Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Good stuff, Frank.
I'll offer my comments/observations.
1. Money as a cue for gambling? What is the basis that money is more of a cue for gambling than other things associated with other addictive behaviors?
2. Dr. McCown talked about pathological, problem, abusive and addicted like they are different levels of addiction. Are these levels defined formally?
3. When Dr. McCown mentioned that the drug of choice in substance abuse came in cycles while gambling addiction did not follow a cycle, you implied it was due to genetic predisposition. I don't agree with your conclusion. The drug of choice is based on factors out of control of the junkie. If the Feds crack down on poppies in Afghanistan then oxycodone becomes more popular on the street. Personally, I think there is genetic predisposition to abusive behavior; not just gambling but all kinds. The drug du jour is just a popularity and availability thing.
4. The ability to teach someone to stop making illogical distortions seems easy to say but very difficult to achieve. How does one really achieve this?
5. I've been blessed to never win big at gambling when I started to play. In fact, I had horrible luck and gambling was a chore to drive an hour and give the casino $100 that I had worked hard to earn. Even today, I know the math is against me so I don't expect to win. My wife says she's very happy that her son, who likes to gamble, has never hit it big. She prefers that he loses a small amount every time he plays so he won't develop any bad habits/behaviors.
6. It is easy to say that if you have an indication commonly comorbid with problem gambling that you are at greater risk but I just can't see someone with a mental disease being astute enough to take proper precautions. Doc Daneeka would be proud of you.
7. Dopamine release on solving the randomness of a system might explain the popularity of Words With Friends and other such puzzle games.
8. Bitter people at risk for gambling addiction. None of those types of people here.
9. Some people just like to over-analyze things. People with spreadsheets at the track might not look like they're having fun but who is to decide what is fun for someone else? My wife picks horses by name. If the race has no names she likes, she sits it out. If I had more time and slightly more ambition, I'd work on a spreadsheet system and calculators and all that. The goal isn't to win a particular race but to develop a system that will predict the races. The fun is working on the algorithms and math. The track itself is the laboratory.
1.You're asking me to comment on what the Doctor meant, and I'm not really qualified to do that, but I can tell you my opinion. I don't believe he was saying that money is “more of a cue”. I believe he was simply stating the obvious, which is that it is a more common cue and all around us all the time, which makes it harder if not impossible to avoid, in the event it is a cue.
2.Yes these levels are formally defined. Pathological gamblers must meet five or more of the criteria set out in the DVM-IV to qualify. Problem gamblers need meet only three. In adition there are the stages of gambling. Stage 0 = never gambled. Stage 3 = problem gambler. Stage 4 = pathological gambler. Stage 1 & 2 are reserved for people without clinical issue.
3.There's some evidence that even when governments or societies crack down on gambling the prevalence rates for people with serious problems aren't much effected. The research is slim, so I would agree with you when you disagreed with me. My statement, “that to me it suggests a genetic component” was just my opinion and open for debate.
4.That's not something I can answer today, or soon. I've spent most of my research time on defining the problem and far too little on what's being done about it. I've just started reading up on all the current strategies involved in cognitive behavioral therapy and will share what I learn after a few months.
5.Indeed, always losing and knowing that you should, puts you in a very low risk category for problems. I'd say congratulations, but that seems misplaced here.
6.You are of course correct, people in the greatest risk categories would also be the least likely to hear this information here or accept it. I'm counting on all you people to take the knowledge out to those that might need it most. It's not for “you”, but it might be for someone “you” know.
7.I can't answer and don't know those games.
8.Funny.
9.Some people enjoy solving problems, no question of that. I have no comment, nor any opinion on what constitutes “valid enjoyment” at this time. As the doctor said, “if you have trouble with moderation then anything can be an issue”.
