« Reviving the Invisible Hand | Main | The best sentence I read today »
Greg Mankiw lets out his moralist
Ten percent of Greg disapproves of gambling. More than anything I am baffled by gambling; to me it would be as fun as paying to count pennies. I genuinely cannot understand the adrenalin rush but I don't enjoy driving really fast either. If I let out my moralist (who is more than ten percent, I might add), I would disapprove of people who are usually late, people who smoke cigars in restaurants, people who play loud music late at night, and people who are not curious. Call me a prude if you want, but might these people be, in some fundamental sense, partly evil? Seriously.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 5, 2006 at 04:44 PM in Philosophy | Permalink
Comments
I, too, do not understand the lure of gambling, but I certainly do enjoy being close to a big casino town (Tunica). While the slots hold no allure for me, I do enjoy the sub-market priced (and very good) seafood buffets available there. Sometimes, it is fun to be a free rider.
Posted by: MJ Memphis at Jul 5, 2006 5:25:27 PM
I'm not sure what percent of me is moralist (actually, I'm not sure how to measure: what subjective percent of any given motivation? what percent of my time is spent moralizing?), but even when he shows up, he's pretty laissez faire about his judgements - mostly "that behavior is alien and strange to me" rather than "I object to that behavior".
Gambling does not trigger this reaction in me - I enjoy both games where I have a (small but measurable) advantage like poker, and pure house games like craps and blackjack. There's lots of things I enjoy that are hard to explain WHY I enjoy them, though. Actually, MOST things I enjoy are not optimal by any measure upon which good moralists usually judge.
Topics which genuinely puzzle me are sports fandom and "reality" TV. I just don't get the attraction. Other nonsensical topics which I DO get, but can't explain, so make good arguments against moralism, are fine dining, travel, and economics blogs.
The only activity on this topic of which I actively disapprove (and which isn't directly violent toward others) is that of moralism itself. It's a filthy habit, and practicioners should be ashamed.
Posted by: Dagon at Jul 5, 2006 5:30:59 PM
My father has been trying to get me to go to Las Vegas for gambling with him for the past few years. I always say the same thing: I have no interest in gambling, all I can think about are the odds. He seems to think that I'd enjoy gambling his money...but if he were to give me cash to gamble I'd rather just pocket it and go out to lunch.
Posted by: Timothy at Jul 5, 2006 5:46:26 PM
Well then I suppose Chevalier de Méré, Fermat, Pascal,
and futures trading are evil too? *shrugs
Posted by: Jake Shannon at Jul 5, 2006 6:54:35 PM
I have a lot of fun gambling on sports. It enhances the experience of watching sports: suddenly, I care a lot about the outcome, and I find myself watching the game really carefully.
Slots can be fun for no other reason than the bells and whistles and spinning things are entertaining. I can't get into table games.
There is an obvious economic rationale for all four kinds of people you disapprove of--all impose costs on you! You do not like waiting for late people, or breathing cigar smoke while you are trying to eat, or listen to loud music while you are trying to sleep.
The uncurious impose an opportunity cost--you wish they were curious people who could give you some insight you might not have yourself.
Posted by: mschrist at Jul 5, 2006 7:14:19 PM
Speaking as a non-gambler, I think Tyler's bewilderment is hard to credit unless he's speaking of gambling games of pure chance. Why would a game of poker be less enjoyable than any other competitive game that combines elements of skill and luck? Like, say, most other card games including bridge, and many board games such as monopoly, backgammon, etc.? (Arguably most games involve luck to some degree.) Even a game like blackjack can, or at least has been, beaten by skilled players, till they're discovered by the pit boss and ejected. I can also understand why the more modestly skilled could enjoy exercising their skill to minimize expected losses. The expected loss is the cost of entertainment. As to gambling based on pure chance, such as roulette, I'm in complete agreement on the futility but think I can understand it. It's been said casinos sell dreams...
Posted by: nr at Jul 5, 2006 7:21:44 PM
I think moralizing is partly evil.
Posted by: josh at Jul 5, 2006 7:22:33 PM
Everyone is evil. No need to be judgmental about the evilness of others.
Posted by: Eli at Jul 5, 2006 10:40:05 PM
ESPN Magazine had a recent article looking at why so many top athletes are big gamblers. While to some extent it's because they have the money, the article suggested that extremely competitive people like professional athletes simply enjoy the competitiveness that high-stakes gambling offers. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a big reason why many "ordinary" people are big into gambling. There aren't all that many outlets for competitiveness, especially if one's job offers little along that line.
Posted by: Peter at Jul 5, 2006 10:52:19 PM
"I would disapprove of people who are usually late, people who smoke cigars in restaurants, people who play loud music late at night"
Come on, Tyler, you've spent enough time in Latin America to know that there are simply a lot of cultural differences as to what constitutes "on time" and who should have the right to do what they want, the smokers and music players or the people who don't want to breathe smoke or hear music.
Posted by: Jacqueline at Jul 6, 2006 1:51:49 AM
Under what sort of moral system might the incurious be called evil?
Posted by: Nathan Sharfi at Jul 6, 2006 2:16:11 AM
"enjoy the competitiveness that high-stakes gambling offers. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a big reason why many "ordinary" people are big into gambling"
I doubt it, the best form of competition is when you are competing against someone, and winning depending on your skill, in effect matching yours skills against the other players. Since gambling isn't skill based, IMHO, it's not really compedative.
Posted by: Factory at Jul 6, 2006 7:48:55 AM
Here's something that occurred to me lately: casinos are considered adult entertainment while video game arcades are considered childish, despite the fact that an analysis of the two would prove this to be reverse logic.
In many circles, if you said you spent your Saturday afternoon at an arcade you would receive odd looks while if you said you spent it at a casino that would be perfectly acceptable. Yet in most ways your money is better spent at the arcade. If you play slots at a casino (which is one of the main activties at any casino) you are engaging in a monotonous activity in which you have no control over the outcome. Your only reward is you may win some money. If you play a video game at an arcade you can increase your investment through skill (by prolonging the length of the game) and the activity is very stimulating. There is even some evidence video games sharpen your mental skills. It would seem the trip to the arcade is the more mature choice on how to spend your time and money, yet it is seen as the opposite.
Posted by: Ted Craig at Jul 6, 2006 8:49:28 AM
For those interested in morality and moralizing, I *highly* recommmend the first 90 pages of Richard Posner's "Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory" (Harvard U. Press 1999). To oversimplify somewhat, he argues that, while morality is real, no particular moral system can be shown to be superior to any other.
Also, on the specific subject of gambling, I think Ortega's "Meditations on Hunting" is relevant insofar as gambling engages the same emotions as hunting. Ortega argues that the appeal of hunting is its ability to let us "escape from the human condition" (IIRC), since, in hunting, our mode of being returns to that of a wild animal.
Posted by: John P. at Jul 6, 2006 9:35:05 AM
I briefly ran a bookmaking business at school. It was great fun but, of course, there was no gambling involved for me.
Posted by: dearieme at Jul 6, 2006 10:33:04 AM
The uncurious also impose noise in the economic and political system. By not seeking knowledge they put themselves in a position where they are not likely to make correct decisions. They make us all vulnerable to parasitism by demagogues etc. Finally, they increase the search cost when one wants to find real people. Still, calling the incurious, or anything else inanimate "Evil" seems strange.
The professional gambler/financial manager is doing something negative sum only if his opponents have a lower utility for money than he does. However, the fact that they are gambling ineptly strongly suggests that they have a low utility for money. Manikew is right that it's sad that the world is full of zero sum competition, but pointing out professional gambling as an example suggests that he doesn't appreciate how ubiquitous such competition is.
Posted by: michael vassar at Jul 6, 2006 10:34:51 AM
This is my favorite explanation for why people enjoy gambling, as posted on my favorite blog.
Posted by: Jason L. at Jul 6, 2006 11:11:16 AM
Gambling has always left me cold as well. As far as explanations go, the best thing I've read on the subject is Howard Rachlin's, The Science of Self-Control (ignoring the behaviorism, focusing on the hyperbolic discounting). I'd be interested to know what people think of his story.
Posted by: Joseph Heath at Jul 6, 2006 11:19:47 AM
I'm with Dagon, conceptually. If one
Enjoys the games--blackjack, craps, pokes--
then gambling (losses) can simply be
treated as the price one pays for engaging
in an enjoyable activity. For me, the issue
is that I don't enjoy the games. So I'm not
willing to pay in order to play them.
And, yeah, reality TV is way more weird than
gambling...and reality TV shows featuring
gambling (poker shows) are just too weird
for words.
Posted by: Donald A. Coffin at Jul 6, 2006 11:24:28 AM
I would previously have put myself in Tyler's camp. I had no interest in gambling, until a couple years ago, when my wife and I flew out to visit an aunt and uncle who live there. As long as I was in Vegas, I felt I really should visit a casino or two to see what the fuss was about. I decided beforehand that I would play only blackjack because it provides the closest to even odds for the gambler if played correctly. I discovered much to surprise (and horror!) that I enjoyed playing in a very intense, roller-coaster feeling sort of way. I made nearly $100 in about 90 minutes of play and plan on never playing again. I didn't play before because it didn't seem interesting and I won't play now because it seems too interesting.
Posted by: Thelonious_Nick at Jul 6, 2006 12:13:17 PM
I have to say that I really enjoying gambling, in my mind it combines some of the most interesting parts of economic analysis in a real-world environment;
1) Statistical Anaylsis - Forces you to find definable quantifable strategies where you can get a advantage (I won't bet if I don't think I have an edge)
2) Game Theory - In situations like poker, what is your opponent likely to do and what is my optimal response strategy
3) Optimization - How much should I bet given my resources and expected advantage.
And not only is it theoretically interesting, but if I go to the Casino I get free or discounted food and drinks. If I am sports betting I get to read about and follow information about activities in which I have a lot of interest.
All in all a thoroughly enjoyable (and mentally stimulating) activity.
Posted by: lannychiu at Jul 6, 2006 1:11:54 PM
People here seem to be conflating two different activities which are both commonly called "gambling". Casino games are all house-advantage, otherwise they don't stay casino games. An example is blackjack, which in ancient (pre-Thorp) days could be played under even or player-advantage conditions. But that's now mostly impossible, at least on an individual basis (that is, without resorting to teams of card counters). You can most certainly minimize the casino's odds against you, but counting multi-deck shoes with the cut card set halfway through them, looking for advantageous play, is like breaking rocks. The same amount of time and effort, devoted to almost anything else, will produce higher returns.
Slot machines are an extreme example of this, since they have fixed payouts and are impervious to skill of any kind. While I've enjoyed playing blackjack (because I like the idea of counting cards in secret), I find slot machines to be as amusing as feeding money into a shredding machine.
Poker, though, is a different beast entirely, since it's not a house game. Its only built-in advantages are those that accrue to the skillful players (which brings up that competitiveness theory mentioned above). If you take care to play against people who aren't quite as good as you are, it can provide very consistent returns, and playing against closely matched opponents (as in a tournament) is enjoyable in a different way.
Posted by: Derek Lowe at Jul 6, 2006 1:46:21 PM
. . .and this would be a good time to break out an old line: the proper response to anyone who says that poker is not a game of skill is "Your deal!"
Posted by: Derek Lowe at Jul 6, 2006 1:49:56 PM
"Under what sort of moral system might the incurious be called evil?"
What the incurious have in common with the cigar smokers and radio blasters is a lack of empathy. Tyler perhaps has that other book by Adam Smith in mind.
If I'm incurious, then I'm not much interested in points of view other than the one that comes naturally to me, i.e. my own. Selfishness and evil are so closely related as to be perhaps identical.
Posted by: Anderson at Jul 6, 2006 2:19:12 PM
The appeal of gambling is probably largely a function of brain chemistry. Alone amongst the behavorial "addictions", gambling really is addictive in the clinical sense of the word and activates many of the same pathways as pharamocological addictions.
See Science 21 January 2005 307: 349, for one recent result.
Posted by: tylerh at Jul 6, 2006 3:25:35 PM
