Frank wrote:
> The belief that "everything happens for a reason" is a primary
> grief mechanism for humans after tragedy. Removing it can cause
> severe depression and even suicide. Psychologists never challenge
> this belief in depressed patients without first putting into place
> other psychological defense mechanisms to replace it.
>
> I was unaware of that when I wrote the first draft of my book.
> Since I did not grow up with these beliefs, I had no way of knowing
> how their removal could effect the psyche. Here's what happened:
>
> One of my test readers who didn't believe in randomness attempted
> suicide after getting halfway through the original chapter 2 of my
> book. After her recovery she told me that she could not continue
> reading my book because she was afraid that I was right and, if so,
> there was no point to her life. She stated to me in no uncertain
> terms that it was reading my description of randomness that
> prompted her to attempt suicide.
>
> As you can imagine, this isn't the sort of thing I want as
> publicity, even if my only crime was explaining something really
> well. I hope you appreciate that stating it here could cost me
> sales. Even though I haven't taken the Hippocratic oath, I live by
> it.
>
> After this experience I took 2 years away from writing to study
> relevant aspects of psychology, then rewrote chapter 2 to make it
> less confrontational. This substantial delay is one of the reasons
> it took me nine years to finish my book.
>
> The test reader who had this issue was also an addicted
> non-professional gambler. Those types of people do not normally buy
> and read books on gambling. It was only because I hired her as a
> paid test reader that this situation arose. I did not expect to
> find people with even slightly similar beliefs here, since I
> thought vpFREE was exclusively for advantage players.
>
> The doubt you have placed in my mind that someone similar might be
> on vpFREE has necessitated that I cancel the contest and strongly
> discourage any further discussion that could potentially be harmful
> to people. This sort of thing is best left to certified
> psychologists.
>
> I'm sorry I brought it up. It is frustrating to know something so
> completely and have people disagree with you. But this has ceased
> to be about proving who is right and who is wrong, but is now about
> doing no harm.
>
> I cannot in good conscience continue posting in this thread, and I
> encourage no one else to as well. Let's just let sleeping dogs lie.
>
> Think of it like this - if a belief is responsible for making
> someone happy and getting them through their day, does it really
> matter if it's true or not? It's effect on them is good, and that's
> enough.
Frank,
The intensity of your sensitivities certainly appear to vie in strength with my own ... no small feat. But are you sure it's not sufficient to preface each related post with some type of advisory or, say, surgeon general's warning?
Seriously, I don't know the facts obviously, but I'm inclined to believe that no matter how dark the underlying message of your chapter might be to some, in this case this individual was prime for a gentle push of some type ... say, another "9/11" in the news, or finding that her morning's cereal milk had gone sour.
I'm not really being flippant here at all. In truth, I write this as a lifelong depression sufferer (bipolar illness, to be precise).
I simply find it ironic that someone who has taken it upon himself to advise others that there's no meaning to be found in random patterns would infer such strong casualty to what you wrote and her action.
Ok, I can get that were I personally connected with the incident you describe that my attitude might be "once bitten, twice shy". But the basic message re random patterns is very pertinent to adept vp play and bears airing. (Again, I don't know just how deeply you delved into it's implications re life at large ... I'd have steered clear of that message, in the same manner prudent people avoid topics of politics and religion when addressing general audiences.)
What immediately comes to mind are the "hot and cold" machine adherents. (That, indeed, is a small ball of wax that is a microcosm for a larger slice of life philosophy.) Typically, there's nothing that can be said to sway the perception once it becomes a fixed notion, for the holder's very own experience has borne the concept out (in their own mind, at least ... hell, on occasion, shades of this fixation temporarily take root in my own head). But I'm always hopeful.
One can readily argue that the "hot and cold" notion does no real harm. If someone switches to another equivalent machine, they should be no worse off. But I've known people who've been prompted to switch to poorer paytables, or stop playing despite strong play circumstances, motivated by a sense that the machine they had been playing had gone "cold". Plus, I've periodically witnessed people engage in behavior which directly adversely affected others (in some cases merely a matter of distraction, in others by making good machines unavailable for use while held in reserve, waiting for them to "warm up").
So, to sum things up, Frank, I don't think it's a topic to be treated as untouchable; just one that needs to be handled with care. I've no doubt that you have the temperament for that.
- H.
