Brain Patterns Give Clues To Why Some People Just Keep Gambling 59
Research from several UK universities, as reported by Time, indicates that the brain activity of compulsive gamblers shows a marked difference in response to pleasure-triggering behavior, which may help explain why they have trouble stopping:
[The participants] took an amphetamine capsule, which unleashes endorphins with similar effects to the rush you get from exercise or alcohol, the study says. An additional PET scan revealed that pathological gamblers responded differently to the drug. They released fewer endorphins than those who didn't gamble, and they also reported lower levels of euphoria on a questionnaire afterward. This might help explain the addictive part of pathological gambling: to get pleasure from the act, problem gamblers might need more of it or to work harder for it.
Re:Regulation or Legislation? (Score:4, Interesting)
Given the current state of psychology research, "when the results have been independently replicated and have been shown not to be statistical artifacts, cherry picking, or outright fraud" would be a good first step.
Re: (Score:2)
Psychology research since the mid-90s has actually become one of the more rigorous scientific disciplines. I don't know if you're thinking back to the mid 20th century, but I'm not sure where you're getting a notion that there's something wrong with the "current state" of psychology research.
Re:Regulation or Legislation? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://politicalsciencereplica... [wordpress.com]
http://www.nature.com/news/201... [nature.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
One example? Do you know how much psychological research is being done?
Just check the Slashdot frontpage over the past few weeks and you'll find a lot more instances of con men in Physics. Does this mean that the "current state" of physics research is rife with fraud?
How about economics? Biochemistry? You want con men? Parapsychology is a more rigorous discipline than economics.
Re: (Score:2)
I gave three representative examples, two of which were connected. I could dig up more links but why bother when faced with wilfull ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
I gave three representative examples, two of which were connected. I could dig up more links but why bother when faced with PopeRatzo.
FTFY. Actually, never mind. They are mostly indistinguishable synonyms.
Re: (Score:2)
http://politicalsciencereplica... [wordpress.com]
http://www.nature.com/news/201 [nature.com]... [nature.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04 [nytimes.com]... [nytimes.com]
One example?
wat
Re: (Score:2)
. Your honor, my client is susceptible to gambling, so this should/should not be taking into account during sentencing.
So there would be an expectation that the client should be treated more leniently? I don't understand why this should be an excuse if that is what you are suggesting (our brain patterns must be different - LoL). How about an analogy :
"Your honour, my client drove into someone because he is susceptible to drinking, so please sentence him lightly".
Anyway, since when was it necessary to study brain patterns to establish if someone is a compulsive gambler?
Re: (Score:2)
Another line of thought especially with more serious crimes is removal from society, if a criminal is locked up then it's very difficult for them to commit crimes against ordinary citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
So there would be an expectation that the client should be treated more leniently?
No, more harshly. If it is part of his nature, then he will be less responsive to rehabilitation, and more likely to be recidivist, so the only alternative is to lock-em-up.
Re: (Score:3)
If you have to ask that question, you've not understood what the study was about. It's not about trying to find out if people are compulsive gamblers, it's about why they are.
It *can* go further than _that_ (Score:3, Interesting)
When are things like this going to start being used for good and bad ways? i.e. Your honor, my client is susceptible to gambling, so this should/should not be taking into account during sentencing. That is, if he is susceptible, he shouldn't be anywhere near a gambling table etc. This is the problem I see with comprehensive data. Correlations happen by coincidence all the time and humans are downright lousy at statistics, intuition and perception
As one who runs several businesses while investing in many others I can tell you that the "gambling mentality" can very much be applied to business as well
Many of the Silicon Valley upstarts do not even deserve one single penny of investments for their founders' strategy are so wrong, so narrow, and so stupid, but yet, they regularly got million-dollar injection because someone take a chance
You may think that many of the "angel investors" are seasoned investors, that whenever they "take a chance" they knew
Similar Work (Score:1)
Reminds me of http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02246283 and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091305798000021. Bet you this will go nowhere and the use of theraputic amounts of opiates as a potential treatment will be ignored.
Re: (Score:3)
I'lll see your bet and raise you the possibility that this therapy will just be abused by opiate addicts.
Re: (Score:1)
Or gamblers are masochists. (Score:3)
Re:Or gamblers are masochists. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"No brain patterns involved at all"
I am not sure you know what a brain is?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he does. After all, after saying that there's no such thing as brain patterns he goes on to list several things that either are or are caused by brain patterns.
Now in the interest of balance, I know what a yacht is. Lots of people do. But most of them don't have one....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You only remember the good times when you won, and you erase the bad times when you lost.
Casinos make every effort to enhance this delusion. When you win, the lights flash and the bells ring. When you lose, you lose in silence. In a large casino, you can hear the sounds of someone winning almost constantly.
Re:Or gamblers are masochists. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's also why people play Powerball, they only hear stories about the people who hit the jackpot, never stories about not hitting it.
Yes, there's something I find distasteful about states running lotteries for this reason. It's basically a tax on the stupid. Sure, some people play for entertainment. But I personally have known a few lottery addicts who were poor or senior citizens, and they'd shell out literally thousands of dollars each year on lottery tickets. (If only they would invest that money instead....)
And, as I always tell people: I never buy lottery tickets, but I only have a VERY slightly less chance of winning than the addicts. In fact, anecdotally this proved true for me in the past few years -- some members of my family have bought lottery scratch tickets as stocking stuffers. I've received fewer than 10 of these over the past few years, but I've won on 4 of them... Totaling $175. The last year this happened, I had a $100 ticket (more than anyone else in the family ever got, including one person who buys tickets regularly), and someone gave me another cast off that day, and I got $20 more.
And yet, I have absolutely no desire to buy more tickets...I took the money and enjoyed it. Same thing one of the few times I was in a casino (and the only time I gambled)... My father gave me $25 to play some slot machines with, so after spending about $7, I hit $50. I gave my dad back his $25, took the $40+ profit, and I've never played again.
Thus, if you're going to gamble, I highly recommend using someone else's money. It's proven lucky for me. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I buy a ticket about once a year or so just to remind myself how unlucky I am. I've gotten 3 numbers matched in my entire lifetime. I find it helps me appreciate my job and steady income more when I'm getting pessimistic about things.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't play the powerball because I am deluded with rose tinted goggles, I know I will probably never win and statically I am more likely to die on the way to get the ticket than win with it.
I play the powerball because I am already there getting gas for my car and I won't really notice $2 less per week out of my budget, but I sure as hell would notice the $40,000,000+ I would get if I ever win (assuming I don't have a heart attack and die after realizing I won)
As for those people you see putting down $40+
Re: Or gamblers are masochists. (Score:2)
I don't know about Powerball (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no brain patterns involved at all, it's a simple delusion rooted in statistical bias. You only remember the good times when you won, and you erase the bad times when you lost. So you think the casino is a money tree. And thus casinos pay their light bill. That's also why people play Powerball, they only hear stories about the people who hit the jackpot, never stories about not hitting it.
I could never be a compulsive gambler, I like active sex too much. Some people call me a dirty old man.
Stock market gambling (Score:2)
Investing in the stock market, is generally betting in a situation where there is a net win. That is, most of the time, even bad investments don't lose money in the long run, they just don't win as much as you could have one, or they have greater fluctuations than a portfolio with an equivalent return.
Day trading is however very addictivive. even people who only trade weekly will still check their stocks many times a day. As the problem goes on, penny stocks become a big lure as they have higher fluctuati
Re: (Score:2)
That's close. Specifically, I recall another study that really gave me an 'aha' reaction: using PET scanning, scientists found that the response that problem gamblers had to a "Near Win" was virtually identical to their response to a "Win." The upshot is that problem gamblers react to the near wins as if they were a win - they end up thinking they're on a winning streak even when they're losing.
Re: (Score:1)
Experience (Score:4, Interesting)
Glad this can't happen to me (Score:3)
You don't suppose people get the same response to surfing the Internet, do you?
Re: (Score:3)
Please don't take away my Google "I'm feeling lucky" button.
Re: (Score:3)
Really, it doesn't matter if the brain lacks free will. We necessarily must presume it does for our legal system to have any effect. It doesn't matter whether you're a thief or a diagnosed kleptomaniac, either way we need to find a way to keep you away from the personal property of others. Sure, the methods used may change, but we've determined (whether through free will or some reasonably complete facsimile thereof) that this is not acceptable behaviour in our society, and it must be caught and removed.
YOUR A RASCIST AND A CORMNUST! (Score:2)
But that's pragmatism! If you can't prove it from first principles it's unfair because [this improbable corner case] or [that theoretically possible but hasn't happened in recorded history case].
Otherwise you violate the fifth amendment, or one of the other ones.
Re: nanny state (Score:3)
Gambling is much more common in the UK, most activity is legal (and taxed), and the problems are treated roughly as alcohol problems are.
Or are pathological gamblers just habituated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did they always need more gambling to achieve some baseline satisfaction or have they just gotten habituated to gambling and it merely takes more stimulus for them to achieve the same effect? Have they developed a tolerance through frequent gambling or have they always needed more gambling since they started?
I would think since lots of experiences become less appealing after a while and need to be done in more intense ways to get the same "fun" out of them that pathological gamblers may be reacting in the same way.
Yet maybe some people are ALWAYS that way, no experience is intense enough unless it's done in some extreme way -- your so-called adrenaline junkies. It's not enough to ski down a mountain, you have to heli-ski into some mountainous backcountry in Kazakhstan riding an avalanche the last half of the run. Maybe gambling just isn't enough, they have to play for big stakes on money borrowed from a loanshark or embezzled from their employer.
I kind of curious about the dislike of gambling. I have nothing against gambling morally, but I just can't do it even though some of the games like craps can be fun as games and have odds that are about as favorable as they come in most casinos. Yet I like most other adrenaline activities.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason I don't like gambling is because statistically I know I will lose. I mean sure you could hit a big jackpot or something but you have better odds of being hit by lightening and killed when you step out of the casino . I don't play against odds like that for the same reason I don't expect to get struck by lightening.
You're far more likely to win a big jackpot than to die on exposure to moderately increased illumination, near a casino or otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take 5 to 2 on the second one.
Here's an image ... (Score:1)
... of the brain pattern:
$
Conditioning (Score:4, Interesting)
I have often wondered if some kind of boredom conditioning could help with gambling addiction.
My idle thought is based on experience my brother and I had about a decade ago while undergraduates. Around this time the online casino business was extraordinarily competitive and they were offering rather large incentives to sign up and play. At this time, although not any more, the terms and conditions of these bonuses were such that you could claim them, wager the minimum amount they mandated and withdraw a large proportion of the free money they had given you. Of course, to be profitable, you had to play a very short list of games with a low house edge and stick absolutely rigidly to the optimum playing strategy.
Over one summer this was our 'job'. Between us we gambled a cumulative total of many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even accounting for various sites where we wrote software to do it for us, we played more blackjack than the vast majority of people ever will in their lives. To start with it was very exciting as the variance ensures a rollercoaster of upswings and downswings. By the end it was just another massively boring data entry job as we'd seen regression to the mean work its magic so many times. Neither of us ever wanted to see a casino game ever again.
I've never understood gambling. (Score:1)
I guess because I'm good with math, statistics, and the law of probability. It doesn't take a genius to realize gambling is 100% certain to cause you to go broke. Even if on occasion you win a large amount, the over all trend is always to lose money.