3 ms·

Scott Alexander wrote this about Vegas: >Las Vegas doesn’t exist because of some decision to hedonically optimize civilization, it exists because of a quirk in

Scott Alexander wrote this about Vegas: >Las Vegas doesn’t exist because of some decision to hedonically optimize civilization, it exists because of a quirk in dopaminergic reward circuits, plus the microstructure of an uneven regulatory environment, plus Schelling points. A rational central planner with a god’s-eye-view, contemplating these facts, might have thought “Hm, dopaminergic reward circuits have a quirk where certain tasks with slightly negative risk-benefit ratios get an emotional valence associated with slightly positive risk-benefit ratios, let’s see if we can educate people to beware of that.” People within the system, following the incentives created by these facts, think: “Let’s build a forty-story-high indoor replica of ancient Rome full of albino tigers in the middle of the desert, and so become slightly richer than people who didn’t!” [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/] Moral qualms will be crushed by competitive dynamics. I'm pretty afraid of this addiction arms race, especially with the coming rise of VR.

rawnlq 11y ago
>“Let’s build a forty-story-high indoor replica of ancient Rome full of albino tigers in the middle of the desert, and so become slightly richer than people who didn’t!” One could argue that the value added here is the environment. Otherwise most peoples' dopaminergic reward circuits will not erroneously evaluate slot machines in an empty desert positively. What exactly is the difference between vegas and any other kinds of entertainment that could possibly be addictive then? (WoW or other MMORPGs, tetris, board games...)
- api 11y ago
  The biggest difference with Vegas is the direct relationship between time and energy spent gaming and money spent. The Skinner Box phenomenon is directly harnessed to empty peoples' wallets in a way that you don't see as completely with other forms of addictive games and entertainment. For example, I spend the same on an MMO subscription no matter how often I play. This is obviously a moral gray area. Anything can be addictive. How much is too much? But I do feel that things like scientifically designed gambling are certainly on the dark side of the divide.
api 11y ago
I'm also concerned about it, but I'll give you a slightly more optimistic possibility: I wonder if, over time, this addiction arms race might not harden us a little bit against these cognitive blind spots? I have absolutely no idea if this is plausible, but it is generally the nature of a Red Queen's race.
SilasX 11y ago
Which doesn't make sense to me, given that: A) We already educate people about addictive behaviors, and it's not that effective, and B) If you're going to allow potentially-addictive gambling at all, you probably want to do it in a way such that people must overcome a major barrier to engage in it, like a plane flight or a long drive, which is already accomplished by the centralization of gambling in Las Vegas. So, the gaudy money-hungry casinos in the middle of nowhere are a lot closer to the ideal gods-eye-view casino than Scott Alexander suggests. (Not to mention the ecosystem around entertainment there that has produced positive-sum results like magic shows and boxing matches.)
- wcummings 11y ago
  >A) We already educate people about addictive behaviors, and it's not that effective It's a complex subject that we do a poor job of addressing.

rawnlq 11y ago

>“Let’s build a forty-story-high indoor replica of ancient Rome full of albino tigers in the middle of the desert, and so become slightly richer than people who didn’t!” One could argue that the value added here is the environment. Otherwise most peoples' dopaminergic reward circuits will not erroneously evaluate slot machines in an empty desert positively. What exactly is the difference between vegas and any other kinds of entertainment that could possibly be addictive then? (WoW or other MMORPGs, tetris, board games...)

api 11y ago
The biggest difference with Vegas is the direct relationship between time and energy spent gaming and money spent. The Skinner Box phenomenon is directly harnessed to empty peoples' wallets in a way that you don't see as completely with other forms of addictive games and entertainment. For example, I spend the same on an MMO subscription no matter how often I play. This is obviously a moral gray area. Anything can be addictive. How much is too much? But I do feel that things like scientifically designed gambling are certainly on the dark side of the divide.

api 11y ago

I'm also concerned about it, but I'll give you a slightly more optimistic possibility: I wonder if, over time, this addiction arms race might not harden us a little bit against these cognitive blind spots? I have absolutely no idea if this is plausible, but it is generally the nature of a Red Queen's race.

SilasX 11y ago

Which doesn't make sense to me, given that: A) We already educate people about addictive behaviors, and it's not that effective, and B) If you're going to allow potentially-addictive gambling at all, you probably want to do it in a way such that people must overcome a major barrier to engage in it, like a plane flight or a long drive, which is already accomplished by the centralization of gambling in Las Vegas. So, the gaudy money-hungry casinos in the middle of nowhere are a lot closer to the ideal gods-eye-view casino than Scott Alexander suggests. (Not to mention the ecosystem around entertainment there that has produced positive-sum results like magic shows and boxing matches.)

wcummings 11y ago
>A) We already educate people about addictive behaviors, and it's not that effective It's a complex subject that we do a poor job of addressing.