Act of Cultural Vandalism - Does Germany winning mean gambling is good?

National Council on Problem Gambling ad from Singapore (2014)

On the 13th July the final of the FIFA World Cup in Rio, Brazil took place with an astounding victory for Germany against Argentina. Now, usually I don't take notice of things in the world of sports (I didn't know Andy Murray won Wimbledon until a day after his win). But Germany's victory in the World Cup has had an unexpected effect in Singapore. 

For a few weeks Singapore's National Council on Problem Gambling ran an anti-gambling advertising campaign featuring a boy (named Andy) whose dad bet his live savings on whoever wins the World Cup.

So, which team did he bet on? 

NCPG ad web banner (2014)

Germany. The team that actually won the World Cup. Andy's dad must have been over the moon by the sudden windfall. Not surprisingly, as soon as people learnt about this ad campaign (with the miracle of hindsight of knowing of Germany's victory) some had altered it to show Andy's Dad minting it and to tell Andy to "stop whining." 

For a bit more see this Reuters article and look at a few others as well (I'm not doing all the work for you!). 

But what happened to this ad campaign made me ponder. They say that they choose Germany for the ad to add realism to the message. It wouldn't have worked if they made up a team. And it would have worked if Germany had lost, but the NCPG couldn't have had foreseen Germany's luck that year. 

So I thought about this idea. Instead of just one ad, the NCPG could have ran two or multiple ads featuring different dads betting on different teams. This will have sorted the unlikely outcome of the dad in the one single ad winning the bet. But then I realized a problem. With multiple dads betting on different teams, viewers will wonder which one would win. Instead of discouraging gambling, this idea will encourage the very thing it was trying to stop. It's like an anti-smoking campaign giving out free cigarettes. Or a drink-driving campaign where people are asked to sample various alcoholic drinks and then asked to drive a car (to a test track, of course). 

Hang on. That drink-driving idea could actually be doable. But by using the same technology that makes Testing Britains Worst Drivers: Crash Course possible. If you haven't have seen it, some pretty bad drivers are placed in a telepresence set up that allows them to control a life-size remote-controlled car on a test track like they are actually in it. But after getting use to it they are confronted with their bad driving by another remote controlled car that crashes into them. Its a shocking experience for the driver, so I can imagine my drink-drive campaign working equally well. I could go on about this idea, but I should finish this post with something about gambling.

So here are my thoughts about gambling in general. Looking at human nature and human history, gambling is a natural thing for humans to do. Its a result of our pre-farming/supermarket years of hunting our food. There is no 100% guarantee that you'll eat today, so you had to gamble if that antelope is catchable, as if you didn't, you'll starve. We still have that brain wiring today (though what some of us we hunt now is different, like that Charizard card). So what has hunting got to do with gambling? Think about it. If faced with a African plain for a few hours and you'll see only one small antelope (and your hungry), would you try to get that antelope, or wait a while in the hope of encountering a more fatter antelope with a broken leg? Play safe or take the risk? That's gambling. Taking risks. We take risks all the time, from crossing roads to temporary ignoring speed limits when in a hurry. Although some people will frown upon speed limit breakers and pedestrians who don't use zebra crossings, when gambling involves money and/or doing humiliating things that is when the moral panic lot go mental. They are a lot of stories about people who have become ruined wrecks (financially) as a result of gambling. Most middle class people who read such stories wonder "why do people do this?" Why do people become addicted to gambling? But I'll add this observation. Most of the people you hear about in such stories are neither unemployed or in remedial jobs. Also, if you remember your history, many aristocrats dabbled with a few games of poker. So why mostly them? It's our risk-taking hunter past that is responsible. Gambling has filled a daily need of risk taking that was once satisfied by the daily hunt. Most middle class people are immune to gambling because they have a job that involves risk taking and problem solving, such as stock trading or computer programming (I know that a few of them do gamble, but I'm just rounding off observations.). But if you are in a routine that is unchanging everyday, such as working on an assembly line or (in the case of many aristocrats and unemployed people) doing nothing, you face almost no risk at all. And for the hunter programs in the brain it's boring. The brain craves the frill of taking risks, and that results in those people taking up gambling and, as a result, get addicted. Don't believe me? Ask Desmond Morris. He said this very observation in The Naked Ape.

But here's an additional note of my own. In the past (I'm speculating here.) the problem of gambling addiction was more manageable, as it was a social activity involving friends or rivals. This had the advantage that if you wanted your money back you could beg for it back or (I'll let your imagination fill in this blank). Today, on the other hand, most gambling addicts have their fix using machines. Their honesty and security (for the sake of their owners) makes them more trustworthy, making gamblers more willing to use them. But you can't beg a machine for your money back (and the owners won't like you taking a sledge hammer to their machines).
What I'm saying is that gambling is a human activity and it should involve humans. It should be a social activity, not an isolated one. And it shouldn't be done through machines. A human must be in the mechanism to allow the possibility of begging/cheating, making the game more interesting.
But a more constructive idea would be to find alternative means for the risk craving brain to channel its cravings, such as competing in sports or writing a novel or sitcom in the hope a publisher or producer would like it (we need more writers to end the epidemic of reality TV shows).

If you can think of other suggestions, I'll be welcome to them in comments. And now a final sketch...

This idea was too tempting to do, so here it is to add to the endless pile of anti-smoking ads.

I will be AFKed for a while so don't expect anything new in the next month or so. And don't worry, Cat is still alive and well.