3 ms·

then your circles are different from mine. My family play the lottery, not expecting to win over time but just for the fun of it. You're falling into the avail

then your circles are different from mine. My family play the lottery, not expecting to win over time but just for the fun of it. You're falling into the availability bias from being over-exposed to gambling addicts, who are a small fraction of the lottery-ticket-buying population. > Yes, economists prattle on about how playing the lottery can be a rational decision, giving people hope, dopamine hits, etc. But there are lots of available options for non-profitable sources of hope and dopamine hits! Economists are infamous for leaning on examples that only apply to homo economicus. They are prone to a special kind of reductive "rationality" that only cares about optimal game-theoretic decisions; most people don't fit that model. You are falling into that same thought pattern; people aren't going around looking for cost/benefit-optimised sources of dopamine.

derefr 6y ago
99.99999% of the revenue of any large public lottery comes from people in poverty (not because more of them play the lottery — the ratio of people in lower economic brackets who play the lottery, to people in upper economic brackets, is only roughly 2:1 — but because the people in poverty who do play the lottery, buy more lottery tickets per capita, play the lottery more consistently, and play multiple lotteries if available. People playing “for fun” don’t tend to do any of these things.) These people play the lottery not exactly because they’re addicted, but because the hypothetical maximum reward, if obtained, would bring them out of poverty, and this fact excites them (i.e. gives a dopamine hit when they think about it), so they actually try to act in a Homo Economicus sense, trying to intuitively maximize the likelihood of this happening by buying as many lottery tickets as they can (while still not actually doing the math to see whether their extra spending them is getting them appreciably closer to winning.) In the best case, these people are rationally ignoring the likelihood ratios (and thus the actual EV) of winning any given amount in the lottery, because they want to hold onto the hope that buying a lottery ticket generates for them: the hope of suddenly being able to afford things. In most cases, though, these people just didn’t get a very good education, and don’t know how to “just do the math” required to realize that the deal is bad, and that they’d end up with more money (usually far more) by putting each dollar they spend on lottery tickets into a savings account. Educating this group — when you can get through their stubbornness about it and actually get them to pay attention to what you’re saying — actually changes their mind about playing the lottery, and they tend to stop permanently. (A light goes out of their eyes when they “get it”, though; it’s like watching someone realize that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. I advise people to only bother with this kind of education if they’re prepared to then go on and explain savings and compound interest and what equivalent investments to their lottery-ticket spend would be getting them. That usually perks them right up.) Lotteries would not, and could not, exist without there being a large number of these people.
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  another major effect of being in poverty is that it shortens your time-horizon; you seek what small pleasures you have access to because you are under constant financial stress. It's inoptimal, but if it gives people a small reprieve from suffering then it's a worthy investment. Same goes for smoking; it's a terrible long-term decision but it gives people short term stress relief. Attempting to ban either just looks like the middle class imposing their values on the working class and calling it help. > In most cases, though, these people just didn’t get a very good education, and don’t know how to “just do the math” required to realize that the deal is bad, and that they’d end up with more money (usually far more) by putting each dollar they spend on lottery tickets into a savings account. You don't have to do the math yourself. The fact that the lottery is -EV is common knowledge (in the sociological sense). > Lotteries would not, and could not, exist without there being a large number of these people. It's apparent that poverty is a bad thing. It's not so apparent to me that banning painkillers because broken legs shouldn't exist is a good idea.
  - derefr 6y ago
    > It's not so apparent to me that banning painkillers because broken legs shouldn't exist is a good idea. Not my argument. Lotteries are an irrational “opiate of the masses” to choose compared to other opiates of the masses. Lotteries, in practice — mostly because you can buy multiple lottery tickets per drawing, and some people really go in on that — are more negative-sum (i.e. more extractive on the part of their operators) than almost any other way to trade money for dopamine. (They’re actually worse than casinos — because casinos kick out gambling addicts, and there are only so many casinos that eventually you’ll be recognized at all of them. With lottery tickets, you can just visit every convenience store in a five-mile radius. Some people do.) It would be like if you were on the street with a broken leg, and a street drug dealer offered you the option to buy either morphine or krokodil[1] for the same price. They both do the same thing (strong analgesia, addiction) but one has far worse side-effects. Why, other than either ignorance to the costs, or the inability to rationally weigh costs and benefits, would someone choose to self-medicate with the krokodil over the morphine? [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/krokodil-the-drug-that-eats-junkies-2300787.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/krokodil-the...

derefr 6y ago

99.99999% of the revenue of any large public lottery comes from people in poverty (not because more of them play the lottery — the ratio of people in lower economic brackets who play the lottery, to people in upper economic brackets, is only roughly 2:1 — but because the people in poverty who do play the lottery, buy more lottery tickets per capita, play the lottery more consistently, and play multiple lotteries if available. People playing “for fun” don’t tend to do any of these things.) These people play the lottery not exactly because they’re addicted, but because the hypothetical maximum reward, if obtained, would bring them out of poverty, and this fact excites them (i.e. gives a dopamine hit when they think about it), so they actually try to act in a Homo Economicus sense, trying to intuitively maximize the likelihood of this happening by buying as many lottery tickets as they can (while still not actually doing the math to see whether their extra spending them is getting them appreciably closer to winning.) In the best case, these people are rationally ignoring the likelihood ratios (and thus the actual EV) of winning any given amount in the lottery, because they want to hold onto the hope that buying a lottery ticket generates for them: the hope of suddenly being able to afford things. In most cases, though, these people just didn’t get a very good education, and don’t know how to “just do the math” required to realize that the deal is bad, and that they’d end up with more money (usually far more) by putting each dollar they spend on lottery tickets into a savings account. Educating this group — when you can get through their stubbornness about it and actually get them to pay attention to what you’re saying — actually changes their mind about playing the lottery, and they tend to stop permanently. (A light goes out of their eyes when they “get it”, though; it’s like watching someone realize that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. I advise people to only bother with this kind of education if they’re prepared to then go on and explain savings and compound interest and what equivalent investments to their lottery-ticket spend would be getting them. That usually perks them right up.) Lotteries would not, and could not, exist without there being a large number of these people.

beaconstudios 6y ago
another major effect of being in poverty is that it shortens your time-horizon; you seek what small pleasures you have access to because you are under constant financial stress. It's inoptimal, but if it gives people a small reprieve from suffering then it's a worthy investment. Same goes for smoking; it's a terrible long-term decision but it gives people short term stress relief. Attempting to ban either just looks like the middle class imposing their values on the working class and calling it help. > In most cases, though, these people just didn’t get a very good education, and don’t know how to “just do the math” required to realize that the deal is bad, and that they’d end up with more money (usually far more) by putting each dollar they spend on lottery tickets into a savings account. You don't have to do the math yourself. The fact that the lottery is -EV is common knowledge (in the sociological sense). > Lotteries would not, and could not, exist without there being a large number of these people. It's apparent that poverty is a bad thing. It's not so apparent to me that banning painkillers because broken legs shouldn't exist is a good idea.
- derefr 6y ago
  > It's not so apparent to me that banning painkillers because broken legs shouldn't exist is a good idea. Not my argument. Lotteries are an irrational “opiate of the masses” to choose compared to other opiates of the masses. Lotteries, in practice — mostly because you can buy multiple lottery tickets per drawing, and some people really go in on that — are more negative-sum (i.e. more extractive on the part of their operators) than almost any other way to trade money for dopamine. (They’re actually worse than casinos — because casinos kick out gambling addicts, and there are only so many casinos that eventually you’ll be recognized at all of them. With lottery tickets, you can just visit every convenience store in a five-mile radius. Some people do.) It would be like if you were on the street with a broken leg, and a street drug dealer offered you the option to buy either morphine or krokodil[1] for the same price. They both do the same thing (strong analgesia, addiction) but one has far worse side-effects. Why, other than either ignorance to the costs, or the inability to rationally weigh costs and benefits, would someone choose to self-medicate with the krokodil over the morphine? [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/krokodil-the-drug-that-eats-junkies-2300787.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/krokodil-the...