Full reply to Harry Porter's post:
Thank you you Harry for your support and praise; and your extremely well thought out and written reply. Before we proceed.
Disclaimer: We aren't talking negatively about religion in this post. It is a discussion about how to talk about randomness and pattern recognition WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT RELIGION and breaching vpFREE's policies. It is in fact in support of vpFREE's no religion policy.
Here's the problem as I see it: The best discussion I ever read on the subject of how risk assessment, the concepts of randomness, and probability assessment entered into human knowledge was a book entitled, "Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk" by Peter L. Bernstein. The fact that its author named it such says volumes. I believe, it is impossible to have a complete and comprehensive discussion on the topic without breaching vpFREE's no religious topics rule. At the very least we would need to move it to FREEvpFREE, where thus far I have not joined.
I'm quite embarrassed about this over site on my part. Further replies to your post in-line below.
Harry Porter Wrote:
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?
FK:
I'm ahead of you, my book has one. As I said before, after the attempted suicide incident by my test reader, I removed some of the most confrontational material. I also included a disclaimer. It bares restating here:
A QUICK DISCLAIMER: At times it may seem as if this book is pro-religious, and at other times it may seem to be anti-religious. It is neither. Religious beliefs have played an enormous part in shaping the history and current worldwide sociological attitude towards gambling. To write a comprehensive book about professional gambling and leave out any religious references would be like trying to paint an accurate portrait of someone without the color red in your palate. All of the early historical record about gambling and humanities viewpoints towards it comes from religious sources. If by quoting these sources I offend anyone, I assure you that is defiantly not the intent any more than talking about the Spanish Inquisition is an attack on Hispanic people; it's simply history, nothing more.
So it's not only a surgeon general's warning that would be needed to make a convincing argument against a non-belief in randomness, but a "WARNING anti-religious CONTENT" that would be required. And that would be against policy.
Harry Porter Wrote:
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.
FK:
Well my book isn't dark at all (and wasn't in the first draft version she read). In fact it is an overwhelmingly positive and humorous account of my extremely successful career. I didn't name it, Million Dollar Video Poker", but I could have, kapish? Can you see how that could be incredibly depressing to someone with a very different experience gambling? As you say, she was no doubt on the edge, and primed for disaster; but do you have any idea how many people that describes in our society?
Harry Porter Wrote:
I'm not really being flippant here at all. In truth, I write this as a lifelong depression sufferer (bipolar illness, to be precise).
FK:
I'm so sorry to hear that. My study of that disorder suggests its root may be primarily organic, genetic, and not environmental. If true, you are obviously fighting it superbly to write such thoughtful posts. All the best.
Harry Porter Wrote:
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.
FK:
Good point. I hadn't thought of that. It might have something to do with the fact that she told me it did. Of course that doesn't mean she was right. She may simply have been attempting to take blame off herself and avoid personal responsibility. It still shook me to the core.
Harry Porter Wrote:
Ok, I can get that were I personally connected with the incident you describe that my attitude might be "once bitten, twice shy".
FK: Well I'd describe mine more as, "Once bitten, to the power of thrice shy." But I do over think things. Did I mention, she was my best friend's girlfriend.
Harry Porter Wrote:
But the basic message of random patterns is very pertinent to adept vp play and bears airing.
FK: Well you couldn't be more correct there!!! Understanding randomness is integral and paramount to any discussion of VP. I simply see no way to talk about it as a debate, for and against, without breaching vpFREE policy. If we stick to my original concept of only trying to come up with a best analogy to describe randomness, then we might be able to slide through without involving anti-religious sentiment. If we go with Meridith's suggestion of making it a debate, it is as volatile a discussion as evolution vs creationism. It is actually a separate part of the same argument, science vs religion.
I am relatively new to vpFREE. Perhaps we can take a page from the past. How on earth has this been discussed in the past without talking about religion?
Additional links between religion and gambling exist. In yet another book I read on gambling addiction, "Best Possible Odds: Contemporary Treatment Strategies for Gambling Disorders by William G. McCown (Author), Linda L. Chamberlain (Author), they state that particular religious beliefs are perhaps the largest factor in the development of pathological gambling. So great in fact, that in southern bible belt states, the SOGS (South Oaks Gambling Screen) had to be modified to avoid false positives. People that do not believe in events being the will of a higher power, are apparently less susceptible to addictive gambling, according to experts in the field.
Harry Porter Wrote:
(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.)
FK: There's our problem in a nutshell, I don't see a way to broach this subject without blindfolds and tying our hands behind our backs. It's going to go political and religious almost instantly. Even though we are only talking about, talking about religion, the cat is out of the proverbial bag.
Remember, we live in a country where religious freedom is an inalienable right. Since most Religions believe that only theirs is the correct one (yet there are many), I think we can safely make a neutral comment that both atheist and believer alike can agree with: Free speech and religious freedom, though most of the time a great boon, also prevents the diffusing of some disinformation, publicly; and occasionally promotes (or at least does not discourage) some damaging fallacy. You don't have to go much further than the Jones Town Massacre , or The Heavens Gate incident to prove the point. I'm confident that anyone that might have been offended by that reference is dead.
Harry Porter Wrote:
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.
FK: Yes, as in my first post on this subject, I stated that I have never been able to convince anyone otherwise that believed strongly. I know this sounds hard to believe, but I had really blocked the memory of the only time I nearly did succeed with my test reader. How could anyone forget something like that? Well I can answer that one, because they wanted to.
Harry Porter Wrote:
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").
FK:
To reply to this, I'd have to starting talking about the topic, and I'm trying to avoid that, and talk instead, about why I'm not talking about the topic. Wow, I just confused myself. All right back to serious mode.
Harry Porter Wrote:
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.
FK: Well I'd certainly like to think I do have the temperament. I am less sure I have the ability, or that anyone does. Every single book I've read, "Randomness" by Deborah J. Bennett, "The Book of Nothing: Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas about the Origins of the Universe" by John D. Barrow, the ones I mentioned earlier, and many others, have references to religion, if they had anything to do with gambling or probability. According to the historical record (I won't say which to avoid offending) most of the first people to propose the possibility of randomness were stoned to death. Would it surprise you to learn that the people doing the stoning were not crazed atheists?
I am still for dropping the subject and trying to get the genie back in the bottle. I see stoning in my future. Plus, I just really don't want to contradict peoples beliefs if they make them happy. It is a quandary that the same beliefs that make one person happy, hurt another.
If this continues to be a debate, for and against randomness, I will not post anymore in this thread, unless it is to respond to direct questions.
If we return to a pure thread of submitting competing analogies to explain randomness, I'll chime back in. I'm simply not going to get into an argument against religious beliefs, especially when those beliefs can be the linchpin in peoples psyches.
~When one can walk through fire unscathed, be careful no one less fireproof is following you.
~FK
