today, Paul is a labor economist at Drexel University, and he has done a lot of research into youth unemployment.

HARRINGTON: The labor market is really quite good for pretty much everyone. I mean, these are really good times. You know, the big exception to that is teenagers.

KURTZLEBEN: The first big reason young Americans aren't working is older Americans.

HARRINGTON: Lots and lots of older workers now are working in teen labor markets.

VANEK SMITH: Americans are staying in the labor force longer and longer these days for a bunch of reasons. They're living longer. Some people need more money to retire. Others just want to work longer.

KURTZLEBEN: And given the choice between a 16-year-old and a 66-year-old, Harrington says most employers will just pick the latter because they see those older workers as more dependable. But it's not all about employers not wanting to employ teens. It's also about teens not wanting to be employed.

HARRINGTON: The higher education system now, I would argue, punishes high school kids for working because the rewards in high school for college admission are not work-related. They're, you know, community service, that sort of thing and, you know, with respect to extracurricular activities.

VANEK SMITH: And, Harrington says, if people don't pick up foundational work skills as teens, it's going to create workforce-wide productivity problems.

KURTZLEBEN: But all is not lost. I found a teen summer worker. I got to talk to Krista Schutter. She's 18 years old. She just graduated from North Iowa High School - go Bison - and this is her second summer lifeguarding at the swimming pool in Buffalo Center, Iowa.

KRISTA SCHUTTER: It's much more fun than I originally anticipated.

KURTZLEBEN: Is that what you like most about it, is working with the kids?

SCHUTTER: Yeah. Truth be told, I did not like kids growing up. Like, they just kind of scared me (laughter).

KURTZLEBEN: She doesn't plan on making a career of lifeguarding, of course. She is headed to college this fall.

SCHUTTER: Yeah. I am going to go to Iowa State and major in animal science.

KURTZLEBEN: Cool. Are you going to be a veterinarian?

SCHUTTER: That's the goal (laughter).

KURTZLEBEN: So this lifeguard job isn't exactly setting her up for that. But Harrington says that actually doesn't matter.

HARRINGTON: Well, the first thing you see is that kids who work when they're in high school, they just are more likely to work as an adult. They have higher employment rates as adults than kids who don't work while they're in high school.

KURTZLEBEN: And even at age 18, Krista says she can see this happening herself.

SCHUTTER: I'm constantly interacting with parents and kids, and I think it's really helped my people skills.

KURTZLEBEN: So all of those people skills Krista picks up as a lifeguard may help her be an even better veterinarian years from now. Danielle Kurtzleben.

VANEK SMITH: Stacey Vanek Smith, NPR News.

Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.