Category: Blog

This is Why gamblers can not stop?

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.

Blog cry

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.

Poetry and prayers

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.