[fennecfoxen]

> Many people enjoy gambling knowing fully that the expected value of the process is negative... your entire argument against it falls apart unless you are willing to take it to its full conclusion and blast every entertainment industry in existence.

There are other forms of entertainment out there which people spend money on, yes. Some of them are quite ridiculous. Most of them don't have a business model centered around honing variable-reward reinforcement strategies to addict people and keep them hungry for more. (The fact that people enjoy engaging in it despite knowing that the expected value is negative is in fact the point I was making about malicious third-party brain-hacking.)

And yeah, by and large people get to decide what they want for themselves, even if it's self-destructive, because it's a free country, and we're substantially better off as a whole as a consequence of that freedom. And some of them choose gambling, so bully for them. That doesn't mean I have to like Harrah's or afford them any more respect and affection than I afford to Phillip Morris.

[sdrothrock]

> Most of them don't have a business model centered around honing variable-reward reinforcement strategies to addict people and keep them hungry for more.

Really? Games are doing that, movies do that (sequels, spin-offs, 24/7 exposure), books do that, magazines do that... pretty much every entertainment industry that can, wants to.

Edit: And right on the front page is another example in food: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary...

Candy-picked excerpt: "What I found, over four years of research and reporting, was a conscious effort — taking place in labs and marketing meetings and grocery-store aisles — to get people hooked on foods that are convenient and inexpensive."