Iceland Has Cleanest-living Teens

I’m always in favor of moving toward civilization, along with freedom and prosperity. So when I see an example of where it’s happening, I get interested. That’s why I read a story about Iceland I came across this week (the story first appeared in January 2017). It seems they’re doing something right:

Many of Iceland's teens are involved in sports.
Image from here.

Today, Iceland tops the European table for the cleanest-living teens. The percentage of 15- and 16-year-olds who had been drunk in the previous month plummeted from 42 per cent in 1998 to 5 per cent in 2016. The percentage who have ever used cannabis is down from 17 per cent to 7 per cent. Those smoking cigarettes every day fell from 23 per cent to just 3 per cent.

The story is long, and detailed, about what they’ve been doing. So I’ll try to condense it, hopefully without leaving out essential information.

American psychology professor Harvey Milkman was involved in learning about drug addiction back in the 1970s. He learned not only why people would choose particular drugs, depending on their approach to stress, but also why they would continue. He figured out that people were on the verge of addiction before trying drugs, and then the addiction followed their style of coping. He published in his doctoral dissertation that heroin users wanted to numb themselves; amphetamine users wanted to actively confront it.  According to the article:

Milkman was instrumental in developing the idea that people were getting addicted to changes in brain chemistry. Kids who were “active confronters” were after a rush—they’d get it by stealing hubcaps and radios and later cars, or through stimulant drugs. Alcohol also alters brain chemistry, of course. It’s a sedative but it sedates the brain’s control first, which can remove inhibitions and, in limited doses, reduce anxiety.

So, if people were trying to change their brains, it seemed plausible that they would be willing to do things that would change their brains without the downside of using drugs or alcohol. That led him to develop a project of activities for teens that offer a natural high. By 1992 he was conducting a program in Denver, Colorado, called Project Self-Discovery, targeting youth in trouble for drugs and petty crimes:

“We didn’t say to them, you’re coming in for treatment. We said, we’ll teach you anything you want to learn: music, dance, hip hop, art, martial arts.” The idea was that these different classes could provide a variety of alterations in the kids’ brain chemistry, and give them what they needed to cope better with life: some might crave an experience that could help reduce anxiety, others may be after a rush.

At the same time, the recruits got life-skills training, which focused on improving their thoughts about themselves and their lives, and the way they interacted with other people.

Meanwhile, in 1991 Milkman got invited to Iceland, to see if he could share his research and implement a program there. Attention on his ideas grew, and change began with data gathering. Youth ages 14-16 filled out questionnaires with questions like:

Have you ever tried alcohol? If so, when did you last have a drink? Have you ever been drunk? Have you tried cigarettes? If so, how often do you smoke? How much time do you spend with your parents? Do you have a close relationship with your parents? What kind of activities do you take part in?

From this they learned what bad shape their next generation was in. But they also learned what activities did seem to work to divert young people toward better behavior. The full list of protective behaviors is something we ought to look at more closely:

[P]articipation in organised activities—especially sport—three or four times a week, total time spent with parents during the week, feeling cared about at school, and not being outdoors in the late evenings.

It’s not enough to just get kids involved in extracurricular activities. That’s helpful, but only within a setting that actually reduces teen stress. And, wouldn’t you know—it takes family.

The way Iceland has implemented their program is interesting. Normally I dismiss anything that is top-down and government controlled. (And I don't want to see yet another government program to control our kids' lives in this country.) But, with this relatively smaller, relatively homogeneous country, they have managed to get good results—not just by putting money into extracurricular classes, but by educating parents, encouraging and arranging for more family time, and getting more parental involvement in schools--things we used to see in this country some decades back.

They have continued to gather data with those questionnaires. So they have—if not proof that there is a causal relationship—evidence that the markers they were looking to improve are getting better and staying that way.

They have been able to export the questionnaire, and therefore various local versions of the program, in Europe and in countries across the world. And they have enough data now to show that what has worked in Iceland can work elsewhere.

Mostly, though, other places pick and choose what to do, leave something out—something important, like being required to be home in late evenings—and they get lesser results. Still, teen use of alcohol and drugs have trended downward wherever some form of the program has been tried.

Inga Dóra Sigfúsdóttir, who was voted Woman of the Year in Iceland in 2016, comments on her country competing well on the world stage in activities as diverse as football (soccer) and music. She says,

We learned through the studies that we need to create circumstances in which kids can lead healthy lives, and they do not need to use substances, because life is fun, and they have plenty to do—and they are supported by parents who will spend time with them.

I don’t expect this government program to be implemented in the US. It could be done at a local school district level, if enough resources could be put to it. But it isn’t really about a government program—whether that program works somewhere in the world or not; it’s about what is done in individual young people’s lives.

There are some non-governmental groups that have excellent success at keeping teens on a healthy path, even without Iceland's program. Among these is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which emphasizes family, and works with families to inculcate principles that lead to life happiness for all members.

There are going to be variations, of course. But we Mormons do involve our young people in a lot of activities that bring meaning and accomplishment. And we have set aside times for families to spend together. In a larger society, getting that family time is still going to cause some issues. But families regularly spend much of their Sundays, and also their Monday evenings together. Youth often get up early, before high school, to do scripture study together. Parents set examples by not smoking or drinking, and by serving in the home and in the larger community. And usually they encourage education and extracurricular activities.

Brigham Young University, my alma mater, sponsored by the Church, proudly holds the title Number 1 most stone cold sober university for 20 straight years. Students have the advantage of, not only having fun during their university years; they were thinking clearly enough to remember it. So the program extends beyond high school years.

This was in this week's alumni update, linked to here.

Another group with success is homeschoolers. Besides having better than typical success at getting into college, homeschooled youth tend to be involved in several extracurricular activities a week. And, by definition, they spend a lot of time with their families, with a lot of involvement and attention from parents.

So, it’s helpful to have the data of a government program. But it’s really about families doing what families must do to be civilized. Having a whole community agree on what that looks like is helpful. But no amount of government intervention and control can accomplish the desired ends without individual parents and families moving toward civilization.

Asking Questions

This past weekend we attended graduation ceremonies for our daughter, Social Sphere, and her husband. Both graduated from the College of Family, Home, and Social Science from Brigham Young University. At BYU, graduation consists of a commencement exercise, on Thursday, with all graduates—nearly 6,000 this April. And then, on Friday, a convocation ceremony, by college; this is where the students get their name announced and walk across the stage to be handed their diploma. 

Both of these events have speakers, and they tend to be memorable. I still remember mine. So I thought I’d pick a couple of the speakers and share some valuable thoughts from them. 

Robert P. George
This photo was used in the
BYU Commencement Program,
I found it here

At the commencement, an honorary degree—the degree of doctor of law and moral value, honoris causa—was conferred upon Robert P. George, a professor at Princeton, referred to by the New York Times as “the Conservative-Christian Big Thinker.” I thought I wasn’t aware of him before this speech, but I did a search of my files, and I have collected a number of pieces he’s written. Particularly, he co-wrote “What Is Marriage?”[i] along with then-grad student Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Gergis. Supreme Court justices have referred to this work already in their opinions, and are likely to turn to it again following tomorrow’s oral arguments concerning same-sex “marriage.” 

He didn’t speak about marriage; he spoke about the necessity of religion in finding truth. I expect eventually I could get a transcript, but for now, I’ll just share a few things from my written notes. 

Professor George starts with the question, “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?” quoting Tertullian. And he adds, “What do secular studies and religious studies have to do with each other?” He’s speaking at Brigham Young University, after all, one of the largest and oldest religious universities. And he wants us to know that the way BYU integrates spiritual and academic—or secular—studies is valuable, even necessary in our world. 

He quotes Pope John Paul II as well: “Faith and reason are like two wings of the human spirit by which it soars to the truth.”  

So there are two separate but equal paths to truth—faith and reason are both necessary for the intellectual and spiritual quest for truth, in harmony together. 

Professor George reminded us that the very idea of a university is religious. According to John Henry Cardinal Newman, the idea of a university requires both kinds of learning, faith and reason. The earliest—and at one time nearly all—universities were created by churches to educate religious people more fully. And we continue to need universities that do not limit the universe. 

He said that universities have three main purposes:

1.      The creation of knowledge.

2.      The preservation of knowledge.

3.      The transmission of knowledge. 

He adds an additional purpose: The appropriation of knowledge.

He’s using the term appropriation in a particular way, which I tried to glean from context. I think he means something like putting knowledge in its appropriate context, in the larger picture. Or he could possibly mean making the knowledge one’s own. 

He says faith is necessary in the cause of learning. He said, “Our aim is not merely to acquire knowledge, but to explore its lasting significance.” Our aim is not necessarily to know truth, “but to grasp its meaning—its existential meaning.” 

This is where religious colleges can be valuable. He said, “Religious colleges must be more than secular universities with religious symbols in the classroom and prayers before some classes.” Faith must play a role in intellectual life, and inform curriculum. 

He urged that we “avoid the pitfalls of aspiration to be the Mormon Harvard or the Catholic Princeton—especially in humanities and social sciences.” He said the consequences of mimicry will be the loss of the appropriation of truth. “The secular will soon come to be regarded as the only valid intellectual pursuit,” the only type of thought considered rational.  

This is not just theoretical, he said. While many private and state universities were created with a religious purpose, many have lost the religious wing of thought. He suggested reading The Dying of the Light, by former Notre Dame provost James Tunstead Burtchaell, which follows seventeen religious colleges in which each school's religious identity eventually became first uncomfortable and then expendable. 

But, he says, “Secularization isn’t inevitable.” You can resist. And you can command respect. The world needs the connection between religious fidelity and academic excellence.  

Professor George said, the question of how to find truth keeps coming back. “Human nature will see to it. We long for the truth. We’re not satisfied with placing the deepest questions out of bounds, or off limits.” 

He said that some secular institutions are beginning to see this. “Institutions need to be a bit more like Brigham Young. This is no time to back off. It’s time to be superior.” 

I was reminded of a quote from my time working at BYU, when then-President Jeffrey R. Holland thought it wasn’t enough to be the Harvard of the West; President Holland wanted to see Harvard and Yale fighting “to see who can become the BYU of the East!” 

Professor George urged, “Always be faithful to your mission.[ii] Appropriate truth more and more deeply.”  

So far BYU has kept its mission to educate the whole person—mental, physical, and spiritual—in a world that doesn’t know how valuable that kind of education is. 

 

That idea of asking the deep question and searching for answers continued in Friday’s convocation. The main speaker for the College of Family, Home & Social Sciences was Sheri L. Dew, CEO of Deseret Book, and a former graduate of that college. 

Sheri Dew
image found here

She first became familiar to many of us when she was a counselor in the LDS Relief Society General Presidency, the world’s oldest, and possibly largest, women’s organization. She was the first single woman to hold such a position that I was aware of in my lifetime. And she was a great example. 

I’ve often seen parallels to her in my life. She’s just a few years older than I am; I think she must have still been at BYU when I was a freshman. She played basketball—better than I did. And played piano—also better than I. She’s a writer and editor (better…) She’s a terrific public speaker. My life changed directions from career to family when I got married, but I’ve wondered, if I hadn’t been blessed that way, would I have been a (much less visible or accomplished) mini-version of Sheri Dew? 

She talked about when she was assigned to be the CEO of Deseret Book. It was at a challenging time in the book industry. She didn’t know how to run a company. She had skills in identifying talent and working with authors. When she talked with then-President of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley about the position, and shared her doubts, and said she wished she was smarter, he laughed and said he wished so too. 

Her point was that there will come things in your life you’re not capable of handling if you rely on your own. So she suggests living your life “with the help of heaven.” You should “seek heaven every step of the way.” 

She told a story of an interview with a reporter some years ago. You never know what you’re going to get with an interview, but the woman seemed genuinely interested and curious—about a female CEO of a Church-owned corporation. It turned out they had a great conversation. 

Well into their chat, the reporter asked, “Do you have greater access to the power of heaven than I do?” That’s an interesting question and took some thought. Finally Sheri Dew answered, “Actually, yes.” And she added that she was “not saying God loves me more, or I’m more spiritual.” She was saying that we are committed, covenant members; we believe that when we promise to live a certain way, Heavenly Father makes promises to us, including greater access to His power. 

The Spirit came into the room. The reporter could feel it too. She said, “I wish I could say that about my church.” Sister Dew, ever willing to share her faith, said, “We can help you with that.” 

There are things we learn from the Spirit. She spent much of the rest of the time talking about learning to learn. That requires asking questions. Asking questions is good. 

Many people have asked her questions through the years. She has kept lists of them. Many are of the personal type: How will I know who/whether to marry? Should I take a job across the country? Some are deeper, more pressing, faith related. They’re all good questions for a person of faith. She asks them if they’re willing to put in the work to get answers, to engage in a spiritual wrestle. 

There’s a process for getting to truth. She has them bring every question, get their scriptures and study materials, read what the prophets have said, do the work. Study, search, ponder, pray. 

People of faith are required to exercise faith to have it grow. Our search, our wrestle for answers, leads to peace of mind, growth, and faith. Our Father will bless us with greater vision of what the world is like, what life is like. 

Once there is a testimony of the gospel (the heartfelt certainty that Heavenly Father is real, the Savior is real, and you’re on the right path home to them), then questions aren’t about doubts of belief; they’re about growth. 

She ended with, “Our Father needs men and women of covenant who are willing to wrestle. Learn to receive answers. Humbly, carefully, constantly engage in a spiritual wrestle.” 

I love that. I keep a list of perplexing questions most of the time. And I can see the growth as I look back and realize when answers have come.  

Using study, asking questions, and allowing answers to come through the combination of spiritual and secular study—learning is unlimited.  

There’s a story someone I know told. He was studying law at BYU, and then ended up taking an additional class at the University of Utah. He had found that there was a wide range of opinions in discussions at BYU. Because of the trust people had in the safety of their belief, they were free to explore, to discuss and debate. But at the other school—even among a fair number of faithful people—without the same school mission of using spiritual resources for getting to the truth, the discussion of anything that went beyond the popular secular opinion was oppressed. It looked like the class of good minds was too neatly aligned. It was enlightening, because if you’ve known freedom of thought, you know when it’s missing. 

There are many places where a person can find truth. Many schools. But there is a huge advantage when the very mission of the school is to allow all resources, not just secular ones, for finding truth.

 

That can be done anywhere, but it takes faith, and questions, and study, and wrestling. And then comes growth. 

---

[i] Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 34, number 1, 2011: 245-287.

[ii] BYU’s mission statement and aims can be found here: http://aims.byu.edu/ .

Living Core Values

A new issue of my alumni magazine arrived a week or so ago, and I’ve been reading the articles. One featured piece is a reprint of a speech given there by Mitt Romney in April 1999, at the business school convocation. Brigham Young University is also my alma mater: Romney graduated with a BA in English in 1971; I graduated with a BA in English in 1980. English, at least back then, was a major often used as a base for going on to law school. It trained a student in thinking and communicating.

Romney family
photo from here

After BYU, Romney went on to earn law and MBA degrees from Harvard. By the time he gave this speech, he had experienced quite a lot of success in the business world—even though it was before he rescued the Winter Olympics, and rescued Massachusetts from overwhelming debt as their governor, and before either run for president.

For those who didn’t know who Romney was while he was running (or came to know him late in the process), I thought this was worth sharing. He talks about success in life, and how you measure it. I offer a few excerpts:

How will it seem to you 20 and 30 and 40 years on? What bases will you have chosen to conquer? What games will you have played? Will your life have been a success?

To be honest, these questions were very troubling to me as I sat where you are sitting today. Virtually every speaker said something to the effect that life’s success was in my control. They quoted authors like Napoleon Hill, who wrote Think and Grow Rich. Success, they said, was up to me—how I prepared and worked, how I thought, how I created and followed a mission statement, or how I put it all together would ensure the success they knew I wanted.

Now, 30 years on, I have come to a very different conclusion. The worldly success stories I have seen result from a blend of factors: yes, the choices you make and control but also the mental equipment you were born with, more than a fair measure of serendipity, and, where He does choose to intervene, the will of our loving Father. I am not convinced that it’s all up to you. Nor do I believe that if you live righteously, your stock will rise in value, you’ll get a promotion, you’ll win an election, or you’ll get your research published.

He tells the story of a cousin who trained for the Olympics but got the flu during the Olympic trials and thus failed to qualify. And another story is of a friend who bounced around from business to business and ended up at eBay with holdings over $1 Billion, which may, looking back, appear to be a planned path. He goes on to say,

There’s an element of unpredictability, of uncertainty, of lottery, if you will, in the world that has been created for us. If you judge your life’s success by the world’s standards, you may be elated or you may be gravely disappointed.

So what standards does this inarguably successful man use for his life? Love, family, service, and devotion. 

A consultant once helped Bain principals identify their core values. He asked them each to think of five or six people they most admired and respected, whether living or historical. Romney listed these:

I chose the Master, Joseph Smith [founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1830, Romney’s religion, and mine], Abraham Lincoln, and my mother, father, and wife.

They then had to write down five or six attributes they thought of connected to each person. And the result was to show that, whatever they listed most frequently would identify their core values.

If they did not live in integrity with their core values, they would experience stress, ill health, and regret. But if they did live in harmony with these identified values, they would experience what they would eventually identify as success and fulfillment. The Bain leaders, it turned out, shared core values already, but had not all identified them. So they went from seeming to work at odds to working in a united direction—which incidentally led to company success.

But the good thing was that success in living according to these values did not depend on others—others’ opinions, others’ votes, others’ willingness to offer opportunities. Romney says it’s more about successful living, rather than financial or worldly determined success. Examples:

On my father’s 80^th birthday, I asked him what had brought him the most satisfaction in his life, what his greatest accomplishment was. He had been a three-term governor, United States Cabinet member, presidential candidate, CEO, multimillionaire, and prominent Church leader. His answer was immediate: “My relationship with your mother and with my children and grandchildren is my greatest accomplishment and satisfaction.”

Golda Meir, prime minister of Israel, voiced the same truth in an interview on the Today Show. She explained that being a mother was her life’s greatest accomplishment.

Both lived a life of fulfillment and success, not because of their worldly endeavors but in spite of them. They lived in harmony with values unaffected by the vagaries of markets or elections or praise.

He warns that living with integrity to your core values will be challenging. The world will seem at cross purposes.

Unless you purposefully hold fast to living first by your innermost values, … you will read too much into your worldly successes and, perhaps just as dangerously, read too much into your worldly setbacks.

Romney suggests that if you focus on the right things, you can actually control your success:

It is empowering, invigorating, and emancipating to live for the success you can control yourself, to live for your most deeply seated values and convictions.

This next anecdote about his father, told, remember, in 1999, is interesting to read at this point in history:

young Mitt Romney with his father, George Romney
photo from here

I remember my father’s reaction in 1964 when running for governor. [Romney didn’t actually run for President until 1968, briefly, but in 1964 he worked in the primaries against Goldwater, whose views on civil rights were a point of friction, among others.] President Johnson had swamped Goldwater, and my dad’s pollsters confidently predicted that he’d be pulled under [in his gubernatorial campaign] by the Democratic landslide. I was devastated. What would my friends at school think? My dad would be a loser. I looked at him. He looked calm—even relieved. Winning or losing wasn’t what was important, he told me. He had done what he felt was right by running in the first place and by speaking out on issues he cared about. The people’s votes didn’t affect that. [He was reelected as governor in a Democrat state, against the odds.]

If there is one thing verified by everyone who has known Mitt Romney over time, it is that he lives his values. He loves his wife and family. He serves whenever and wherever he sees the need—not just the easy way by donating money, but by giving his personal time and attention. And he seems to gain energy the more he serves. And tied with that is his devotion to God, which is evidenced in how he lives his religion.

The presidential run was not a personal failure. He did what he believed God was asking him to do; that was what he had control of. That was what he cared about. And what next? Enjoying his family. Serving where he sees the need. Offering help to our nation where it can be given.

It is my opinion that we have not had such a good man—brilliant, well prepared for the challenges we face, but also generous, giving, and devoted to God—run for US President since possibly George Washington.

Rush Limbaugh gave a similar opinion last week, and then pointed out that the media managed to take this sterling character and portray him as uncaring, out of touch with regular Americans, and lacking in the basic values most of us share. It took lies, repeated lies, and exclusion of truth to create that negative image. Discussion of this media malpractice can come another day, but let me repeat this verse:

Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!—Isaiah 5:20

And then let me point out that valuing love within family, generously offering service, and turning to God for direction are civilizing principles. We have very little control over what the world (or even other voters in our own nation) will do. But we can control what we personally do. As Joshua of old said, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15).