Who is more interested in buying lottery tickets, rich people or those who have no money?
Maybe you think that the rich have a good budget and are more willing to spend a small amount of money to buy a few lottery tickets to play; while the poor have a lot of money and want to spend a dollar in half instead of spending it casually. However, the opposite is true. The poorer the people, the more they like to buy lottery tickets.
Economists have also observed this phenomenon for a long time: the less money or the greater the loss, the more likely it is to take a greater risk.
Economists Kahneman and Tversky once proposed a study on “end-of-day utility”. The study found that in the last race of the day, more people bet on the least The horse that might win. At the end of the day, those gamblers who lose red-eye will be eager to make a profit at the last chance, so they tend to bet on the unpopular horse with the highest odds (the least likely to win).
We call this desperate behavior “lottery thinking”, which is also a “poor thinking” caused by lack of resources. They think that saving money is a waste of time, anyway, the money they have is not enough, so they simply buy lottery tickets to gamble. So these people will sacrifice their precious real money and buy lottery tickets in exchange for emotional hope.
People’s enthusiasm for buying lottery tickets stems from a special mechanism in our brains, that is, the taste of making money is indeed wonderful, and the feeling of making money is even more wonderful. There is a special physiological machine in our brain. Compared with the actual profit, the profit expectation can accelerate the operation of this machine. The more we are short of money, the stronger this expectation and desire will be.
This phenomenon does not just appear when buying lottery tickets. When we watch a sports game, we will find a similar phenomenon. When the lagging team is running out of game time, football players will frequently shoot long distances from the goal; basketball players will shoot before the final whistle sounds. , Almost desperate to take a half-court shot; at the end of the game, rugby players will throw a “big luck” pass. In other words, the more you see the losing team, the more you will seek a comeback miracle like buying a lottery ticket.
Producing this kind of “lottery ticket thinking” may be a human instinct.
Biologists have discovered that when animals lack food, water, and shelter, a “negative energy budget” is generated. Animals in this state are simply unable to find stable income that can only sustain their livelihoods. In fact, what they need is to win the lottery-style “rapid wealth.” Therefore, animals in desperate situations are more inclined to changeable harvests. Although this will increase the risk of nothing, it is also the most feasible way to replenish the energy that is about to be exhausted.
Biologist Thomas Kellek once did an experiment in which he faced yellow-eyed juncos with two choices, one is that the plate has a fixed number of corn kernels, and the other is that there may be multiple corn kernels in the plate. , Or there may be none at all. Birds that have just finished eating are more inclined to choose the “OK” option, while hungry birds will not hesitate to fly to the plate where the corn kernels are uncertain.
The same is true for humans in the evolutionary process. When survival is in crisis, our ancestors can only survive if they are willing to take greater risks. For example, when food is scarce, early humans may choose to hunt large and fierce animals with greater risk, and either get enough food or die by the mouth of beasts, and conservatively choose compromise methods such as collecting wild fruits, and There is no guarantee of its survival.
A foreign philosopher said: “You put a chain around the slave’s neck, and the other end of the chain is automatically locked on your own neck.” In fact, this sentence also applies to other places. This is simply a law. Call it the “law of mutual locking”. For example, if you indulge in good wine, that good wine is also drinking you; you want to sit in the seat of the chief director, and that seat is also sitting on you; you want to use time to earn money, and money is also earning your life . So that when you look around, the streets are full of people who are closely interlocked with the things you love.
But there are exceptions. I know a university teacher who has a hobby: stock trading. I usually see him crackling with his hands on the keyboard to fry stocks, but no stocks fry him smoky. One day after the market closed, I saw him chanting to the computer screen: “I’m sitting on the tower and watching the mountain view…” I thought the stock he bought was closing in red, but when I looked closer, it was a green shadow. One night in a small chat and asked about this, he said that he has a purpose in doing things, called: “live in it, but not completely belong to it.”
I was stunned and thought at the time: This sentence may be the only magic weapon to break the law of mutual locking. In the world, it is difficult not to be fettered by the things you love, and it is difficult not to be trapped by the world. However, we can live in it, but not belong to it. In this way, there is a distance between your existence and that thing. You have a kind of spiritual freedom. When it crashes and throws the chain, you have the possibility of avoiding it.