ifshecryout

No one likes to lose – even those who are addicted to gambling. But still they keep betting. If a city keeps winning, why not put money on it? Gambling addicts say that sbobet casino indonesia  sbraga , despite their overpowering defeat, there is a sense that brings them back to the card table or slot machine.

“I want to gamble every time,” said a former gambler who recovered at Scientific American in 2013. “I love it – I like the taste I get.”

And recently, a Wall Street executive acknowledged that he cheated his family, friends and others up to US $ 100 million or about Rp1.3 trillion more to finance his hobby.

“It was just one way that I could get the money to meet my gambling addiction,” he told the court.

But if someone loses money – maybe even lost a job or a home as a gamble-how can that sense of satisfaction exceed their sacrifice?

The first thing to remember is, people gamble not just because the prospect wins. Mark Griffiths, a psychologist at Nottingham Trent University whose specialty is addictive behavior says that gamblers have a lot of motivation for their habits.

In a survey of 5,500 gamblers, the prospect of “winning big bucks” is the strongest factor. But then followed by “because it’s fun” and “because it’s fun”.

“Even when you lose the gamble, your body still produces adrenaline and endorphins,” he said.

“People buy entertainment.”

The findings are supported by a 2009 study by researchers from the University of Stanford in California, who found that about 92% of people have “lost the baseline” that they can not let go.

However, the fact that they lost money after visiting the casino, for example, did not affect their enjoyment of the experience.

“People seem quite satisfied with small wins, and they will tolerate small losses,” said one study author, Sridhar Narayanan, at the time.

“They realize that in the long run, they will lose instead of winning.”

And for a while, losing can push a positive response to victory. This is due to the gambler’s expectations of victory changing as they lose steadily.

Robb Rutledge, a neuroscientist at University College, London, and colleagues conducted an experiment on 26 subjects whose brains were scanned as they made a series of choices, each of which could show definite and uncertain results – a gamble.

Participants were also asked to rate their happiness after each turn or after three guesses. And a similar experiment – without brain scans – was performed on more than 18,000 attendees in a smartphone app, The Great Brain Experiment.

Interesting findings, the team found that when participants had smaller expectations that they would win, their response to getting a worthy reply went up.

This is then well proved by subject reports that they are happy and data from fMRI scanning. This scan shows increased activity in areas of the brain connected to dopamine nerves.

Dopamine, a complex nerve transmitter, in this case can connect with changes in emotional state.

“If people lose a lot, it will lower their expectations, and this will increase their excitement when they win,” Rutledge said.

This feeling alone is tempting enough.

“If some bad things happen to you in a row then your expectations are down – but then you get something good, and you might be happier,” he said.

“Although at this point, you should be gone.”
But whether tools such as a gambling machine can actively manipulate? Griffiths writes about the signs or instructions given by the electronic game engine on the player.

Not much is known about the design of the machine on player behavior, but, for example, many machines and casinos use red or something similar – which is considered more stimulating.

Then there are the sounds and sounds. Griffiths thinks of the possibility that the ridicule of a machine that features antagonistic characters in The Simpsons affects players.

For example, when the player loses, the character of Mr. Smithers says, “You’re fired!”

“In line with the hypothesis that supports the theory of frustration and cognitive regret, so this can make the gambling game more seductive,” Griffiths wrote in a paper.

One of the key factors in how to drive gambling is how often a player can bet.

 

Since the availability of gambling opportunities is related to the extent of the problem of gambling addiction in a society, Griffiths says that the amount of rewards that can be given – and not the actual rewards or even the type of gambling – that leads to pathological gamblers.

Games and engines are sometimes designed to keep players interested by offering substitute rewards, such as additional credits or – after losing – the possibility of winning more than usual in the next opportunity.

“If you give small rewards that are not always money, then people will still respond,” Griffiths said.

And interestingly, there are instances where gamblers develop a “shadow-skill” as a justification for the possibility of reward.

Griffiths exemplifies a game engine in the United Kingdom that is designed with adaptive logic that the tool will give more than that provided by consumers in certain periods, and afterwards the tool will return to the regular system.

That means some players will try to find (or “skim”) machines that have not provided the jackpots, in the hope that they are on the machine when the machine gives the jackpot.

All the findings of this study concluded that gambling is not always a matter of winning, but rather the process of betting it – and other factors around it that make it fun.

Although gambling addiction can not be explained simply – sometimes there are many reasons that addicted to someone – but it is interesting to see how the excitement is related to the structure and style of the game being played.

And even when gambling is not a troubled obsession, it’s still entertaining for those who come home with empty pockets.

The photographs to the left are part of a photo essay titled “Potency” by Nina Maria Kleivan. Its intent is to question how innocent children become pinicles of evil. The photographer is the daughter of a a member of the Norweigian WWII resistance who eventually was captured and placed in a German concentration camp. As a child her anger at what her father suffered was so intense that she carried around the name of one of her father’s prison guards in hopes of one day killing him. As a new mother she was struck by the innocence of children and then by the seeming innocence of dictators. “When all you see is a picture, Stalin could’ve been anyone’s kind grandfather. You can’t see the millions of people on his conscience or what a paranoid, dreadful human being he was.” she tells HaAretz.

Evil doesn’t always “look evil”. We come to associate the dress of Hilter or Mussilini or Idi Amin or Sadaam Huessein with evil because of a life long chain of choices. Those choices lead to personal actions and even world events that define a person. The actions and their outcomes, not the clothes make a dictator or a rapist.

Yet when we as a society finally acknowledge evil, we tend to look at the outside. The characteristic dress of the perpetrator becomes the symbol of evil and the process by which evil comes to be is lost. We forget that any of us, making the a certain chain of choices in a certain social context could be perpetrators of evil. In Klevian’s words to HaAretz:

We all begin life the same. We all have every opportunity ahead of us. To do good, or inexplicable evil. You need to be conscious that your actions have consequences that impact on your fellow human beings. The people I let my daughter portray didn’t give a damn about the human cost, the casualties, their thoughts caused. The responsibility is yours alone. You can’t throw it away – as a parent, as human beings – and say that you just followed orders.

Klevian raises important questions: where does evil come from? How does innocence become a symbol of evil? Unfortunately, much of the on-line debate has centered on whether a mother should or should not dress her child up in the clothes of dictators. When all one sees is a picture of a baby, it appears that all one sees is the baby. The child succeeds as a symbol of innocence, but fails as a symbol of choice.

We lose the tension between the grandfatherly picture of Stalin and the mass graves of the Stalinist purges carried out on his direct command. The clothes of an adult Hilter or Milosevic represent their choices because adults are actors in control of their life. Infants do not choose their clothes. At best their clothes represent the choices of their parents and the influence those parents will eventually have over the child’s life.

So is this an essay on the role of a parent in shaping a child’s moral identity? No, because at some point children become adults. They become moral agents in their own right and responsible for their own choices. The evil that so apalls us is the product of adult choices. Evil parents don’t always raise evil kids. In fact, childhood experiences of evil can bring out the best in human beings rather than the worst.

Dressing the child in the clothes of despot also fails as a symbol of the danger of following commands. Childhood in fact represents the one stage in life where following commands may lead to more rather than less morality. Most of society sees a child’s ability to follow commands as an essential step in moral training and development. How many times does a child share food or toys because their mother or father insisted that they do? Some children are naturally generous and outgoing. Others need to be encouraged.

Furthermore, the despots portrayed in Klevian’s photos were the ones who issued the commands. They were in full control of their moral agency and chose to use it to draw lines between friend and foe. All who supported them lived. All who opposed them were candidates for death. Of course they looked like kindly grandfathers. To the people they saw as friends, they were.

A story well told can change lives.
This first group of stories show brief snapshots of the journeys of survivors who have been able to transcend their trauma and connect it to larger themes of human existence: faith, aesthetics, social action, those suffering in previous times or in other cultures and locations.

This next group of stories represent the experiences and insights of survivors at many different stages of processing. It takes a life time to absorb the unimaginable. Initially there is shock. Then there is pain and sadness and sometimes despair. And then slowly, slowly meaning, hope, and vision. Much of what is experienced is beyond words, so survivors and their friends will often draw on music, art, poetry, as well as story telling to evoke what cannot be said. Even after the initial shock and pain is well past, survivors continue to reflect on their world in new ways.

If trauma and loss happen for the first time late in life, professional self-confidence is sometimes shaken to the depths but along side of the self-doubt and insecurity, there may be an intense drive to blend professional identity and experience. Survivors attacked late in high school, during college, or well into parenthood and professions often use their developing public identity to change public policy, work on missions of compassion, or change the face of art and journalism.

If exposure to human-inflicted horror happens early and often enough an entire personality can fracture into pieces and a lifetime may be spent converting the mosaic of self into a whole picture. But even a fractured personality can be driven to look beyond themselves to do immense good for those around them.

Sometimes telling the story of what happened can take great courage. The public at large, defense lawyers and the justice system have not always been kind to those who tell stories of violence. The survivors in the list below have been willing to testify in open court, sometimes at great risk to themselves.

Survivors often feel like outcasts. Their experience is so different from what we expect from life that it can be very hard to talk about. We also have a social and psychological need to emotionally distance ourselves from things that remind us that one can do all the right things and still be attacked. This further isolates survivors.

Violent crime and terror can happen to anyone, rich or poor, educated or uneducated, the successful and the marginal. Celebrity survivors often go public with their stories in hopes that survivors will be embolded to tell their stories and get what help they need to process it. They also hope society at large will be more accepting of survivors and invest more money in both prevention and helping people with the aftermath.

Celebrity is no guarentee of healing. Like those who have told their stories in forums across the web, celebrity survivors who have gone public with their stories are at many different stages of processing their experience.

The mystery of hope. Sting’s version of this eerie medieval carol for Christmas and the Feast of the Annunciation celebrates Mary, mother of Jesus. But old songs can have new interpretations. Its haunting music and dark images mixing innocence and awe celebrate the potential of any woman who has lived through horrible circumstances and stills finds ways to bring hope into the world.

In these words we can see not just Mary, but all women:

For know a Blessed Mother thou shalt be,
All generations laud and honor thee
Thy Son shall be Immanuel, by seers foretold.
Most highly favoured Lady! Gloria!

Immanuel means “God with us”. The wisdom of a woman who has survived her circumstances is a wisdom as deep as life itself. She brings life into the world through this wisdom, both in the way it shapes her actions and the way it shapes her words and all future choices. This wisdom goes beyond the wisdom of her own generation, because it touches all those she nurtures. They in turn carry it forward to those they touch, like angels carrying God’s message of hope into the world.

Though we often think of victims of violent crime and terror attacks as “people in need of help”, in reality, being faced with the worst of human behavior is a source of tremendous creativity. To counter the isolation created by an unimaginable encounter with evil, survivors often need to reach out to other survivors or place their experiences in a larger world context. They are a fertile hot bed of social innovation.

This innovation ripples outward in ever greater concentric circles of influence. It starts with the survivors (or in some case murder victims). Then it moves on to their friends and families who both grieve with them and try to find meaning in what should never be. The wisdom and courage of these primary and secondary survivors ripples out yet further to professionals that work with them, both to help them tell their story and to provide a hand of compassion to those still overwhelmed by the aftermath of the unthinkable. Sometimes the casual observer is so moved by someones courage or inspired by their insights. They too are inspired to creative efforts to organize people and resources to improve our society and the way we live as individuals within it.

Communicating truths about the unthinkable to others is a centuries old challenge. It requires a close integration of observation, self-honesty, and the best skills available. At its both it is both universal and deeply personal. There should be no surprise that many survivors are drawn to develop or use existing professional skills to communicate their experiences and wisdom. Below are just a few of the survivors who have made successful and sometimes award winning efforts to help others learn from their experiences with the unimaginable.