Talk:Emotional gambling

Riots

I don't know the original poster's intentions, but I tend to agree with him. Supporters of sports teams often cause riots or vandalize cities. This is particularly true when the emotional stakes are very high. "Losing the gamble", that is, the supported team losing an important game, often leads to frustration, desperation, need for revenge by the supporters, and often wrong actions like rioting. If this is not the result of emotional gambling, what is? --EPauper 11:04, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Good point in that context. Perhaps you could explain it that way on the content page? I wouldn't include riots that result from a genuine sense of injustice, however, such race riots after the verdict in the beating of Rodney King.--Aschlafly 11:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

I do distinctly remember reading about a riot that occured in New York City after the Yankees lost to the Red Sox, should I go find it and add a link? JohnI 11:12, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Riots, or at least vandalism, are actually common for winning teams fans as they go on celebratory sprees. MichaelR 11:25, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

That is too related to emotional gambling. "Winning the gamble" leads to an unjustified and dangerous euphory, that often leads to those over-the-top celebrations. Unfortunately, outside of the U.S. it is often frustration for a lost game that leads to acts of violence or hooliganism, both in Eastern or Southern Europe and South America. --EPauper 11:38, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

I think the sports analogy is superb, as the outcome is meaningless, thereby highlighting the role played by the emotional gambling. I'm less keen about the political example, because there the outcome is meaningful and some of the concern or reactions may have nothing to do with "gambling".--Aschlafly 12:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

liberal vs conservative

I don't want to edit war on this but I'm not buying this statement:

While conservatives tend to only become emotionally invested in their causes and candidates, liberals tend to emotionally gamble. For instance, liberals emotionally gamble on the success or failure of Barack Obama.

Evidence of this emotional gambling is seen in the "win at all costs" attitude of the RNC protesters who attacked, among others, a bus full of cub scouts.

First of all, since the definition of Emotional gambling according to this article is investing one's emotions in an uncertain outcome, by stating that conservatives are emotionally invested in McCain and his causes, they are by definition emotionally gambling, the same way as liberals are. They're doing exactly the same thing. I guess the reference to the protesters is supposed to show that liberals are more emotionally invested, but that doesn't seem too convincing either. If you're arguing that liberals are more emotionally invested, you're only arguing the matter of degree, not that one side gambles and the other doesn't. Next, the "win at all costs" is hardly an accurate description, as even if they do support Obama (which is arguable, if they are true anarchists they support no candidate, if they the lunatic fringe of the left, they'll likely support a fringe candidate) their actions are clearly doing nothing to help him win. Finally, a few dozen radicals cannot be said to represent the millions of Obama supporters in the country. If they are, what about the guys who allegedly planned to kill Obama in Denver? That is certainly "win at all costs". Oh, also, was the cub scout story ever confirmed? All I saw was the report of one person on a blog. I'm certainly not saying it didn't happen, but has anyone else conformed it? There should have been hundred of witnesses. People can and do make things up at times, as we've all seen. MichaelR 12:14, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

"meaningless"

I think the real point should be that the level of gambling corresponds to the level of meaninglessness. The outcome does not have to be completely meaningless for there to be emotional gambling. Rather, the emotional gambling exaggerates the amount of meaning in the outcome, which may be zero (a sporting event) or not enough to justify the emotion (some political outcomes).

How to express that in a definition is a challenge!--Aschlafly 12:30, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

That seems to make sense, and I agree it is not simple to express. In any case a Presidential election, which can change the course of history, seems far to consequential to be an example of emotional gambling by that definition. Should that be removed from the article? MichaelR 12:37, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

I think people could still engage in emotional gambling with respect to a presidential election by exaggerating the significance of the outcome. But I agree with you that our entry needs to express the real point better, and not rely so much on political examples.--Aschlafly 12:55, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

With respect sir, the outcome of the US Presidential election is certainly not without its significance in the UK and many of us have great emotional currency invested in it! Should your Republicans win again it will certainly improve matters here in the UK and, hopefully, hasten the end of the socialists we currently have in office! The "gamble" here will be whether or not the so called 'conservative' party can, or will, stop its swing to the political left and revitalise the country, puttinhg it back on it's Christian path.