From The Penthouse To The Poorhouse: A WillieMcFuckMyLife Saga

[limitles]

Ok, to the point. You managed to presume that "the addict" assumes future events relating to the gambler's fallacy, which is enough on it's own, but the fallacy you described is not the gambler's fallacy.

Time away from the bad crowd and "rewiriing" is just too vague and no
ultimate route exists

1) There is the Monte Carlo fallacy, which is also called the "gambler's fallacy," but the truth is that there are many things colloquially referred to as gambler's fallacy which generally describe lessons we can only learn through the rule of large numbers, etc. But I am always open to people on this forum trying to poke little holes - it's kind of like when people find small spelling or grammatical issues when they don't have anything of substance to say about the content.

So the way I am using it here, I am describing how an addict will assume that future events will present a different set of circumstances than the present, when in reality the present is identical to the future and must be treated as such, instead of assuming that one is having a hard time now and because one is having a hard time now, that the future will not be as hard. This is DIRECTLY analogous to the TEXTBOOK definition of the gambler's fallacy, which is when someone betting assumes that the outcomes of the present and the past have influence on the future. Does that make sense? I'll be happy to walk through it for you, in case you are one of those sociopaths who is incapable of recognizing metaphor and analogy.

2) Time away from the bad crowd and "rewiring" may sound vague to you, who apparently knows nothing about Ibogaine. Getting away from people who do and possess drugs is the best and most direct advice any addict receives. Do you need more specifics? This isn't something that is my opinion, this is common of pretty much any health professional or addiction specialist. I can see how you would need more details if you know nothing about the subject-matter.

As for re-wiring, maybe spend 2 minutes looking into Ibogaine. It's only the biggest paradigm shift in recent approaches to depression and addiciton and most neuroscientists refer to the action that the drug takes as a "rewiring" of our synapses chains, which can cause drastics shifts in our ability to break cycles and "rewire" our outlook on our past and our future.

All wrong, even your second attempt at the gambler's fallacy. I'll explain shortly but someone else might have a thought........no Brittney, no

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

1) There is the Monte Carlo fallacy, which is also called the "gambler's fallacy," but the truth is that there are many things colloquially referred to as gambler's fallacy which generally describe lessons we can only learn through the rule of large numbers, etc. But I am always open to people on this forum trying to poke little holes - it's kind of like when people find small spelling or grammatical issues when they don't have anything of substance to say about the content.

So the way I am using it here, I am describing how an addict will assume that future events will present a different set of circumstances than the present, when in reality the present is identical to the future and must be treated as such, instead of assuming that one is having a hard time now and because one is having a hard time now, that the future will not be as hard. This is DIRECTLY analogous to the TEXTBOOK definition of the gambler's fallacy, which is when someone betting assumes that the outcomes of the present and the past have influence on the future. Does that make sense? I'll be happy to walk through it for you, in case you are one of those sociopaths who is incapable of recognizing metaphor and analogy.

2) Time away from the bad crowd and "rewiring" may sound vague to you, who apparently knows nothing about Ibogaine. Getting away from people who do and possess drugs is the best and most direct advice any addict receives. Do you need more specifics? This isn't something that is my opinion, this is common of pretty much any health professional or addiction specialist. I can see how you would need more details if you know nothing about the subject-matter.

As for re-wiring, maybe spend 2 minutes looking into Ibogaine. It's only the biggest paradigm shift in recent approaches to depression and addiciton and most neuroscientists refer to the action that the drug takes as a "rewiring" of our synapses chains, which can cause drastics shifts in our ability to break cycles and "rewire" our outlook on our past and our future.

All wrong, even your second attempt at the gambler's fallacy. I'll explain shortly but someone else might have a thought........no Brittney, no

no brittney no me all day. The best moments of your existence involved me at max.

[LarryLaffer]

thread needed more drugs.


here's harvey keitel doing drugs.

[GringoStar]

All wrong, even your second attempt at the gambler's fallacy. I'll explain shortly but someone else might have a thought........no Brittney, no

Really? It's great trying to debate with someone who's incapable of primitive thought. I JUST read a book all about this called "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives"

But I am glad that you actually read through my points. Even if you can poke some tiny hole in my definition of the gambler's fallacy, I explained how I was using it in the context of generally misinterpreting probability to be something that shifts and accumulates based on past/current events.

[limitles]

All wrong, even your second attempt at the gambler's fallacy. I'll explain shortly but someone else might have a thought........no Brittney, no

Really? It's great trying to debate with someone who's incapable of primitive thought. I JUST read a book all about this called "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives"

But I am glad that you actually read through my points. Even if you can poke some tiny hole in my definition of the gambler's fallacy, I explained how I was using it in the context of generally misinterpreting probability to be something that shifts and accumulates based on past/current events.

No, not literally all wrong, I was about to head back to the zoo when I saw your post but generally, yeah.

This is my main sticking point. " I am describing how an addict will assume that future events will present a different set of circumstances than the present, when in reality the present is identical to the future and must be treated as such, instead of assuming that one is having a hard time now and because one is having a hard time now, that the future will not be as hard."

The mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future.

That is the definition of the GF. It works for chance and more I'm sure but you can't make the assumption that a drug addict is guided by it. In fact, an addict's decisions are dominated by a negative feedback loop and the efforts to maintain it. The drug addict especially is focused on the present in preparing for a high, getting high, and getting rid of that shitty feeling when the effects are gone. They're not planning on much besides that process. Sure gamblers may incorporate that fallacy as part of their addiction but that's in addition to what fundamentally drives all addicts.

Also, I know about Ibogaine and you can bet most heroin addicts do as well. The full treatment sounds intense but there is evidence that it can get that monkey off your back.

[GringoStar]

Really? It's great trying to debate with someone who's incapable of primitive thought. I JUST read a book all about this called "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives"

But I am glad that you actually read through my points. Even if you can poke some tiny hole in my definition of the gambler's fallacy, I explained how I was using it in the context of generally misinterpreting probability to be something that shifts and accumulates based on past/current events.

No, not literally all wrong, I was about to head back to the zoo when I saw your post but generally, yeah.

This is my main sticking point. " I am describing how an addict will assume that future events will present a different set of circumstances than the present, when in reality the present is identical to the future and must be treated as such, instead of assuming that one is having a hard time now and because one is having a hard time now, that the future will not be as hard."

The mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future.

That is the definition of the GF. It works for chance and more I'm sure but you can't make the assumption that a drug addict is guided by it. In fact, an addict's decisions are dominated by a negative feedback loop and the efforts to maintain it. The drug addict especially is focused on the present in preparing for a high, getting high, and getting rid of that shitty feeling when the effects are gone. They're not planning on much besides that process. Sure gamblers may incorporate that fallacy as part of their addiction but that's in addition to what fundamentally drives all addicts.

Also, I know about Ibogaine and you can bet most heroin addicts do as well. The full treatment sounds intense but there is evidence that it can get that monkey off your back.

Well put, and your ability to respond to my arrogance without adding additional vitriol did not go unnoticed, so I appreciate that.

That being said, I still think you are wrong, or at least misinterpreting my assumption here. I totally agree that the negative feedback loop is process that takes place with many addicts, but I was using to GF (very loosely, granted) to illustrate the humans tendency to try to rationalize and predict the future based on present factors.

It is a bit of a stretch, but I was really referring to Willie's initial post about how he was clean for awhile and then lost his script and picked up some dope. I believe that this mindset here is probably something similar to the same error that causes the GF. He said himself that he convinced himself that he would take the drugs now to handle this temporary pain, but in the future he would face the same urge but would be fine because he would be stronger, employed and/or with a meth script.

In any case, the Mlodinow book is really good for anyone who wants a quick refresher course on the history of mathematics and the various breakthroughs which led to our understanding of probability, randomness, and the eventual formation of what are now the actuarial sciences, but bleeding into things like machine-learning and AI, etc.

[Sheesfaced]

Shout out to Harley as this thread has become: