Hard News: Footnotes
234 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
Unlike casinos, it’s a bit of harmless fun.
The thing that amuses me though is all the earnest psychologists who come out of the woodwork to pontificate on what all the hype tells us about the national psche.
As if we’re unique or something.
-
Danielle, you're right, it is kind of patronising.
I was in a shop yesterday and the chap in front of me was alternately asserting that 'you gotta be in to win' and discussing what he was going to do with the $36m.
You gotta be in to lose, I thought to myself. -
I, for example, am not statistically illiterate or an idiot - I hope - yet I bought my once-yearly Lotto ticket yesterday. I mean, that's a shitload of money! The universe's most miniscule chance at it is still a bigger chance than I'd get by, like, working for 30 years at my job. (Unless I worked at Enron fifteen years ago, perhaps. Or was the corrupt dictator of a mineral-rich country. Or something.)
Which is fine - if you've got the money to spend. A lot of people don't, and buy the ticket anyway, for the exact same reason you've outlined, and with somewhat less understanding of the statistical realities. And therein lies the rub.
-
I'm with Danielle...I maybe buy a ticket 2 or 3 times a year...
The chance of winning is very small, but not quite as small as if I dont buy one.
1 out of a squillion chance is still INFINITELY bigger than zero. :)
Tell me that is statistically wrong?Now, getting more tickets.... THAT I dont get..... because 2 (or 3 or 5) out of a squllion is not that big a change in the odds...
-
(Regarding my lack of PE prowess: if feminism was a sport, I would *waste* you, Kyle. ;) )
If men can be feminists, then I suspect I'd be an average one at best, so we can take that as a given either way.
You gotta be in to lose, I thought to myself.
I've started buying lucky dip lotto tickets semi-regularly as an experiment to see how long my losing streak (I've never won a cent and I've bought about 40 tickets in my life time) can run for.
Over 20 years it could prove to be an expensive experiment, but I'm hoping we'll find the answer before that.
-
discussing what he was going to do with the $36m.
And maybe that fun daydream is worth 20 bucks of entertainment to someone? That's about the cost of a movie nowadays. Just a thought.
A lot of people don't, and buy the ticket anyway, for the exact same reason you've outlined, and with somewhat less understanding of the statistical realities.
I dunno. I've heard plenty of people say variants of 'I've got practically no chance, but what the hell!' about buying Lotto tickets. Isn't that a fairly thorough understanding of what the statistical realities are?
-
Um, the 'you silly rubes don't understand maths' thing we're going for here is kind of patronising...
The thing that amuses me though is all the earnest psychologists who come out of the woodwork to pontificate on what all the hype tells us about the national psche.
Speaking as an earnest pyschologist - Lotto is waaaay more interesting and complicated than the stats.
How the hell do you explain getting addicted to nearly winning ?
-
it is a huge business and in some places a corrupt one at that.
Humbug. The unspoken inference that lotto in New Zealand is corrupt bears no resemblance to the facts. There has been, IIRC, one instance of a dishonest retailer in NZ, which was dealt with fairly thoroughly at the time.
Grumpy
who has been known to buy a ticket on occasion -
Idiocy is a little harsh, Brickley; more like statistically illiterate.
Isn't it idiotic to do X with the hope of achieving Y when there is no chance of ever achieving Y. What is idiocy other than doing really irrational things?
The universe's most miniscule chance at it is still a bigger chance than I'd get by, like, working for 30 years at my job.
The chance of winning is very small, but not quite as small as if I dont buy one. 1 out of a squillion chance is still INFINITELY bigger than zero. :) Tell me that is statistically wrong?
That is intrisically true. But it is like saying you're going to go for lots of walks outside to get hit by falling airplane parts. No walk, no airplane parts. It's not going to happen.
Unlike casinos, it’s a bit of harmless fun.
I really disagree with that. I saw a poor woman the other day with a bunch of kids and she spent $40 on lotto tickets and scratchies. I wanted to weep. That's harm. And it happens a lot. It's no different than casinos or the stock market. It's gambling.
Now, getting more tickets.... THAT I dont get..... because 2 (or 3 or 5) out of a squllion is not that big a change in the odds...
Exactly, and the same goes for spending $50 or $80 or whatever. It makes no meaningful statistical effect on your chances of winning.
You gotta be in to lose, I thought to myself.
Exactly.
Which is fine - if you've got the money to spend. A lot of people don't, and buy the ticket anyway, for the exact same reason you've outlined, and with somewhat less understanding of the statistical realities. And therein lies the rub.
Exactly.
-
Speaking as an earnest pyschologist - Lotto is waaaay more interesting and complicated than the stats.
How the hell do you explain getting addicted to nearly winning ?
But the particular earnest psychologists I was referring to were the ones specialising in the upsurge of interest over the last 2 weeks.
So hardly addicts I’d have thought?
-
talking about sleeping
More humbug. This idea has graduated on this blog to the status of accepted fact from humble beginnings of 'what a reporter wrote.' Weeks after the event. Of course the lawyers who checked the article would know that they would be free from any lawsuit by members of the jury.
If it happened, then why was nothing done at the time? Not by the judge who rules the room, nor by the prosecutor, nor by the defence? Was the reporter like the emperor who was the only one would could see his marvellous New Clothes?
Grumpier
-
Isn't it idiotic to do X with the hope of achieving Y when there is no chance of ever achieving Y. What is idiocy other than doing really irrational things?
A local sports team here is selling 40 $50 raffle tickets, with a $1000 prize at the end.
40 * $50 = $2000, minus the $1000 prize is $1000, helps get them to Auckland for their national champs.
Clearly if I buy one I'm an idiot. Or possibly people have other reasons for gambling which are not quite a simple as the rather obvious statistical likelihood that you're going to lose money on the deal.
-
More humbug. This idea has graduated on this blog to the status of accepted fact from humble beginnings of 'what a reporter wrote.'
Oh, this is getting silly now. Everything in the bloody newspaper is is simply "what a reporter wrote" if you're going to take that approach.
Frankly, I have no doubt that the man did fall asleep. I do not think that an experienced court reporter who was actually there simply decided to make it up and whack in the paper for the fun of it.
But I'm tired of arguing about it already. I'm just taking the word of people I respect, who were there, that Bain was not the best advertisement for the jury system.
-
No walk, no airplane parts. It's not going to happen.
There's just one small flaw in that statement... It just DID happen.
Somebody DID win +$36,000,000.00
It DID happen, it DOES happen, somebody does win.
Every single person that ever won had a ticket. Every single person that didnt have a ticket, never won.
-
Brickley, it's not as if gambling addiction isn't a real and serious problem, but so is alcoholism, and yet most people are able to have a glass of wine with their dinner.
Basically, people do irrational things sometimes. They do those things because they're fun, or they're entertaining, or because they're avoiding doing something else, or because that particular thing makes them feel better. They do irrational things for an array of reasons. None of us is immune from acting irrationally. So if you're in a dairy on the verge of tears about someone buying some Instant Kiwis, you could perhaps think about (for example) that time you slept with a total asshole because you were drunk, and not be quite so... Women's Christian Temperance Union-ish about the whole thing.
-
I don't argue about people buying tickets - I'm just over the gasps of people like Kathryn Ryan, who seems to regard the win as one of the deeper and more meaningful human experiences.
-
Note to self:
Next time you buy lotto ticket in the dairy, look around to make sure you’re not making someone cry.
-
Women's Christian Temperance Union-ish about the whole thing.
You're right. My great grandmother was a member. It's in the genes. Who cares if some woman next to me is buying lotto tickets instead of feeding her fetid little under-dressed children.
I'm just over the gasps of people like Kathryn Ryan, who seems to regard the win as one of the deeper and more meaningful human experiences.
Ha ha! I can't listen to her at all anymore. After she interviewed David Sedaris and was so nervous about discussing homosexuality that it sounded as if she might vomit, I just had to call it quits. She who must be obeyed tells me that Kathryn did an impression of an American accent the other morning that was so cringe inducing that she had to gaze out the window and murmur to herself.
Russell, what about my point -- would people care how the jury had behaved had there been a conviction? Most juries convict. Most people in fact plead guilty. I don't think the issue would arise. The problem is that people only see justice being done if there is a conviction, not an acquittal. Both are justice however on the system that we have.
I know you're sick of talking about it, though.
I hear the Court staff were more shocked than anyone and they're usually spot on.
-
Danielle, I completely see your point, it ill behoves any of us to be judgmental about other people's choices.
But I just wish the whole thing (Lotto) was more fun and low key and less hyped and glorified.This just from the Herald website:
BREAKING NEWSNew details: Four family members share $36m win... details soonBreaking news? Whatever.
-
For anyone who thinks we should tinker or do away with the jury system, have a think about Churchill's famous quote:
""Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
I love how this quote from someone who had a major hand in defeating imperialist fascism but never lived in anywhere but a democratic country is so often taken up by others who've never lived anywhere but a democratic country. Green eggs and ham argument.
The primary weakness of democracy is that there is no consideration for making long term plans, and this was something that particularly concerned me on your blog about your son raising his fist Russell. The illusion of empowerment for individuals is insignificant in a nation where our government can't even make a truly attainable five year plan.
Also primary in any debate on that topic is who should the Government serve? The people? or the country itself? Ultimately democratic countries will hit the wall realising that following the whims of majority populations from generation to generation is far less effective in ultimately providing a better life for our (eek) progeny.
I have noothing against democracy, it's ok, but I have a lot against this senseless piece of superlative riddled toilet paper scribble from the anthropologically challenged Mr Churchill.
Democracy is not the worst form of government compared to Nazism and there are better, lest we forget the tribesman of the Kalahari presented in the Gods must be Crazy. Basically Churchill's anti fascist propaganda must be one of the most overused pieces of senselessness to propagate fear of the unknown.
I think there are some obvious flaws with the jury system, namely that these 12 people are all fucking amateurs. The pivotal role in the justice system which is arguably the most important responsibilty of a government in sustaining order is delegated to total laymen. Kiwiblog is clear evidence that in New Zealanders are in large numbers not well enough equipped to see through even the most basic manipulative rhetoric. To draw an analogy, it's not like we ask Therea from next door to come over to rewire our house without first checking that she is aware what electricity is, unless we're pretty damned hard up.
-
BREAKING NEWSNew details: Four family members share $36m win... details soon
So... nobody's linked to Robyn's post yet? Do I have to do everything around here?
-
clear evidence that in New Zealanders are in large numbers
O ffs.
"that New Zealanders in large are not well enough...."
-
There is one good thing about winning such a heap of money--sitting down and thinking about how you could redistribute most of it. No individual nor family needs more than a million (or less), so it would be wonderful to be able to fund, with the other $34 million, all those good causes that normally just struggle along. We could fund, for example, the independent journalism venture we have talked about in the past.
-
Or you could fund the digging of a big hole to through wannabe journalists in and increase broadband speed.
Sorry, I'm sober.
-
through
throw!!!!!!!!! ze fuk. I'm stepping away from the machine.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.