4 ms·
Looking back, there seems to be a correlation between the times in my life when I've bought lottery tickets, and the times in my life when I've felt hopeless.
by brianwillis 14y ago
Looking back, there seems to be a correlation between the times in my life when I've bought lottery tickets, and the times in my life when I've felt hopeless.
If I ever feel trapped by circumstances, depressed, lost, or I don't have optimism for the future, the less logical part of my brain will somehow rationalise the remote chance of winning millions as a perfectly justified excuse for buying a ticket. The author of this piece is right about how lottery tickets buy you a sense of hope, and prompt you to envision your life being better.
So these days I see it as a sign that something in my life needs to change when I take an active interest in this week's Powerball prizes. It's become a kind of signalling mechanism for my subconscious.
- muppetman 14y agoThat's a very interesting view point/experience. For me, it's been the opposite. If I'm really happy, feel a bit like I'm on top of my fiances for this fortnight, I'll "splash out" and buy a Powerball ticket. If I'm down, the idea of giving away money on such a silly endeavour seems stupid. Anyway, here's hoping you don't buy too many powerball tickets in the immediate future!
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Evbn 14y agoConspicuous consumption.
- frobozz 14y agoI buy lottery tickets occasionally when I feel a bit down about money - doing so is a win-win. If I win a prize greater than my stake, then that's great. If I don't, then it reminds me that I can still afford to throw away a few pounds every now and then without it being a significant loss.
- lazyjones 14y agoEven though you do actually buy a sense of hope, it makes you worry more about missing an opportunity to win ("if only I had bought a few more tickets"). So it goes both ways and personally I feel happier by ignoring these (statistically - mostly false) hopes. (OTOH I still need to worry about key employees winning the lottery, but that's another sad/cynical story.)
- ced 14y agoEvolution is often all-or-nothing --- no one produces "half a child". This is especially true of men, if you believe the 40-80 figure [1]: 40% of men have descendants vs 80% for women. We are the descendants of A) successful people [2] and B) unsuccessful people who took a big gamble (winning the lottery; robbing a bank; crossing the ocean to find better opportunities) that made them wealthy enough to reproduce. [1] I'm not sure I do. [2] Obviously - "successful" here basically means "had children". Evolution is a tautology.
- emmett 14y agoActually people have "half a child" all the time. Every time a sibling reproduces, for example, that's half a child. So there's a perfectly viable strategy of helping your siblings have more children instead of having more children yourself. If you can create more than 2 successful sibling-children for every child you don't have, your inclusive genetic fitness is increased. This doesn't mean your conclusion (people gamble! men gamble more than women!) is wrong, but your line of reasoning is.
- ced 14y agoGood point. Evolution is a complex balance.
- im3w1l 14y agoIf you want to go for this kind of effect, gamble big, and gamble once: you aim for a high standard deviation compared to expected loss.