Popular Philosphy Among Poker Players....

[Tommy Angelo]

"I don’t see how it is possible for any successful poker player to believe in any form of collectivism."

I worshipped Rand and Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead for several years in my early 20's. Now, pushing 50, the lable "collectivist" is as good as any to describe me now.

I see Rand as a useful landmark, like a big tree. Something to walk by, and look back on, but not a smart place to stop and make home.

Tommy

[Exsubmariner]

I'm sorry, Sir,
Your prose has inspired me to use my ultimate retort for philosophy discussions of.....Who Cares?
Is your inspired view of the world going to stop anyone from playing poker? No.
Is your view of the world possibly born of your own poor self image and low self esteem? I would say probably yes given your demonstrated need here to view yourself and "poker pros" in the worst light possible, possibly inspired your feelings of guilt for having it better than most.
My 2cents, not that it means anything, is get a new light bulb. Thank you for sharing your misery.
edit: BTW leeches like yourself are the reason why I don't invest anymore. Perhaps your self image is justified.
X

[dhende3]

Good responses by Tommy Angelo and LargeCents. As I said in the first paragraph and in one of my responses, I am against a dogmatic approach to life and philosophy (oxymoron?). I just thought the comparison between objectivism and poker was worth mentioning and I do think that Rand's views are very consistent with my own (even before I knew who she was).

The main point of the original post was to point out the competitive nature of poker as a microcosm of Rand's ideal world... not to pick apart and debate objectivism. This is partly in response to all of the "poker players do nothing for society." I am doing something for myself because I like to compete and strive to be the best etc... and I don't see a problem in that regardless of what society thinks. In fact I don't see anything intelligent that ever came out from society. Everything worthwhile has come from individuals. Ideas that are irrational, illogical, and unreasonable like religion and racism are social manifestations. Individuals thinking for themselves have come up with all of the great intellectual/scientific breakthroughs etc...

[LargeCents]

First off, I'm sorry for even responding to this guy, but hey, I'm bored.

[ QUOTE ]
Like in Rounders the whiny "nice" girlfriend leaves Matt Damon.
He's thinking, "But poker is a game of skill..."
Girlfriend's thinking, "That's not the issue... you're a looter... not a contributor".



[/ QUOTE ]
She left him because he lied to her.

[ QUOTE ]
But reality is...
Stock trader is "contributor" to capital markets with high social status...


[/ QUOTE ]

Must be some alternate reality. Commodities exchange is an ever inflating spiral, which creates its own profit and benefits by feeding on itself. Basically a pyramid scheme. Just stay off the bottom of the pyramid. Stock trader is a glorified salesman. Please don't tell me that sales people are integral to human survival.

I'm not really defending poker professionals either. Gambling is entertainment. You might as well rail against movie stars or sports professionals who make money on their trade. Maybe the real problem is that our society has become so much of a consumer society of excess. The roots of the problem run much much deeper than attacking a few college kids trying to make a few bucks to pay for school by playing online poker.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact I don't see anything intelligent that ever came out from society. Everything worthwhile has come from individuals. Ideas that are irrational, illogical, and unreasonable like religion and racism are social manifestations. Individuals thinking for themselves have come up with all of the great intellectual/scientific breakthroughs etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is naively simplistic, and just wrong in my opinion. Almost all academic work is based on the idea of collectivism -- people collaborate to achieve more than what each could achieve on his own. It was Isaac Newton who said, "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."

Similarly, individuals such as Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot, were able to carry out programs of ethnic cleansing and mass murder.

It's really hard to distinguish between what is the result of "individuals" and "society," because all individuals are, in fact, a part of a society.

I would consider myself a collectivist, insofar as I believe that society has a moral responsibility to help out those who are in genuine need. I don't believe it as an absolute; some people just refuse to take advantage of the help offered to them, sometimes people have their own problems and can't help others, and people should enjoy a certain amount of leisure time and pleasure.

Poker's a fun game I enjoy playing, and I enjoy it for many of the "objectivist" aspects that are in it. But life would be pretty unsatisfying if that is all there is to it.

I guess you could look at someone who lives his entire life retarded a couple of ways. Maybe the "objectivist" approach is to consider him a worthless piece of **** since he has very little reasoning capabilities. Personally, I tend to see such a person as having the basic dignity that all humans have and who had the misfortune of receiving a bad starting hand in the poker game of life, if you will. I think it is morally incumbant that such a person be given support so that he can live a reasonably satifsying life, given his inherant limitations. That's a responsibility that belongs to individuals and society as a whole. Obviously, there are tough decisions to be made: how much help and support is enough; how much should government pay for him with taxpayer money (e.g. sending him to special education classes); how do the limitations affect the emotional well-being of his family members and other loved ones; etc.

Just some thoughts. Also, if you're interested in the merits of competition and cooperation, there's a lot of cool aspects of game theory that deals with this. If you've never heard of the "prisoner's dilemma," that's definitely something worth reading about. It'll definitely make you stop and think whether everyone pursuing their own self-interest always leads to the best possible outcome.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, my main point is that I derive more satisfaction from competing and striving to be the best than I do from knowing that I am helping others in society.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main problem I have with the individuals who think like this is they only want to compete voluntarily in areas they think they excel in, for example you cited chess and poker. You claim yourself in favour of competition, however I suggest that you and many like you would shy away from competition where you suspected the outcome would not be to your liking, whilst this is perfectly natural it does rather pull holes in the validity of your view of yourself. You say you value your sucesses as an individual more than your contributions to society as a whole, however you then rely on the institutions set up by society to avoid the competitions you choose not to take part in, for example being mugged or robbed.

Mack

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
You say you value your sucesses as an individual more than your contributions to society as a whole, however you then rely on the institutions set up by society to avoid the competitions you choose not to take part in, for example being mugged or robbed.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a significant difference between the 'fairweather capitalist' who is in favor of free-market competition only so long as it is he who has the best of it and someone who 'doesn't want to compete' with a fellow putting a gun to his head.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You say you value your sucesses as an individual more than your contributions to society as a whole, however you then rely on the institutions set up by society to avoid the competitions you choose not to take part in, for example being mugged or robbed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There is a significant difference between the 'fairweather capitalist' who is in favor of free-market competition only so long as it is he who has the best of it and someone who 'doesn't want to compete' with a fellow putting a gun to his head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than it being against the law there is no difference at all. The importance of this is a matter of opinion. I was merely raising a ligitimate although admittedly stretched counter argument to the 'competitive' people who want to use their intelligence to outwit and out-earn less academic people, but then refuse them the opportunity to use the limited skills they have to do the same.

Regards Mack

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
The game of poker is a microcosm of Ayn Rand’s ideal world in my opinion. The people who are the best and most talented WILL be more successful in the long run. Those who lack talent and do not put effort toward learning WILL fail and there is no way for them to get ahead through politics or “looting” etc… This is why I don’t see how it is possible for any successful poker player to believe in any form of collectivism.

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone who claims to prize logic so highly, you puzzle me by generalizing your "microcosm" so quickly, absolutely, and universally.

[wontons]

"Anyway, my main point is that I derive more satisfaction from competing and striving to be the best than I do from knowing that I am helping others in society."

I agree 110%.....its like they say in natural born killers...its in your nature....its also in mine and thats the reason most people LOVE it.....its not the money..at least not for me..that is the reward..but the true reason i love it is to be better them many many opponents or to compete with the best...I would say thats even more "fun"..nothing like making it to the final table in a major event and seeing everyone at the table a solid player..nothing like it in the world.