Jump to content

My classmates terrify me


Nicothodes

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 269
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is a certain way in which it makes sense to gamble, even given worse than even odds. The amount of utility an individual derives from given amounts of money is not necessarily linear. As far as I'm aware, risk-seeking behavior is relatively rare among those without gambling addictions and who actually have a solid idea of the odds, but it does happen. Your case seems like an example of this: $2 a month or the like causes essentially no change in utility, while a win would cause a dramatic (albeit extremely unlikely) increase in utility.

 

Risk aversion seems more common, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@*****Cola: Yes, the relationship between money and actual utility isn't linear, so gambling makes sense when any amount of money below a certain threshold is useless to you. But I'm sure you'd agree that in practice people of all income levels would be better off if they saved/invested/whatever rather than gambling.

 

As I understand it, a lot of people who 'casually' buy tickets are in it just as much for the feeling of risk and possible reward as they in it for the actual reward. The process of scratching a ticket is mildly addictive to some, the same way some tabletop roleplayers enjoy the act of rolling dice, rather than just observing the roll. People who run lotteries aren't just selling the jackpot, they're selling the anticipation of winning the jackpot.

 

@Nikki: It's a Heritage Minute spoof. You wouldn't understand.

 

Although why people think we need to spoof Heritage Minutes is beyond me. They parody themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Nikki
Yeah, to escape the pedantry I should've said "I think that..."
I thought we used the tongue smiley here instead of weasel words. The added bonus is that you can make any statement, no matter how terrible, seem reasonable if you append a tongue at the end.

For example, this evening I plan on drowning some orphaned puppy dogs so I can consume their tender, succulent flesh. tongue

See how easy that was, you dirty rutabaga you? tongue

Anyway, I'm with Slarty. Let's continue talking about Nicothodes's class public school funding the purpose of education variations on contractions whether or not passive voice is useful how applicable various degrees are the middle class the lottery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan
Anyway, I'm with Slarty. Let's continue talking about Nicothodes's class public school funding the purpose of education variations on contractions whether or not passive voice is useful how applicable various degrees are the middle class the lottery.


I vote we make it a goal to meaningfully discuss twenty more things by Saturday. tongue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One way to ensure that your lifestyle is not hampered by marriage is just to marry someone who makes more money than you do. It's a time-honored strategy that still works fine today. I suppose it reduces your leverage if you were hoping to marry for progeny and housekeeping, but if your ambitions were more in the line of marrying a professional peer in any case, then it's all good. It's working fine for me, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Master1, someone here will probably be happy to calculate the percentage of individuals who will be left out of your wishful equation, alas.

 

I wish to share some thoughts about partnering up in life, which this dialog has evoked for me.

 

We love the romantic fantasies and myths we've devised around our ideas of coupling up, but if we really want to forge a relationship to last, I think it gets downright practical and concrete.

 

Choose someone you can truly call your best friend.

 

I read a recent study that concluded exactly what I've believed is essential in forming a life-lasting partnership: shared values. As Tom Cruise said in an entirely different context in "The Firm", "It's not sexy, but it's got teeth." Having a similar vision of and attitude towards life, is going to have a great impact on how much you ultimately enjoy being with someone over the longer course of your time here.

 

Shared values & vision are likely to promote similar and compatible goals. Conversely, no matter the chemistry or excitement or even shared interests on the more immediate level, it will be a significantly greater challenge to stay together over time with someone who does not substantially share your values in life. The more two are on a similar path for similar reasons, the more likely the both are going to want to share the ride together, forming a solid partnership in the process. And that's how I first and foremost see "marriage"—which is in the process of some dramatic shifts and expansion at this time—I see it as a partnership. Would you want this person on your team? Do you want to be on hers/his?

 

Love, attraction, chemistry, and sexuality are all wonderful aspects of human relationship. Without shared values and vision, I don't think they are sufficient to keep people together for the long run, not for healthy reasons. There are, of course, a lot of reasons people stay together in unfulfilling relationships, but that's a different subject on the other side of the coin.

 

Also, if the other doesn't make you laugh—regularly—I advise passing. If you yourself don't laugh regularly...don't marry anyone. Just kidding...almost. Life and our self really has no absolute reason to be taken so seriously, and there is an apparent absurdity to it all, for anyone willing to see it. Laugh often. It's good for you.

 

-S-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Synergy, you will be pleased to know this topic has led me to clarify something in the code of conduct:

 

Quote:
While there is a great deal of latitude in the General forum with regards to permitted topics, it is not a personal blog or meant to be an avenue to excessively espouse personal beliefs. The level of tolerance for this is generally inversely proportional to the sensitivity of the topic (e.g., discussions of hot-button political issues are generally frowned upon).

 

While you intend well, I do think you have reached the point where you are dominating this discussion and treating it as your personal space to express your views at length rather than as an equal participant in a conversation. There are other places on the internet for this: politics forums, your own blog, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Synergy
I read a recent study that concluded exactly what I've believed is essential in forming a life-lasting partnership: shared values. As Tom Cruise said in an entirely different context in "The Firm", "It's not sexy, but it's got teeth." Having a similar vision of and attitude towards life, is going to have a great impact on how much you ultimately enjoy being with someone over the longer course of your time here.


Shared values are very superficial, though - minds and decisions alter quickly given changing situations and environments. Even if you do always value the same things, the methods you use to obtain those values can still differ significantly.

No, I prefer to think that, though often touted as being "superficial" and "shallow" for whatever reason, looks are the more superb area to focus on. Biologically, there is evidence showing that this is the natural criterion we use anyway. Furthermore, even though physical appearance changes, it does so in a fairly predictable manner, and can be combated to an extent. As Oscar Wilde said, "To me, beauty is the wonder of wonders. It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The true mystery of the world is the visible."

Although, like any rational person, I believe a well-rounded mix of all criteria is what should really be pursued.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Goldenking
Shared values are very superficial, though - minds and decisions alter quickly given changing situations and environments. Even if you do always value the same things, the methods you use to obtain those values can still differ significantly.


If I meet a woman whom I consider to be physically perfect who is dumb as a post and/or a rabid evangelical/ultra-conservative, I will have no interest in her.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Tyranicus
If I meet a woman whom I consider to be physically perfect who is dumb as a post and/or a rabid evangelical/ultra-conservative, I will have no interest in her.


What if she lies to you about her beliefs because on an interest in you? Or she suffers an injury that alters her brain composition and thus changes her beliefs and personality? Both happen.

That said, the level of trauma of an accident that can alter how you think and act would also severely alter your looks... However, while lying about beliefs is usually not accepted, lying about your appearance with cosmetics and other such tools of aesthetics is accepted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's putting it too strongly. The ability to 'lie' about one's appearance is pretty limited in face-to-face contact. I mean, if one goes to girdles, push-up bras, even flattering codpieces...still, none of those alter the basic shape of one's face or body much. They're neither as easy as a casual lie about one's views ("Oh yeah, I'm an atheist who usually votes libertarian too!") or as plausible and difficult to see through as a well-researched cover story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Goldenking
However, while lying about beliefs is usually not accepted, lying about your appearance with cosmetics and other such tools of aesthetics is accepted.


Cosmetics are an accepted form of a veil that people were. I don't view it as a lie, rather a life choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Synergy, you posted two long diatribes on your personal philosophy, and then a separate topic. Number of posts is not the only metric: you effectively tried to hijack this topic, in my mind. Such posts are more suitable elsewhere, such as your own blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stareye, my only contention was with your belief that I have somehow been dominating this thread. Talking about escalating education costs and how that relates to an overall decline in what middle class Americans can afford is a personal philosophy? I find your use of the term "long diatribe" suggestive, considering that the two posts I made on the middle class were neither particularly long, nor diatribes. I am left wondering what you would call an actual diatribe. I have no problem with your response to the political thread you locked. I find your response to my minor contributions here puzzling. Topic drift is rampant in threads. "Trying to hijack" looks to me like a personal bias against me in context of what I actually contributed here.

 

-S-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Synergy, I consider them diatribes and hardly a minor attempt to shift the discussion. You did more than "talk about" the decline of the middle class, you put out a long rant full of charged language. Most of these points were completely out of the blue and the tone here is as if you have an axe to grind. I thought about posting them and highlighting the areas, but then I realized it's over 80% of it.

 

You can have an opinion. You can share it so long as it is not completely inappropriate for these forums. Where the line is drawn is you cannot post long charged rants on your opinions. I call that dominating the discussion or using the forums to push your agenda. You might disagree, but that's my decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Synergy
I'm outtie. I conclude that Salmon, another former member who habitually conversed in "charged" language, as is my natural style, was correct in assessing that SW forums have become needlessly control-freaky, and therefore, not fun.

-S-


It's funny because Salmon made that very assertion in "charged" language, so that's like irony or... something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: *i
Synergy, you will be pleased to know this topic has led me to clarify something in the code of conduct:

Quote:
While there is a great deal of latitude in the General forum with regards to permitted topics, it is not a personal blog or meant to be an avenue to excessively espouse personal beliefs. The level of tolerance for this is generally inversely proportional to the sensitivity of the topic (e.g., discussions of hot-button political issues are generally frowned upon).


While you intend well, I do think you have reached the point where you are dominating this discussion and treating it as your personal space to express your views at length rather than as an equal participant in a conversation. There are other places on the internet for this: politics forums, your own blog, etc.


So, sometime earlier this month, this was posted elsewhere on these boards (And, sorry, Slarty, for dragging you into this):

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES
Hey Harehunter, please don't post the same thing in two places. Thanks.


Normally, I wouldn't think it necessary to post that here, but whacking Synergy around the head, not once, but multiple times seems a bit unfair. Yes, you're the administrator, and Vogel et al trust you to keep the boards a pleasant/safe/welcoming place for customers to discuss the games. And yes, I don't think anybody is going to argue that Synergy is sometimes overly, and unnecessarily wordy, but dammit: somebody who provides so much VALUABLE knowledge and information to these boards (see: any freaking board with the Synergy item/quest lists) should probably be allowed to voice an opinion once in a while without being shot down for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the issue is not about the ability to voice an opinion. I fully support people doing so, as long as the content posted is appropriate. Where I draw the line is when it becomes needlessly provocative. Look, Synergy could have said the exact same thing without doing so in such a way that I felt hijacked the topic at hand by virtue of tone. How you say things is sometimes more important than what you say.

 

I had to adjust the rules because they were not clear in this case. I wanted it to be entirely clear what the new rules are and where this fits. Further, Synergy faced no possible sanction for this other than telling him to stop, since it was not spelled out prior to him doing anything.

 

I think it best to close this discussion now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I slept on this issue and realized that I stepped over the line and apologize. The way this was handled was poor and got out of hand. All I wanted was for Synergy to tone down his rhetoric. Sorry to Nikki as well for cutting him off. Please continue this discussion if you would like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Message boards are a weird cross between conversations and blogs. On the one hand you can take all the time in the world to type your own posts. Unless you're on a really busy board, the thread won't advance too far before you're finished composing your contribution. So writing board posts can feel a lot like writing blog entries.

 

If you're reading somebody's blog, then multi-paragraph mini-essays on their own views are exactly what you want and expect. But reading a board is more like listening to the other people in a conversation. You tend to open a thread, find the first new post, and read through them all in order. You feel at least some obligation to read through them all, because even if you're not interested in one post, somebody might refer to it later and you'll want to understand the reference.

 

So if you run into a blog-like mini-essay in a message board thread, it's more like one person hogging the floor for a few minutes in a conversation, taking advantage of everyone's politeness to get an extended hearing for their personal opinions.

 

On the other hand, sometimes one person's little mini-lecture might actually be welcome. It's not that we only come here for snappy one-liners. It's just that you can't count on mini-lectures being welcome, because that's not what people signed on for when they clicked on the thread. So maybe the best policy is just to lecture cautiously, and back off if you detect hints that you're hogging the floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For insurance, you exchange cost now for protection from death and financial ruin later. And it doesn't take much ill health for you to save money, either! For the lottery, you're trading astronomical odds of wealth for loss now.

 

The other side, of course, is that the utility of money decreases as you have more of it. The utility of not going broke is higher than the utility of getting millions of dollars, so the payoff for health insurance is, in a way, higher.

 

—Alorael, who can't believe no one has suggested instituting state lotteries for health care coverage. It's one way to cover increasing health care costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so clear on how the utility of money scales. For a lot of people, there's an amount of money which, if it simply fell out of their pockets every week, they wouldn't really notice, or much mind. Maybe for you that amount is only a few cents, but if you can afford to read this, it's probably not zero. If you own a car, it had better be a few bucks, or you probably shouldn't be driving the car. And a lot of people do own cars.

 

On the other hand, for most people it would totally change their lives to suddenly get a few million dollars. With that money, they wouldn't experience more of the same kinds of things they experience without it. They would experience utterly different things. A lottery jackpot is not a million trips to the laundromat. It's a condo with a jacuzzi.

 

How much money you wouldn't miss is it worth, to have a tiny chance at a different life? Or is it perhaps even worth the price of the ticket to you, just to have a nice excuse for daydreaming a bit about what you'd do if you won?

 

I don't know, and I've never bought a lottery ticket. Since I've been indoctrinated about probabilities and expected returns, I'd feel stupid for buying the ticket, unless I won, which I almost certainly wouldn't. I can't help feeling this way about playing the lottery, and the cost of feeling dumb weighs with me more than the price. But I don't think buying lottery tickets actually is stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Alex
Originally Posted By: Dantius
Ah yes, the lottery. Better known by its colloquial epithets, "the tax on the stupid" or "the tax on those who can't do math".

Well, for most people, health insurance is also a bad investment if you only consider the expected value.


If you presume death is an infinitely unfavorable outcome, then it does have a positive expected value again. Even just assigning it a very very high negative value will result in a positive expected value.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he means expected value in terms of what you'd pay without insurance, versus what you pay for insurance and for care under insurance.

 

There was a very long time when I paid far more for my health insurance than what my two or three doctor visits a year would have cost without it. That isn't the case any more (thanks, prescription allergy meds!) but for a great many young people, it is.

 

Of course, this doesn't take into account the possibility of a sudden medical catastrophe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

— At the site you linked to... let's look at side effects:

"The company says that in their experience side-effects are impossible to predict for any individual but may include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue, flatus, epigastric pain and a topical rash at the site of inoculation. The company claims that these symptoms are transient, persisting no more than eight weeks and usually for about a month."

"It is therefore possible that it also therefore makes hosts more likely to develop certain cancers."

 

— Okay, yuck. But does it work?

"For asthma and allergies no real data exists for efficacy."

 

— And what does it cost?

"Single dose protocol costs $3,900.00 plus travel to clinic, etc."

"Therapy must continue for the lifetime of the patient."

 

— But wait, it gets better.

"Patients must travel to their clinic in Tijuana, Mexico for treatment."

 

— Okay, wait, there is a second type of treatment. It might cost less...

"As of early 2008 the cost of annual treatment at the TSO2500 level is $11,490.00"

 

— Maybe it has fewer side effects?

"The company reports no side effects, but there have been some reports of the worms reaching adulthood in a juvenile patient and of mis migration of worms after hatching. This mis migration involved worms perforating the intestine."

 

— I guess that's not a side effect. But what about cancer?

"It is therefore possible that it also makes hosts more likely to develop certain cancers or to be more susceptible to some infectious diseases. This has to be tempered however by the knowledge that those suffering from allergy are more resistant to some cancers and infectious disease, so that TSO and hookworm probably only make patients as susceptible to cancer and infection as the general population."

 

— Wait... read that again. Being made more susceptible to cancer is okay. Oh, great!

 

I am not kidding. This is all from the site PROMOTING this stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's being studied, but it's not the sort of thing I'd eagerly leap on without some pretty serious trials, and I have substantial allergies.

 

—Alorael, who will at least note that you don't have to spend thousands of dollars if you're willing to go get hookworms yourself. It's easy enough, and although plane tickets aren't necessarily cheap, they won't set you back as much as fly-by-night clinics in Tijuana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SoT, I agree a little bit that buying lottery tickets is not a bad idea assuming that it only cuts into that portion of money that one could easily lose without any major impact. In other words, if this is an "entertainment" expense, it is okay. However, that's the theory, and the practice is a bit more grim.

 

The problem with lotteries, casinos, and gambling in general is that they tend to prey on the those of lowest income, and generally least educated, who do not have much disposable income and tend not to appreciate the impossibility of the odds in favor of that rare dream. Add to this the rush of risk taking can be highly addictive, and you end up with a vast majority of poor gamblers actually making the lives of them and their families worse.

 

As I said earlier, one of my probability professors looked at this as his hobby, so I got lectured extensively. There is no shortage of cases of poor people figuratively betting the farm (the money they need to pay the bills) on a $100+ million dollar Powerball jackpot. That's all well and fine if it only affects the individual, but what about their children that now must go hungry because of their parent's stupidity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When my friend worked at a casino here local I went and tried my hand a black jack. I only went with twenty dollars and made double that and then lost it all.

 

I felt the 'you can get rich quick' idea of gambling and I also felt the 'that twenty could have bought me dinner if I wasn't an idiot.'

 

Over all, I can see the appeal to gambling but it doesn't outweigh the risks for me. (I also did lotto tickets for a money, wast of money.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. I guess there probably are some people who spend much more money than they should on lottery tickets, either through sheer addictive compulsion, or through not understanding the odds. And though the percentage of people like this in the general population is probably low, it probably still adds up to an awful lot of people.

 

And now that I think of it, there are probably people whom my argument would class as 'not stupid', but who are spending money very badly on lottery tickets, because they are deeply depressed. In that state, the amounts of money that they don't care about can still be amounts that they really can't afford to lose. It might not be stupid, exactly, to buy lottery tickets that way; but it's clearly not good.

 

I guess then the issue amounts to one of percentages. How much of lottery income really comes from these kinds of people? Are there any ways of protecting these people from themselves, other than banning lotteries? How well would those ways work?

 

I mean, at one extreme, if a harmless pastime shared by tens of millions helps fund schools and ambulances, while one unfortunate soul happens to use that pastime to ruin themselves, then the story is not of how terrible the pastime is, but of how sadly that one person's life turned out. At the other extreme, there is crack cocaine. Where do lotteries fall, along this spectrum? I don't know the stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Rowen
Over all, I can see the appeal to gambling but it doesn't outweigh the risks for me. (I also did lotto tickets for a money, wast of money.)
Same here. Gambling can be fun in moderation, but it's not worth the effort if you're trying to make money (unless you're the house; the house always wins).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did know a guy once who took a week of vacation each year to play poker in Vegas. He said that he normally came out a bit ahead. He was a pretty serious poker player, and I believe that if you play poker in a casino, you're playing against the other players, not against the house. I don't know how the casino makes money from poker, then. Maybe it charges a fee per hand or something. But the point is that you're not necessarily playing a losing game. Poker has skill, and if you're better than the other players, then over enough games you can expect to make money. This guy said he did that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poker is different in that the casino gets a fee for hosting the game, but all the remaining money goes to the winners.

 

If you are serious and skilled then you can make money in the long run by remembering how other players play given certain hands and their tells on whether they have a good or bad hand. The remake of Casino Royale does cover this briefly in the gambling scene between James Bond and Le Chiffer. It comes down to minimizing losses when you aren't likely to win the hand and trying to extract the most money when you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

most of the really big-name professional poker players also get paid large sums of money by casinos and tournament promoters to show up and play poker, because the publicity they bring is worth the expense

 

so when you hear about someone making money from poker that's something worth remembering

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy I knew never claimed to make much money. At most a couple hundred bucks over a week, if I recall, or something like that. It was a matter of having a cheap vacation that he enjoyed. He made a good living as an astrophysicist, building supercomputing clusters to simulate galaxy formation. That's also why I believed him; he had the sort of talents you'd need for keeping track of probabilities in play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...