or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' Take note of the position of the minus sign to eliminate caldwell returns or search for 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser.
I am not on YouTube or social media
Gambling
[ 8 minute read ]
I want to play too
This is about how constrained we are by our previous decisions and I use computer games, business and gambling (all highly addictive) as examples to explore opportunity cost, which can be seen as regret or a bar to something else.
When I started my business I did it because I wanted to play in the real world. My choice of computer games at the time had a business bent to them. Not for me, the single person shoot-up or online battles with a team. I was interested in how making decisions allowed greater freedom to make more decisions. In the real world this is a desire to accumulate as much money as possible. In my head that is greed. Greed when considered to be the only source for freedom is formulaic. As such, it might be considered to be a game with software written for it. In simple terms, IF this THEN this OR this. Logic decisions. I deliberately won't expand on that. You decide.
From playing business-type games and finding myself without a job (I quit) I decided to play a business game for real. And, that is exactly how I thought of it until things got serious, which is when I stopped playing and closed the business. The thing is, I was playing against 'players' who really had a vested interest in gathering wealth, and some who just needed to pay the bills.
In shoot-em-ups, the player is initially given a weapon of some kind or perhaps, in modern games, some attributes or skills that would enable them to make weapons. These are plusses or positives. In business-related games the player initially also starts with an asset, money or a means to make money. The crucial difference between the two types of games (in both there is deadly competition) is that in money-biased games you can have debts. This is an incentive to 'speculate to accumulate'. In other words, you can guess or forecast a better future that will be so great that it pays for past debt. That is how most people go into business in the real world. They borrow money.
In order to borrow money from a bank you need a Business Plan which includes a revenue and profit forecast. I think there is always something missing from these Business Plans though, but the question can never be framed adequately: Is it a game to you? The upshot of this is in an underlying question: How constrained are you to sticking to a formula or can you afford to experiment and innovate? In a game, which should not affect real life (We will come to gambling), the player can pause and consider, quit, or make wild choices. After I have played a computer game many times I try wild choices to see what happens and it is then that I discover the constraints of the software. In real life, if a business owner has borrowed money, they cannot pause or quit without significant penalties that affect the rest of their lives in the real world (Opportunity Cost).
It seems then that someone who started playing a business 'game' for real has a significant advantage over someone who relies on their business to survive and is not playing 'the game'. I started my business from having experience in logistics (you can buy that but the cost is measured as opportunity cost). I used my own money which meant there were no stakeholders other than me. In business, the customers are stakeholders too but my customers were all ephemeral; the chances of them returning were practically nil, though it did happen. I could do as I liked including pause or quit. Against someone with debt I was the one who could afford to innovate. The key here is in understanding the constraints that someone in debt places on themselves. To me, making a mistake meant I learnt something; to someone in debt it means incurring a financial penalty that could cost them their home.
I think this is why my marketing attitude to giving advice to my local shop-keepers is not taken seriously. They are way too far invested in their business activities to consider deviating from a stasis of do-nothingness or 'I have an idea how a shop works because I have been in shops so I will continue to run my shop as I have seen other shops being run' syndrome. To me, that is running a business using only peripheral knowledge. People too often do this with their lives.
'Game designer Will Wright was inspired to create a "virtual doll house" after losing his home during the Oakland firestorm of 1991 and subsequently rebuilding his life. Replacing his home and his other possessions made him think about adapting that life experience into a game.'
I seem to remember The Sims game with only six motives for the little dolls but it looks like there were also eight: Hunger, Hygiene, Energy, Social, Comfort, Bladder, Fun, Room.
I never cared to find out about the creator or how the game was derived. I did however, go through a tough time and thought if I stick to fulfilling the same motives 'The Sims' dolls have then I should be okay. I still consider today whether I would be happier with a more comfortable chair or more friends.
In real life, if I have financial debt or am close to, or in, poverty I cannot speculate to accumulate. If my motivation to work is low it might be because I need better furniture or more friends or a better diet. However, if I skimp on food this month in order to pay for dance lessons will the extra sociability and exercise pay dividends that exhibit in greater freedom by creating a larger financial revenue? Not directly from being able to dance, but again we are looking at 'opportunity costs'.
Someone who relies on their daily business revenue to pay them a wage MUST work tomorrow. The opportunity for them to do something else is not available to them. So, doing their business has an opportunity cost as well as financial costs.
If I go to dance lessons I cannot do something else instead but my motivation in the wider field of my life might be enhanced and ultimately I might be able to afford a new armchair after all. Greater sociability and fitness can result in greater resilience and, importantly, a wider scope of opportunities.
Gambling
Essentially, I am talking about gambling. The types of games I mentioned, 'shoot-em-ups' and 'money-related', or any competitive computer game, have an element of risk associated with them. They have to; it is what gives us a dopamine hit - anticipation and reward. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter and hormone that triggers the 'pleasure' part of the brain. It reinforces behaviour, even if the behaviour is ultimately destructive. Simple gambling is deliberately incurring a loss that may result in a greater gain. Getting a loan for a business is direct gambling. Not eating as well as last week so I can go dancing is not gambling. Not eating at all for a week is gambling. So what is the difference? There is a presumption in the eating and dancing example because the premise has a time constraint of one week that more food is available or could be available after one week. If we don't eat for a whole week we are gambling that we will make correct decisions in a week's time based on a premise that food will be available and health will be restored. A gambler in a booking shop does the same with money. Perhaps the rent did not get paid for a week and the intent is to pay two weeks rent in one weeks time, which might turn out fine if food is still available in one weeks time. If not, the gambler needs to gamble again. The dancer on the other hand, has sacrificed a weeks good diet for a dopamine hit that may pay later dividends without incurring any more costs, or may not. However, exercise is guaranteed even if sociability is not when we dance.
Guarantees
We are looking for guarantees, right? Walk to the shops guarantees exercise and driving there guarantees incurring a financial cost. Many of us opt for the both the financial cost and a health cost. Why? Because we would rather do something else with our time. But what? In 'The Sims' we might need to empty our bladders, or relax, or continue to socialise at home, or sleep; but in the real world are we actually believing that we are Sims? Are we inadvertently playing a game but we are in someone else's game as Non-Playable Characters (NPC) in everyone else's game, but we are still afforded limited autonomy but not outside of the algorithms for health?
Hunger
Hygiene
Energy
Social
Comfort
Bladder
Fun
Room
(The Sims)
This is why we must not be constrained by decisions we thought we had no choice to make. Crudely, in my mind, this comes down to whether we are playing or not.
Playing the Game
All my posts: https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view.php?u=zw219551
or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' Take note of the position of the minus sign to eliminate caldwell returns or search for 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser.
I am not on YouTube or social media
[ 8 minute read ]
I want to play too
This is about how constrained we are by our previous decisions and I use computer games, business and gambling (all highly addictive) as examples to explore opportunity cost, which can be seen as regret or a bar to something else.
When I started my business I did it because I wanted to play in the real world. My choice of computer games at the time had a business bent to them. Not for me, the single person shoot-up or online battles with a team. I was interested in how making decisions allowed greater freedom to make more decisions. In the real world this is a desire to accumulate as much money as possible. In my head that is greed. Greed when considered to be the only source for freedom is formulaic. As such, it might be considered to be a game with software written for it. In simple terms, IF this THEN this OR this. Logic decisions. I deliberately won't expand on that. You decide.
From playing business-type games and finding myself without a job (I quit) I decided to play a business game for real. And, that is exactly how I thought of it until things got serious, which is when I stopped playing and closed the business. The thing is, I was playing against 'players' who really had a vested interest in gathering wealth, and some who just needed to pay the bills.
In shoot-em-ups, the player is initially given a weapon of some kind or perhaps, in modern games, some attributes or skills that would enable them to make weapons. These are plusses or positives. In business-related games the player initially also starts with an asset, money or a means to make money. The crucial difference between the two types of games (in both there is deadly competition) is that in money-biased games you can have debts. This is an incentive to 'speculate to accumulate'. In other words, you can guess or forecast a better future that will be so great that it pays for past debt. That is how most people go into business in the real world. They borrow money.
In order to borrow money from a bank you need a Business Plan which includes a revenue and profit forecast. I think there is always something missing from these Business Plans though, but the question can never be framed adequately: Is it a game to you? The upshot of this is in an underlying question: How constrained are you to sticking to a formula or can you afford to experiment and innovate? In a game, which should not affect real life (We will come to gambling), the player can pause and consider, quit, or make wild choices. After I have played a computer game many times I try wild choices to see what happens and it is then that I discover the constraints of the software. In real life, if a business owner has borrowed money, they cannot pause or quit without significant penalties that affect the rest of their lives in the real world (Opportunity Cost).
It seems then that someone who started playing a business 'game' for real has a significant advantage over someone who relies on their business to survive and is not playing 'the game'. I started my business from having experience in logistics (you can buy that but the cost is measured as opportunity cost). I used my own money which meant there were no stakeholders other than me. In business, the customers are stakeholders too but my customers were all ephemeral; the chances of them returning were practically nil, though it did happen. I could do as I liked including pause or quit. Against someone with debt I was the one who could afford to innovate. The key here is in understanding the constraints that someone in debt places on themselves. To me, making a mistake meant I learnt something; to someone in debt it means incurring a financial penalty that could cost them their home.
I think this is why my marketing attitude to giving advice to my local shop-keepers is not taken seriously. They are way too far invested in their business activities to consider deviating from a stasis of do-nothingness or 'I have an idea how a shop works because I have been in shops so I will continue to run my shop as I have seen other shops being run' syndrome. To me, that is running a business using only peripheral knowledge. People too often do this with their lives.
'Game designer Will Wright was inspired to create a "virtual doll house" after losing his home during the Oakland firestorm of 1991 and subsequently rebuilding his life. Replacing his home and his other possessions made him think about adapting that life experience into a game.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sims
I seem to remember The Sims game with only six motives for the little dolls but it looks like there were also eight: Hunger, Hygiene, Energy, Social, Comfort, Bladder, Fun, Room.
I never cared to find out about the creator or how the game was derived. I did however, go through a tough time and thought if I stick to fulfilling the same motives 'The Sims' dolls have then I should be okay. I still consider today whether I would be happier with a more comfortable chair or more friends.
In real life, if I have financial debt or am close to, or in, poverty I cannot speculate to accumulate. If my motivation to work is low it might be because I need better furniture or more friends or a better diet. However, if I skimp on food this month in order to pay for dance lessons will the extra sociability and exercise pay dividends that exhibit in greater freedom by creating a larger financial revenue? Not directly from being able to dance, but again we are looking at 'opportunity costs'.
Someone who relies on their daily business revenue to pay them a wage MUST work tomorrow. The opportunity for them to do something else is not available to them. So, doing their business has an opportunity cost as well as financial costs.
If I go to dance lessons I cannot do something else instead but my motivation in the wider field of my life might be enhanced and ultimately I might be able to afford a new armchair after all. Greater sociability and fitness can result in greater resilience and, importantly, a wider scope of opportunities.
Gambling
Essentially, I am talking about gambling. The types of games I mentioned, 'shoot-em-ups' and 'money-related', or any competitive computer game, have an element of risk associated with them. They have to; it is what gives us a dopamine hit - anticipation and reward. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter and hormone that triggers the 'pleasure' part of the brain. It reinforces behaviour, even if the behaviour is ultimately destructive. Simple gambling is deliberately incurring a loss that may result in a greater gain. Getting a loan for a business is direct gambling. Not eating as well as last week so I can go dancing is not gambling. Not eating at all for a week is gambling. So what is the difference? There is a presumption in the eating and dancing example because the premise has a time constraint of one week that more food is available or could be available after one week. If we don't eat for a whole week we are gambling that we will make correct decisions in a week's time based on a premise that food will be available and health will be restored. A gambler in a booking shop does the same with money. Perhaps the rent did not get paid for a week and the intent is to pay two weeks rent in one weeks time, which might turn out fine if food is still available in one weeks time. If not, the gambler needs to gamble again. The dancer on the other hand, has sacrificed a weeks good diet for a dopamine hit that may pay later dividends without incurring any more costs, or may not. However, exercise is guaranteed even if sociability is not when we dance.
Guarantees
We are looking for guarantees, right? Walk to the shops guarantees exercise and driving there guarantees incurring a financial cost. Many of us opt for the both the financial cost and a health cost. Why? Because we would rather do something else with our time. But what? In 'The Sims' we might need to empty our bladders, or relax, or continue to socialise at home, or sleep; but in the real world are we actually believing that we are Sims? Are we inadvertently playing a game but we are in someone else's game as Non-Playable Characters (NPC) in everyone else's game, but we are still afforded limited autonomy but not outside of the algorithms for health?
Hunger
Hygiene
Energy
Social
Comfort
Bladder
Fun
Room
(The Sims)
This is why we must not be constrained by decisions we thought we had no choice to make. Crudely, in my mind, this comes down to whether we are playing or not.