Discussion on SEN: Pokie revenue

[Dobie G]

You, my friend, are insane if that's what you thought I meant.

You denying you wrote "simple form of gambling entertainment" for Pokies?
Pokies do cause family break-ups and not many people would find Pokies entertaining as you do.

 

[raman]

You denying you wrote "simple form of gambling entertainment" for Pokies?
Pokies do cause family break-ups and not many people would find Pokies entertaining as you do.

I enjoy driving. People sometimes die in car accidents. Ergo, I enjoy people dying in car accidents.

Dobieworld

 

[bomberclifford]

The machine is working exactly as intended; to take as much of your money as it can while keeping you hooked. There is no sugar-coating here to make these devices sound innocuous. Their purpose is to make you spend as much money as possible.

I agree that's what they're designed to do but they are not designed to "break up families" as posited in Dobie G's two question post. I think it needs to be noted that my post as in response to that, not some pro-pokie argument.

As cited earlier, a Productivity Commission report estimated that 40% of the money that is lost on the pokies comes from people with a serious gambling problem, and another 20% from those with a moderate or developing problem. These people are either addicted or on the way. They often have a co-morbid mental health problem which makes them more vulnerable. Are these people making a rational choice? The whole psychology of these machines and the environments gaming houses create is designed to keep you at the machine and take your money.

I'm well aware of this. In fact the first client of mine that I ever 'sacked' was a well known loyalty club program for gaming venues because I was appalled at the tactics being employed to keep people at the machines.

This supports my point though, that it's not the machines that are the root cause of the problem. There's a whole slew of human behaviour traits on both sides of the equation that are far more culpable, not least of which is our society's incessant encouragement of living beyond our means.

 

[bomberclifford]

You denying you wrote "simple form of gambling entertainment" for Pokies?
Pokies do cause family break-ups and not many people would find Pokies entertaining as you do.

Pokies are a simple form of gambling entertainment.
Pokies do not in and of themselves, cause family break-ups.
Your histrionics and hyperbole doesn't change these facts.

For the record, I do not play pokies, nor do I gamble other than the occasional lotto ticket.
In fact, I have a particular disdain for most forms of gambling but I also think we need to take greater responsibility for our own actions and that includes those who are deemed "vulnerable".

 

[bomberclifford]

I enjoy driving. People sometimes die in car accidents. Ergo, I enjoy people dying in car accidents.

Dobieworld

Furthermore, cars are designed to kill people and break up families.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I'm as moved as anyone by the personal tale that KP related, but when I read it I don't see pokies as the bad guy, and I certainly don't see this magical catch-all scapegoat spectre that we call addiction as the bad guy. I see his ex wife as the bad guy.

I don't see a bad guy at all. I see someone who could not control a behaviour, one exacerbated by the pokie machines. Which brings me to ...

I'm well aware of this. In fact the first client of mine that I ever 'sacked' was a well known loyalty club program for gaming venues because I was appalled at the tactics being employed to keep people at the machines.

This supports my point though, that it's not the machines that are the root cause of the problem. There's a whole slew of human behaviour traits on both sides of the equation that are far more culpable, not least of which is our society's incessant encouragement of living beyond our means.

But the machines exploit frighteningly whatever is that behavioural weakness. Nothing before pokie machines has been as effective as drawing in the punters. These machines went from 0 to $2.2 billion turnover in SA in the first year of their introduction. Gaming turnover increased by 146% upon their introduction. I don't disagree with your assertion about human behaviour, but pokie machines and their surrounding environs prey on this weakness and more. They may not be the root cause of the problem but they are the most effective tool for maximising the underlying human condition.

Referring to pokie machines as "a simple form of gambling 'entertainment' (that) occasionally pay out some wins" is dismissive of the function of and psychology behind them. It makes them sound like an X-Box game.

It's a bit like the pro-gun lobby argument - guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yeah well people with guns kill people and in way bigger numbers than people without guns.

I'm not talking about prohibition, that isn't going to happen. But certainly some forms of direct and indirect restrictions are warranted. Interestingly the ban on smoking in entertainment venues is believed to have had an impact as this is another behaviour that draws addictive personalities. It is a link in the chain of behaviours that gets broken, I'm sure much to the chagrin of certain hospitality providers.

 

[raman]

I don't see a bad guy at all. I see someone who could not control a behaviour, one exacerbated by the pokie machines.

I'm not saying that there are never people who flat-out cannot control their behaviour, but this does not describe the vast majority of people who have self-destructive habits (that most people would consider addictions). That vast majority make a continuing series of entirely conscious decisions to keep behaving in a certain way.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I'm not saying that there are never people who flat-out cannot control their behaviour, but this does not describe the vast majority of people who have self-destructive habits (that most people would consider addictions). That vast majority make a continuing series of entirely conscious decisions to keep behaving in a certain way.

But what do you call the behaviour of people who confronted with the destructive (self and other) nature of their behaviour continue to do it? That's not a rational choice. That is the nature of addictive behaviour.Sometimes addicts can stop their behaviour for a time but can easily relapse. Brain chemistry and physiology has been altered to respond to the addictive cues.

Killer Power can attest his partner was confronted with this behaviour, denied it, probably promised to stop then became more inventive in siphoning off family funds.

Please note I am deeply suspicious of Tiger Wood sex addiction.

 

[Dobie G]

There are 2 different groups here,
one who dislike pokies and care about their fellow human beings enough to want something done about it,
the other group is the "I'm alright Jack" club.

 

[raman]

But what do you call the behaviour of people who confronted with the destructive (self and other) nature of their behaviour continue to do it?

Selfish? Weak? Deeply narcissistic? You name it.

That's not a rational choice. That is the nature of addictive behaviour.Sometimes addicts can stop their behaviour for a time but can easily relapse. Brain chemistry and physiology has been altered to respond to the addictive cues.

Just because a choice is not rational does not mean it isn't a choice entered into voluntarily. And as you said, addicts can stop their behaviour for a time. That means that they can stop their behaviour. Relapse is just another irrational (but voluntary) choice.

Killer Power can attest his partner was confronted with this behaviour, denied it, probably promised to stop then became more inventive in siphoning off family funds.

Doesn't the inventiveness itself kind of indicate that this was the behaviour of a fundamentally sane mind, making its own destructive choices?

Please note I am deeply suspicious of Tiger Wood sex addiction.

How most people feel about the idea of sex addiction, is pretty much exactly how I feel about the idea of the vast majority of addictions.

 

[raman]

There are 2 different groups here,
one who dislike pokies and care about their fellow human beings enough to want something done about it,
the other group is the "I'm alright Jack" club.

Like most other things you've said in this thread, that's a massive oversimplification.

(I was about to add "and you know it" to the end of that last sentence, but I'm honestly not sure that you do.)

 

[Dobie G]

Like most other things you've said in this thread, that's a massive oversimplification.

(I was about to add "and you know it" to the end of that last sentence, but I'm honestly not sure that you do.)

Well, show otherwise, you and a few others don't seem to care at all at the destruction Pokies have done which is well documented throughout this thread.

 

[raman]

Well, show otherwise, you and a few others don't seem to care at all at the destruction Pokies have done which is well documented throughout this thread.

By the same token I could also say that you and a few others don't seem to care at all about the destruction that individual people wreak on themselves and others due to their own choices. Why else would you deflect the blame onto machines which aren't actually capable of moral agency?

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Selfish? Weak? Deeply narcissistic? You name it.

Agree to disagree. Recent work has shown differences in brain function in problem gamblers, including 'near miss' and 'gambler's fallacy' effects as well as differences in dopamine function in impulsive gamblers.

Just because a choice is not rational does not mean it isn't a choice entered into voluntarily. And as you said, addicts can stop their behaviour for a time. That means that they can stop their behaviour. Relapse is just another irrational (but voluntary) choice.

If you are continually making destructive choices, that's not rational. That stopping behaviour comment is a reductio ad absurdum. You can make a fortune in psychology by applying your working knowledge of that principle. Irrational but voluntary? Be careful you don't fall through that escape hatch.

How do you argue against the absurdity of Dobie's reductionism of family break up as a form of pokie entertainment then make the statement that all addicts can simply stop their behaviour?

Doesn't the inventiveness itself kind of indicate that this was the behaviour of a fundamentally sane mind, making its own destructive choices?

Ted Bundy, John Gacy, Jeff Dahmer, Richard Ramirez, Peter Sutcliffe, Fred and Rosemary West et al were all inventive in what they did. Are they sane minds?

 

[Dobie G]

By the same token I could also say that you and a few others don't seem to care at all about the destruction that individual people wreak on themselves and others due to their own choices. Why else would you deflect the blame onto machines which aren't actually capable of moral agency?

I dislike Pokies and want more government control, where's the problem with that? There's an earlier post showing gambling in SA went up dramatically with the introduction of Pokies, so yes these machines are responsible for more gambling addicts.

 

[raman]

Agree to disagree. Recent work has shown differences in brain function in problem gamblers, including 'near miss' and 'gambler's fallacy' effects as well as differences in dopamine function in impulsive gamblers.

That's the great thing about being a human, though - you don't need to operate on the pleasure principle alone. I live three minutes walk from Regent Thai and if I lived by dopamine reinforcement alone I'd eat there three meals a day. I choose not to because that'd be bad for me.

If you are continually making destructive choices, that's not rational.

I agree with that, and I don't believe I've said anything to indicate otherwise. Gambling is almost always an irrational action, and pokie gambling most definitely so.

That stopping behaviour comment is a reductio ad absurdum. You can make a fortune in psychology by applying your working knowledge of that principle. Irrational but voluntary? Be careful you don't fall through that escape hatch.

How do you argue against the absurdity of Dobie's reductionism of family break up as a form of pokie entertainment then make the statement that all addicts can simply stop their behaviour?

Perhaps you read my "can" more lightly than I intended it. I meant in no way to imply that it is an easy thing to do, and I know from first-hand experience that it isn't. But of course all addicts can change their behaviour. They can go cold turkey, they can moderate, they can take steps to seek help (plenty choose to replace an addiction to a substance or behaviour with an addiction to attending 12 Step meetings... nearly always a poor choice in my view).

None of this means that most or even many of them will, I grant you.

Ted Bundy, John Gacy, Jeff Dahmer, Richard Ramirez, Peter Sutcliffe, Fred and Rosemary West et al were all inventive in what they did. Are they sane minds?

Sane was a bad word to use because it means different things depending on the context: clinical, moral, legal. But in this instance we were talking about personal culpability. Do I hold the people on your list culpable for their actions? Abso-freakin-lutely.

 

[raman]

I dislike Pokies and want more government control, where's the problem with that?

That's not a problem, this is an interesting discussion between a group of people with different opinions. I just wish you'd argue better.

 

[Dobie G]

That's not a problem, this is an interesting discussion between a group of people with different opinions. I just wish you'd argue better.

I'm a fair person, want you to have an even chance

 

[raman]

I'm a fair person, want you to have an even chance

Well okay, to put it more accurately I wish you'd argue in such a way that indicated you understood what other people were saying, rather than leaping to an assumption about what they're saying and then arguing with said assumption.

 

[Peck]

Addiction is quite clearly not a choice, stating otherwise is incredibly ignorant and selfish. You do not need to be on heroin to require a lot of help to get away from a bad habit.

If that is the crux of the pro-pokies argument, then I think we have come to an impasse.

Perhaps you read my "can" more lightly than I intended it. I meant in no way to imply that it is an easy thing to do, and I know from first-hand experience that it isn't. But of course all addicts can change their behaviour. They can go cold turkey, they can moderate, they can take steps to seek help (plenty choose to replace an addiction to a substance or behaviour with an addiction to attending 12 Step meetings... nearly always a poor choice in my view).

Very incorrect.

 

[raman]

Addiction is quite clearly not a choice, stating otherwise is incredibly ignorant and selfish.

No, addiction, such as it is, is the result of a series of choices, and is something which can be overcome by another series of choices.

You do not need to be on heroin to require a lot of help to get away from a bad habit.

I agree. Is seeking and/or accepting help not a choice?

If that is the crux of the pro-pokies argument, then I think we have come to an impasse.

If you believe I'm pro-pokies, you haven't been reading. I'm just not anti-pokies.

Very incorrect.

Oh, wow. How embarrassing for me.

 

[Dalphonso]

And more importantly to annoy people in this thread.

That too

 

[Dalphonso]

Ridiculous. Again. In case you missed it there was a government response to the impact of the GFC on Super. Self managed super ring a bell at all? Provide some evidence that "most people panicked and pulled their money out".

How do you think share markets crash?
People panic and pull out investments therefore lowering the share price.The next bloke panics more and pulls out his investment lowering the share price more and so on and so on.

 

[Dalphonso]

There are 2 different groups here,
one who dislike pokies and care about their fellow human beings enough to want something done about it,
the other group is the "I'm alright Jack" club.

I lost a lot of money by bad investing with a conman. I would like to blame him but I went in with eyes wide open looking at big dollars. When it all collapsed and I had done $100k the only one to blame was me.I knew the risks.Even he told me not to invest but I was looking for the big payday. Blaming someone else and blaming poker machines for someone elses mistakes is a big cop out.
Problem is with the individual and nobody else.

 

[Dalphonso]