I was at a point where following a divorce I was financially wiped out.
A crossroader friend of mine said, "Would $30,000 help out?" I said, "Sure, but how?"
He told me to get a fake I.D. and told me he would bankroll me to go to a casino somewhere in the South where "the boys" would help me out. He told me who to see, etc., and to play until I was 30K ahead, thank 'em and get out of town.
I said, "Thanks, but no thanks, I just can't be part of a scam."
We are still friends, and he is one of the best. I've seen him deal in Vegas, run up cooles at a table and deal great hands to his friends, but gave that up to turn to security in his old age.
artifice at the card table
Re: artifice at the card table
Stay tooned.
-
Guest
Re: artifice at the card table
entity
I'm beginning to suspect, Drey, that you are more interested in arguing than in finding ways to discuss an issue.
I am interested in truth and objectivity, both of which require consistency, it is inconsistent in my view to say "deception is wrong", but then turn around and state "deception for the sake of entertainment is wrong". I don't disagree that there is typically a difference between what magicians do and what cheats do, but I also don't agree that deception in and of itself is wrong.
However, I'd rather you see the error in your own statement than have me point it out to you. Thus is is generally my style if confronted by a statement like "killing is wrong" to ask the speaker's perspective on an issue where they are likely to find killing justified and if they agree to point out that clearly it isn't killing they have a problem with since they justify it in certain situations. Same idea here, it apparently isn't deception you have a problem with. Now if this is the case, it leads to the next question, if not deception, then what is the concern? Again, I'd rather ask the questions and have you consider it yourself than trying to tell you the way it is, I find it achieves better results, but I like everyone else am subject to error.
I'm sure that you understand the difference between lying to or cheating people without their knowledge in order to take something from them they don't want to give, and deceiving people who take part in the exchange expressly for the purpose of being deceived as a form of entertainment (and who pay you for doing just that).
Yes, and no. I absolutely believe that there is often a difference between paying for entertainment and theft. However, to begin with I won't be so quick to dismiss the deceptions of magicians. Why? Because often magicians persuade people that they are doing something by some magical powers. One of the big questions I might ask is "would your audience pay the same amount if they knew you were just tricking them?" I wonder if there isn't a line and then another line. I'll give you an example, say you shuffle the deck and tell everyone you stacked the cards for ten hands of poker, but instead you bottom deal, this is a blatant lie, is it justified? If you go tell some story about how your grandmother could read minds and then perform some mentalism effect on them is that justified? It's easy to think of this as merely patter, but it's also a fact that some people will go home and believe what you've told them, maybe believe in mentalism when they really shouldn't. Is it justified? I understand yes, you're doing it for the sake of entertainment, but do you really have to resort to that in order to entertain? Is misleading people really so acceptable? Obviously, to convey actual magic you have to deceive people in a certain manner, make them believe in the impossible, or at least allow them to and I can see real value to this well beyond the entertainment side of it, but does that mean it's ok? I can see value to cheating as well, but does that mean it makes it ok?
It seems to me that it makes sense to you in your mind and yet you've probably never really reasoned it through, it's a viewpoint you've grown up with, that society has impressed on you and that doesn't make it right. We progress by questioning what we encounter and improving on it where possible, it's important to do that here.
Keep in mind, some people don't pay magicians to deceive them, I honestly believe magic has been used in the past to start religions, this is a very serious matter in my opinion, far more so than cheating I'd say...on the other hand, you don't have any control over what people believe...but you do have control over what you tell them and how you present things. You might get better reactions and might make more money by lying, but then if you ask me that makes you the same as a cheat. Most effects in magic don't require a presentation that involves lying.
One can always call to mind hypothetical abberent situations where lying might be justified... That is not the issue of the discussion at hand. We are discussing ongoing dishonesty and cheating at the hands of professional card cheats. Nice try , though.
Wrong, it is relevant, you are avoiding the question. If you can think of another case where it is justified then it isn't the lying that is the problem, it's something else. Either lying is always wrong, or it isn't. Now if you want to say that it is, then by all means say so, but then you have to apply the same standards to magicians. If you want to say that it isn't then the question is what is it that makes all of this wrong? Generally my perspective is that from a moral standpoint it's a question of motivation, cheats aren't generally motivated by love, they are more often motivated by greed, or laziness, or fear etc. etc. etc. And I don't care what you're doing, being motivated by things like that isn't ok.
Again, you are in danger of being accused of sophism, Drey.
Ok, but it would just be an accusation, it doesn't mean anything unless it's valid, so the important issue would be, am I in danger of having my positions demonstrated as sophism?
You're obviously aware of the concept of the Social Contract, where society agrees on certain rules of behaviour and establishes laws in order to implement the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Absolutely, but what society decrees as law and what is morally right or wrong are two entirely different things. There was a time when women weren't allowed to vote, when they couldn't own property, when certain classes of people couldn't wear certain clothing, when slavery (and abuse of slaves) were sanctioned and promoted by law, but these things were not acceptable because of such laws. I hope you understand the point.
Whether an individual agrees to a rule or law is beside the point.
Again, yes and no, it is besides the point from the perspective of what the law will do to them, but then again some of the people I respect most are those who have gone to prison in opposition to tyranny. Opposing the law definitely isn't necessarily a moral wrong nor a bad thing. Bad laws get changed because people oppose them.
the rule or law is objectionable to a large number of people, there are legitimate ways to go about changing those things. Anarchy is not the answer.
That's purely an opinion statement and you are free to yours. You may well be right in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, then again, I am reminded of the famous expression "all that is required for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing".
My position is that ongoing dishonesty, as displayed by professional card cheats
Ok, so what is it about the way card cheats practice ongoing dishonesty that makes them different from magicians or numerous other groups? What I am trying to point out to you here is not that you're wrong, but that by your logic what you are objecting to apparently isn't dishonesty or that would apply universally, rather, it is something else and I am interested in what that something else is. I'm not sure if you have an inability to articulate it, or if you actually don't understand yourself, or what the case is. I struggle with the issue to some extent because the very term "dishonesty" is stigmatized by our culture, it is an inherently negative word by definition, so it is difficult to distance ourselves from the cultural and linguistic prejudices involved in the issue and to be objective about it, but that is precisely what is require to assertain the truth of the matter.
My position is that ongoing dishonesty, as displayed by professional card cheats, shows deficiencies in their character such that many people would not find them trustworthy or worthy of admiration.
This is an interesting statement, because it's noteworthy that the dishonesty or deception of magicians often has the same effect (perhaps not in terms of the admiration portion, but in regards to whether people find them trustworthy). I'll give you an example. I have friends who say outright "I won't play cards with you", and will tell others "don't play cards with him". Interestingly enough, they often reach these conclusions after I demonstrate a simple effect such as the Danbury Dellusion. Yet, what is the implication of the statement (which most magicians I know of have heard), it is that they believe I am able to cheat at cards and I would be willing to cheat at cards, all of this without ever having had to do so. Why is that?
My first instinct is that they arrive at this belief because "why would someone study these things if not to use them?" You study magic to engage in deception and that clearly has an impact on how people view you, at least that aspect of your life. The situation is much the same for a cheat or a poker player, or an actor for that matter. Dating an actor, can you trust her? After all, what she does for a living is acts, how easy would it be for her to do the same to you? But consider another side of it, this isn't a trust issue, it is a wedge that gets thrust into a gap in the trust between two people. Do you trust people when you meet them? Probably not completely and as you learn certain things about them that little gap in trust is driven wider. In cases of perfect trust there are no problems, at least in my experience with people where the trust is absolute.
Those are just some thoughts for you, two different viewpoints on the subject for you to consider. Your observation is of course correct.
I would say that the illegality of their actions and the fact that they are breaking the rules of the game are only TWO of the reasons that such behaviour marks the cheater as someone who many people would not deem worthy of admiration.
And of course those two particular issues are only of relevance to those for whom breaking the law and the rules are concerns, which incidentally tends to include a lot of people. I find the subject of piracy interesting along these lines though. I would argue that piracy is no less theft in most cases than cheating at cards is, yet I'm sure you know more people who engage in piracy (music, movies, software etc.) than you do card cheats, do you view them in the same regard? I believe the answer to that question is telling, since of course those practices are certainly illegal.
People enter a game or social situation or a Magic Performance with rules, laws, unwritten agreements in mind. Most adults understand the situation, or others will be there to spell it out to them if they go outside of the acceptable boundaries. Breaking the rules, the law, and the unwritten agreements are a betrayal to everyone else involved.
Interesting perspective, I'll have to think on that, thank you.
Most reasonably intelligent and aware people know what is acceptable behaviour in what context, and act accordingly. Equally, most people know when they are behaving in ways that are outide of acceptable behaviour in a given situation.
Placed in context (you were replying to my comments about bluffing spreading beyond the game), I fail to see your point because of course what you said holds true for cheating as well and I think you'd have a hard time arguing that poker strategies like bluffing are any less likely to carry over into life outside the game than cheating.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of people do you think cheat? My opinion would be a) those who don't believe they can win anyway (why not play straight if you're going to win anyway), and b) those who do it for the challenge/interest/rush.
I wouldn't. It speaks for itself. What I would remind you is that no one has said here that the law determines morality. A person's moral nature is what it is, despite laws or rules. It's how they respond to those rules or laws that demonstrates their nature.
Thank you.
I would add one small point, most of a person's response is not visible to anyone around them, to quote Antoine de Saint Exupery "human drama occurs beneath the surface".
I'm beginning to suspect, Drey, that you are more interested in arguing than in finding ways to discuss an issue.
I am interested in truth and objectivity, both of which require consistency, it is inconsistent in my view to say "deception is wrong", but then turn around and state "deception for the sake of entertainment is wrong". I don't disagree that there is typically a difference between what magicians do and what cheats do, but I also don't agree that deception in and of itself is wrong.
However, I'd rather you see the error in your own statement than have me point it out to you. Thus is is generally my style if confronted by a statement like "killing is wrong" to ask the speaker's perspective on an issue where they are likely to find killing justified and if they agree to point out that clearly it isn't killing they have a problem with since they justify it in certain situations. Same idea here, it apparently isn't deception you have a problem with. Now if this is the case, it leads to the next question, if not deception, then what is the concern? Again, I'd rather ask the questions and have you consider it yourself than trying to tell you the way it is, I find it achieves better results, but I like everyone else am subject to error.
I'm sure that you understand the difference between lying to or cheating people without their knowledge in order to take something from them they don't want to give, and deceiving people who take part in the exchange expressly for the purpose of being deceived as a form of entertainment (and who pay you for doing just that).
Yes, and no. I absolutely believe that there is often a difference between paying for entertainment and theft. However, to begin with I won't be so quick to dismiss the deceptions of magicians. Why? Because often magicians persuade people that they are doing something by some magical powers. One of the big questions I might ask is "would your audience pay the same amount if they knew you were just tricking them?" I wonder if there isn't a line and then another line. I'll give you an example, say you shuffle the deck and tell everyone you stacked the cards for ten hands of poker, but instead you bottom deal, this is a blatant lie, is it justified? If you go tell some story about how your grandmother could read minds and then perform some mentalism effect on them is that justified? It's easy to think of this as merely patter, but it's also a fact that some people will go home and believe what you've told them, maybe believe in mentalism when they really shouldn't. Is it justified? I understand yes, you're doing it for the sake of entertainment, but do you really have to resort to that in order to entertain? Is misleading people really so acceptable? Obviously, to convey actual magic you have to deceive people in a certain manner, make them believe in the impossible, or at least allow them to and I can see real value to this well beyond the entertainment side of it, but does that mean it's ok? I can see value to cheating as well, but does that mean it makes it ok?
It seems to me that it makes sense to you in your mind and yet you've probably never really reasoned it through, it's a viewpoint you've grown up with, that society has impressed on you and that doesn't make it right. We progress by questioning what we encounter and improving on it where possible, it's important to do that here.
Keep in mind, some people don't pay magicians to deceive them, I honestly believe magic has been used in the past to start religions, this is a very serious matter in my opinion, far more so than cheating I'd say...on the other hand, you don't have any control over what people believe...but you do have control over what you tell them and how you present things. You might get better reactions and might make more money by lying, but then if you ask me that makes you the same as a cheat. Most effects in magic don't require a presentation that involves lying.
One can always call to mind hypothetical abberent situations where lying might be justified... That is not the issue of the discussion at hand. We are discussing ongoing dishonesty and cheating at the hands of professional card cheats. Nice try , though.
Wrong, it is relevant, you are avoiding the question. If you can think of another case where it is justified then it isn't the lying that is the problem, it's something else. Either lying is always wrong, or it isn't. Now if you want to say that it is, then by all means say so, but then you have to apply the same standards to magicians. If you want to say that it isn't then the question is what is it that makes all of this wrong? Generally my perspective is that from a moral standpoint it's a question of motivation, cheats aren't generally motivated by love, they are more often motivated by greed, or laziness, or fear etc. etc. etc. And I don't care what you're doing, being motivated by things like that isn't ok.
Again, you are in danger of being accused of sophism, Drey.
Ok, but it would just be an accusation, it doesn't mean anything unless it's valid, so the important issue would be, am I in danger of having my positions demonstrated as sophism?
You're obviously aware of the concept of the Social Contract, where society agrees on certain rules of behaviour and establishes laws in order to implement the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Absolutely, but what society decrees as law and what is morally right or wrong are two entirely different things. There was a time when women weren't allowed to vote, when they couldn't own property, when certain classes of people couldn't wear certain clothing, when slavery (and abuse of slaves) were sanctioned and promoted by law, but these things were not acceptable because of such laws. I hope you understand the point.
Whether an individual agrees to a rule or law is beside the point.
Again, yes and no, it is besides the point from the perspective of what the law will do to them, but then again some of the people I respect most are those who have gone to prison in opposition to tyranny. Opposing the law definitely isn't necessarily a moral wrong nor a bad thing. Bad laws get changed because people oppose them.
the rule or law is objectionable to a large number of people, there are legitimate ways to go about changing those things. Anarchy is not the answer.
That's purely an opinion statement and you are free to yours. You may well be right in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, then again, I am reminded of the famous expression "all that is required for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing".
My position is that ongoing dishonesty, as displayed by professional card cheats
Ok, so what is it about the way card cheats practice ongoing dishonesty that makes them different from magicians or numerous other groups? What I am trying to point out to you here is not that you're wrong, but that by your logic what you are objecting to apparently isn't dishonesty or that would apply universally, rather, it is something else and I am interested in what that something else is. I'm not sure if you have an inability to articulate it, or if you actually don't understand yourself, or what the case is. I struggle with the issue to some extent because the very term "dishonesty" is stigmatized by our culture, it is an inherently negative word by definition, so it is difficult to distance ourselves from the cultural and linguistic prejudices involved in the issue and to be objective about it, but that is precisely what is require to assertain the truth of the matter.
My position is that ongoing dishonesty, as displayed by professional card cheats, shows deficiencies in their character such that many people would not find them trustworthy or worthy of admiration.
This is an interesting statement, because it's noteworthy that the dishonesty or deception of magicians often has the same effect (perhaps not in terms of the admiration portion, but in regards to whether people find them trustworthy). I'll give you an example. I have friends who say outright "I won't play cards with you", and will tell others "don't play cards with him". Interestingly enough, they often reach these conclusions after I demonstrate a simple effect such as the Danbury Dellusion. Yet, what is the implication of the statement (which most magicians I know of have heard), it is that they believe I am able to cheat at cards and I would be willing to cheat at cards, all of this without ever having had to do so. Why is that?
My first instinct is that they arrive at this belief because "why would someone study these things if not to use them?" You study magic to engage in deception and that clearly has an impact on how people view you, at least that aspect of your life. The situation is much the same for a cheat or a poker player, or an actor for that matter. Dating an actor, can you trust her? After all, what she does for a living is acts, how easy would it be for her to do the same to you? But consider another side of it, this isn't a trust issue, it is a wedge that gets thrust into a gap in the trust between two people. Do you trust people when you meet them? Probably not completely and as you learn certain things about them that little gap in trust is driven wider. In cases of perfect trust there are no problems, at least in my experience with people where the trust is absolute.
Those are just some thoughts for you, two different viewpoints on the subject for you to consider. Your observation is of course correct.
I would say that the illegality of their actions and the fact that they are breaking the rules of the game are only TWO of the reasons that such behaviour marks the cheater as someone who many people would not deem worthy of admiration.
And of course those two particular issues are only of relevance to those for whom breaking the law and the rules are concerns, which incidentally tends to include a lot of people. I find the subject of piracy interesting along these lines though. I would argue that piracy is no less theft in most cases than cheating at cards is, yet I'm sure you know more people who engage in piracy (music, movies, software etc.) than you do card cheats, do you view them in the same regard? I believe the answer to that question is telling, since of course those practices are certainly illegal.
People enter a game or social situation or a Magic Performance with rules, laws, unwritten agreements in mind. Most adults understand the situation, or others will be there to spell it out to them if they go outside of the acceptable boundaries. Breaking the rules, the law, and the unwritten agreements are a betrayal to everyone else involved.
Interesting perspective, I'll have to think on that, thank you.
Most reasonably intelligent and aware people know what is acceptable behaviour in what context, and act accordingly. Equally, most people know when they are behaving in ways that are outide of acceptable behaviour in a given situation.
Placed in context (you were replying to my comments about bluffing spreading beyond the game), I fail to see your point because of course what you said holds true for cheating as well and I think you'd have a hard time arguing that poker strategies like bluffing are any less likely to carry over into life outside the game than cheating.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of people do you think cheat? My opinion would be a) those who don't believe they can win anyway (why not play straight if you're going to win anyway), and b) those who do it for the challenge/interest/rush.
I wouldn't. It speaks for itself. What I would remind you is that no one has said here that the law determines morality. A person's moral nature is what it is, despite laws or rules. It's how they respond to those rules or laws that demonstrates their nature.
Thank you.
I would add one small point, most of a person's response is not visible to anyone around them, to quote Antoine de Saint Exupery "human drama occurs beneath the surface".
-
Guest
Re: artifice at the card table
Drey: As I pointed out in my last post, you seem more interested in argument than in discussion.
In a discussion, when someone makes a point, and the other person begins their answer with,"Yes, but..." or "Yes and No..." or "That's purely an opinion...", or "You obviously haven't reasoned this through...", they really aren't taking in what you have to say. They're trying to muscle their point of view over top of your contribution to the discussion.
All of my responses to your points are already there in my previous posts. I'd suggest that you read them over again and give them more thought. I've made the study of Magic and these sorts of issues my life's work, and so have thought about them seriously for over 35 years.
By the way, it's The Dunbury Delusion, or perhaps The Danbury Deviler, both fine effects by Charlie Miller.
I've enjoyed our discussion, but it's time for me to attend to other things.
Cheers,
- entity
In a discussion, when someone makes a point, and the other person begins their answer with,"Yes, but..." or "Yes and No..." or "That's purely an opinion...", or "You obviously haven't reasoned this through...", they really aren't taking in what you have to say. They're trying to muscle their point of view over top of your contribution to the discussion.
All of my responses to your points are already there in my previous posts. I'd suggest that you read them over again and give them more thought. I've made the study of Magic and these sorts of issues my life's work, and so have thought about them seriously for over 35 years.
By the way, it's The Dunbury Delusion, or perhaps The Danbury Deviler, both fine effects by Charlie Miller.
I've enjoyed our discussion, but it's time for me to attend to other things.
Cheers,
- entity
-
Larry Horowitz
- Posts: 448
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: L.A.
Re: artifice at the card table
"Just out of curiosity, what kind of people do you think cheat? My opinion would be a) those who don't believe they can win anyway (why not play straight if you're going to win anyway), and b) those who do it for the challenge/interest/rush."
As I said before, I believe you have no experience playing for serious money for any length of time.
There is only one reason to cheat. If you cannot articulate that reason in one word, then you are just a guy who knows how to shuffle really well.
As I said before, I believe you have no experience playing for serious money for any length of time.
There is only one reason to cheat. If you cannot articulate that reason in one word, then you are just a guy who knows how to shuffle really well.
-
Guest
Re: artifice at the card table
entity
In a discussion, when someone makes a point, and the other person begins their answer with,"Yes, but..." or "Yes and No..." or "That's purely an opinion...", or "You obviously haven't reasoned this through...", they really aren't taking in what you have to say. They're trying to muscle their point of view over top of your contribution to the discussion.
What? Last time I checked there was no fixed standard on how one carries out a discussion. The way I carry out discussions is to acknowledge points where they are made, clarify where I feel they are necessary, disagree where appropriate etc. The definition of a discussion is a conversation where a subject is considered by a group. As for muscling over a point of view, it has absolutely nothing to do with your point of view, it has to do with the truth, which is what I'm interested in. If I think your opinion is wrong or inconsistent etc. I'm certainly going to challenge it, if you can't deal with that you shouldn't be involving yourself in discussion at all.
All of my responses to your points are already there in my previous posts. I'd suggest that you read them over again and give them more thought.
The flaws of those same positions are revealed in my posts, at least some of them, I suggest you read the subject over and correct your inconsistencies and learn what you really believe because there is clearly a disparity between what you believe and what you articulate a belief in.
I've made the study of Magic and these sorts of issues my life's work, and so have thought about them seriously for over 35 years.
The arrogance of experience "I've experienced this so I know", your experiences are real, but they are also incomplete, we are all imperfect and lacking in understanding, no period of study will ever change that and this subject goes well beyond magic.
By the way, it's The Dunbury Delusion, or perhaps The Danbury Deviler, both fine effects by Charlie Miller.
My mistake on the spelling, I apologize.
Mr. Horowitz
As I said before, I believe you have no experience playing for serious money for any length of time.
You're welcome to your opinion.
There is only one reason to cheat.
Sir, I don't believe you've seriously examined the human condition to any depth for any length. Sure, there is one reason to cheat, to win (note it isn't necessarily greed or anything of the sort, we must keep in mind that people can cheat without money being involved (tests for example)). But the underlying question then becomes, why do they feel it is necessary to cheat in order to win, or if they don't feel it is it necessary then why do they cheat? People don't do anything without a reason, failure to identify that reason doesn't not constitute a lack of reason.
If you cannot articulate that reason in one word, then you are just a guy who knows how to shuffle really well.
lol, no, if you cannot articulate that reason in one word then you are simply someone who cannot articulate that reason in one word, it proves nothing more and nothing less. It certainly says nothing about one's ability to shuffle. Now out of curiosity, I'd be intereted in hearing you articulate it in one word.
In a discussion, when someone makes a point, and the other person begins their answer with,"Yes, but..." or "Yes and No..." or "That's purely an opinion...", or "You obviously haven't reasoned this through...", they really aren't taking in what you have to say. They're trying to muscle their point of view over top of your contribution to the discussion.
What? Last time I checked there was no fixed standard on how one carries out a discussion. The way I carry out discussions is to acknowledge points where they are made, clarify where I feel they are necessary, disagree where appropriate etc. The definition of a discussion is a conversation where a subject is considered by a group. As for muscling over a point of view, it has absolutely nothing to do with your point of view, it has to do with the truth, which is what I'm interested in. If I think your opinion is wrong or inconsistent etc. I'm certainly going to challenge it, if you can't deal with that you shouldn't be involving yourself in discussion at all.
All of my responses to your points are already there in my previous posts. I'd suggest that you read them over again and give them more thought.
The flaws of those same positions are revealed in my posts, at least some of them, I suggest you read the subject over and correct your inconsistencies and learn what you really believe because there is clearly a disparity between what you believe and what you articulate a belief in.
I've made the study of Magic and these sorts of issues my life's work, and so have thought about them seriously for over 35 years.
The arrogance of experience "I've experienced this so I know", your experiences are real, but they are also incomplete, we are all imperfect and lacking in understanding, no period of study will ever change that and this subject goes well beyond magic.
By the way, it's The Dunbury Delusion, or perhaps The Danbury Deviler, both fine effects by Charlie Miller.
My mistake on the spelling, I apologize.
Mr. Horowitz
As I said before, I believe you have no experience playing for serious money for any length of time.
You're welcome to your opinion.
There is only one reason to cheat.
Sir, I don't believe you've seriously examined the human condition to any depth for any length. Sure, there is one reason to cheat, to win (note it isn't necessarily greed or anything of the sort, we must keep in mind that people can cheat without money being involved (tests for example)). But the underlying question then becomes, why do they feel it is necessary to cheat in order to win, or if they don't feel it is it necessary then why do they cheat? People don't do anything without a reason, failure to identify that reason doesn't not constitute a lack of reason.
If you cannot articulate that reason in one word, then you are just a guy who knows how to shuffle really well.
lol, no, if you cannot articulate that reason in one word then you are simply someone who cannot articulate that reason in one word, it proves nothing more and nothing less. It certainly says nothing about one's ability to shuffle. Now out of curiosity, I'd be intereted in hearing you articulate it in one word.
-
Ian Kendall
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: artifice at the card table
Um, I'm guessing that would be 'money'.
Take care, Ian
Take care, Ian
Ian Kendall Close up magician in Edinburgh and Scotland
-
Guest
Re: artifice at the card table
lol, nice response Ian, thanks. That would certainly be a reason to cheat for money. If that was the answer he was looking for I was thrown off by the fact that not all cheating is for money, one of those hidden in plain sight issues perhaps, thanks.
-
Guest
Re: artifice at the card table
Drey,
It would be interesting to see a post from you that was completely original, composed of only your thoughts and not the posts of others which you have surgically disected and answered or commented on point by point.
You obviously need a foil in attempting to make your points.
It would be interesting to see a post from you that was completely original, composed of only your thoughts and not the posts of others which you have surgically disected and answered or commented on point by point.
You obviously need a foil in attempting to make your points.
-
Guest
Re: artifice at the card table
silverking
Forgive my method of posting. I have a long history in a debate environment and discovered that it is far easier to determine what someone is responding to and consequently understand the context of their statements by quoting them. If it's problematic to you I apologize, I do have the best of intentions in doing so.
However, since you ask, I will oblige you, and it will be long so bear with me.
Artifice, Morality & Gambling
I believe a great deal of confusion arose in this thread due to emotional response and confusion over what exactly was being discussed, so I will attempt to divide it and analyze it systematically.
I would like to start by recognizing and imploring others to recognize individual differences. Not everyone is the same, not all situations are the same. Perhaps the easiest place for us to recognize this is in the physical, in examining skill, which is where this thread started and where I will begin. You simply cannot make a blanket judgement of "card cheats" anymore than you can for "magicians" or any other group. How skilled are they? If you take two magicians, one who is a beginner and one who is like Vernon and you asked that question, how would you answer it? To say "they are very good" would be false. To say "they are poor" would be false. Just within this simple example there is tremendous range, Vernon is very good, the beginner is poor. Likewise, we can't state "magicians are extremely good at sleight of hand" or "cheaters are very good at sleight of hand". Many magicians aren't and many cheaters aren't...but it goes beyond that. Most working magicians are very proficient at the material in their reporatoire, that happens when you perform the same material time and time again night after night. But they might be completely clueless regarding material that they don't perform. The same goes for cheats, one might be very good at bringing a cooler into play but have an awful bottom deal. So you can't make blanket statements. All of this is obvious to anyone who has lived, sat down and thought about it.
What we frequently do is make generalizations. Unfortunately, most people aren't extremely good at articulating themselves in a very precise manner and thus will often substitute blanket statements where they should be placing qualified generalizations. I think it's important to pick at the details here. Why? Because language is more than just words, sounds and arrangements of symbols, language is about ideas, your language and the language that surrounds you actually impact the way you think. (For those who have the time this is actually a fascinating study to break down various cultures, examine their language, everything from basic words to complex grammar. I'll give you a simple example. We often hear the phrase "everything is relative". This belief comes very much from our language, which is very much a relative language "hot", "cold", "big", "small", "fast", "slow". These are all relative words and becoming so acquainted with viewing things in this manner leads us to certain conclusions. By contrast, there are other languages where relatives don't exist, statements are made in absolute form. You can't say "he is standing behind the tree", there is no "behind" in the language, so it changes the way you think about things.) Thus, you'll forgive me when I demand more than simple errors that could be rationalized to an accurate position, I feel being precise is important.
Returning to this issue of generalizations and blanket statements. If you say "always" or "never", you are almost always wrong, because there are almost always exceptions. Keep in mind as well, that to prove an assertion like "all" or "none", requires knowledge of all cases, which no one truly has, while disproving such an assertion requires knowledge of only one exception. That is a case in this thread, some individuals came out and expressed very blanketing views that are easily disproven by illustrating just a single example to the contrary. Everyone would be well advised to be more specific when possible.
So, since we must deal with groups and not just individuals, we often come up with generalizations. The more precise these generalizations are the better and the more accurate they are, we should strive for accuracy, we should strive for truth. Yes, that is an opinion of mine, anyone who objects to it is welcome to do so. An example of this kind of generalization. Saying "most magicians are skilled at sleight of hand" is much less accurate than "most working magicians are skilled at the sleight of hand in their working repertoire".
So to answer the original question of the thread, how skilled are cheats? There is no simple answer because it depends from one cheat to another, but from everything I've seen and heard, the majority aren't that skilled. Perhaps one of the best sources on this subject would be the user "Unknown419" from the magic cafe and I believe this one as well. For those questioning the subject, reading over his comments in the thread "would a real cheat write this" might be enlightening. Another potentially good source is Steve Forte for obvious reasons. Steve's assertion tends to be that most magicians know a lot more sleights and are better at those sleights than most cheats, but that most cheats have a better understanding of when to perform the move and how to employ it.
For my part, I've never met a really skillful cheat. The cheats I've known aren't that great. That isn't to say really good ones don't exist, I've just never met them. And from what I've heard from others this is the rule, not the exception.
Now as for the mentality of cheaters. I'm going to state right off that just like for the sleight of hand, you can't make a blanket statement and I know personal examples of the blanket statements that have been made earlier in this thread. We can generalize yes, the more precise the generalization the better, but it is important that these are qualified generalizations and not blanket statements, that we acknowledge the exceptions involved.
Do all cheats cheat because they need the money? No, certainly not. Do some cheats need the money? Yes. Could they get money by other means? Often, yes, in some cases no. Something you really have to take into account here is culture and location. It is difficult in the western world to fathom the situation in some other parts of the world. We live in areas where people with microwaves and cable TV go to food banks to get food, these people really aren't that hard done by. By contrast, there are people in some countries who live on the streets with filth and virtually nothing who don't have food banks they can go to. Obviously, this cultural dynamic creates totally different scenarios for those living in them. The culture extends beyond these basic physical conditions as well to the mentality of the people, their attitudes regarding certain issues and their tolerance for those issues. I'll come back to this later.
Something I should clear up immediately is an area where I believe some confusion developed, namely professional cheating for money, cheating for money, and just plain cheating. Each is different in its own way, but each is similar as well. You cannot state "there is only one reason to cheat", because that doesn't account for this gradient. How many have ever cheated on a test? Was the reason for doing this the same as cheating at cards? How many have cheated in a manner that doesn't make them a winner and done so on purpose? Was this the same as cheating for money? The answer at least in some of the cases is no, they were not always the same, yet all were cheating. You can split straws all you like and try to telegraph the statement into a certain scenario in order to remain correct, but the reality is something very different and disputes have arisen over confusion on this point.
What might surprise some people is the secondary yet intrinsic nature of certain parts. I'll give you an example, business. Why are people in business? To make money. The purpose of business revolves around making money...but what of someone like Bill Gates who can't possibly use all the money he's made yet still goes to work at 6 am? Is it about the money for him? Obviously not. On the other hand, if you were to take away the money would he still do it? I can't answer that, but I suspect things would change. This illustrates one of the attitudes held amongst some cheaters. Do they need the money? Possibly not. Would they still cheat if they didn't need the money? Possibly, yes. If there wasn't any money involved would they still do it? Often not. (These results come from an interview I did with a regular card cheat, for those who might want to question them. Again, I won't take on the arrogance of some members of these boards in stating that this is the only experience. For some people it might be all about the money. For others the money might be irrelevant (and yes, both categories of people exist, again, I am speaking here from personal experience, so whether it is rare or not is up for dispute, but to totally eliminate this group would denote monumental ignorance and close mindedness on the subject). But this is one perspective that definitely exists.
(For those uncertain about the results given above, in at least one situation the answers given were. Do they need the money? No. Could they get it by other means? Yes. Would they still cheat if they didnt need the money, if they had as much as they could want? Yes. Would they do it if no money was involved? Generally no, or if they did, it wouldnt satisfy them in the same way. Again, this is just one viewpoint, there are others who wouldnt cheat people when money is involved, others who wouldnt cheat if they didnt need the money, and others who wouldnt cheat to give themselves an edge. The point is that all mentalities exist, I personally know of people in all categories, so to dismiss them is simply ignorance. But note on the other hand that this doesnt make these people the rule by any means.)
I am going to go out on a limb and state that for professional cheaters (that is to say, people who earn their living cheating), it is much more about the money than it is for those who arent professional cheats. Its important to make this distinction. Mr. Horowitz made a comment that generally reflects this viewpoint while remaining seemingly ignorant to the broader viewpoint. This isnt to begrudge him his experience, but it reflects a limited viewpoint just like the experiences of everyone are limited and must be taken in context.
So now, I come to the question of morality. Morality is yes, a field of philosophy and there are disagreements on the subject, there are disagreements on most subjects. However, certain viewpoints can always be eliminated when they fail to provide internal consistency. In other words, while we may not know the absolute truth on a grand scale, we can know that certain viewpoints are wrong. I understand that most people on these boards have probably never studied morality to any real degree. Most people have never thought about it much, never questioned the ins and outs, the subtleties, exceptions and reasons. This isnt necessarily a bad thing, but it means that most people have inconsistent morality, and in so far as that inconsistency is concerned, something is wrong. You cannot state that the sky is blue and the sky is not blue and be correct; you are proven wrong by your own internal inconsistencies. Likewise, you cant say killing is always wrong and then say killing is acceptable in these circumstances. One of those statements is wrong; possibly, they both are simply due to the fact that they are internally inconsistent.
Obviously, people generally dont like being told they are wrong; they dont like having to deal with their own faults and failures. People also generally dont like having their world or viewpoint challenged, so the disputes that have arisen are unsurprising. What is depressing is the apparent inability or unwillingness of individuals to confront, address and reason through the issues. For example, to state that cheating is wrong. Fair enough, you can take that viewpoint, but then the question is why is cheating wrong? (I do ask that those reading actually genuinely ask themselves these questions and attempt to answer them). The easiest answer is something similar to God said it is, or such and such a source says it is. Again, fair enough, it is essentially a statement that cheating is wrong in and of itself, by decree rather than out of a specific reason. I personally reject this point, I dont believe anything happens or is decreed without reason and yes, that is a an opinion, but I believe its a much more defensible one than the viewpoint that something is wrong by decree. (Ill get to this later).
Another reason might be it is wrong because it hurts others. Again, fair enough, but if you are going to say so then in order to be consistent you have to make two other statements. Cheating is not wrong if it doesnt hurt others, and anything that you do that hurts others is wrong. So, if you want to take that position be very sure you also accept the consequences of that position. If you are internally inconsistent then, though I disagree with you, Im likely simply to agree to disagree. (Note, there is the second question of whether your internal philosophy matches up with the external reality, but we wont address that yet). There is another question that you must confront here as well, namely why is it wrong to hurt others? (I think if youre following along youll begin to see how and why most people havent ever thought the issue of morality through).
Another reason might be it is deceptive. Again, fair enough, but you must be consistent. In other words, if you say it cheating is wrong because it is deceptive, then anything else that is deceptive (including magic) is also wrong. Likewise, if the cheating isnt deceptive (arguably a bit of a contradiction, but you could rationalize it), then it isnt wrong. Likewise, you are confronted with the question of why is being deceptive wrong? (I hope readers can see how, when I ask these questions it isnt a personal attack or challenge, but these are a genuine part of determining proper, consistent, morality. I hope we can agree that truth is good, that ideally, we get to the truth; we gain better understanding. I am always willing to listen to good reasoning, I dont have all the answers and would certainly be interested in a viewpoint that accurately expressed and explained the subtleties and nuances of this field of study. That requires the ability to answer these questions, to work through to the core of the philosophy).
Another reason might be it is against the law. If so, then if the law tells you that hugging your wife is wrong, then it is wrong. If the law tells you to cheat, then you should cheat. If there is no law, then apparently it isnt wrong. I think we can easily see why this cant be the standard where morality is concerned. The whims of men are simply too unreliable.
Another might be that it brings negative consequences. (Obviously, youd have to define negative consequences; a common one might be a hedonistic viewpoint, which in itself isnt very quantifiable). This would mean that any case where it brings positive consequences it is good and every case where anything brings negative consequences it is bad. (This is a rough view of the viewpoint espoused by consequentialism. Its what most people, when you get right down to it seem to believe. But there are huge disputes over what the consequences are and what makes the consequences good or bad).
A myriad of other possibilities might exist and I am genuinely interested in hearing them, but if someone wants to put a viewpoint forward they should be able to defend it and follow it through to its logical conclusion. If you reject an aspect of this conclusion then, as a result of integrity you should give up the viewpoint that led you there.
I know some people like to try and separate cheating from other issues, but all morality flows from the same core, you cant pull cheating out, cheating is nothing special, it is a product of the same environment, psychology and philosophy as the rest of life, so its important to view the foundations. Perhaps some people arent well versed in the process of philosophy and science, theres nothing wrong with that, but if you want to discuss the subject, you should realize that ultimately you have to get down to the root from which the other aspects spring. Generally the issues that bring us there are not terribly central or worthy of discussion on their own. After all, none of us, nor any concept or idea exists in isolation.
My opinion, having studied the subject thoroughly and being both willing and able to answer the questions that flow from the position is that one can in good conscience only take the position of virtue ethics with respect to morality. This flies in the face of history and general culture. It isnt a viewpoint that is easy for a society to work with, but it is I believe the only truly effective solution presented on the subject. I will explain. There are basically three lines of thought on the subject of morality. The first is deontology, at its simplest level, this is the issue of decree I mentioned above. That certain things are wrong simply in and of themselves, by some magic force, power, or statement. It is wrong because God says it is wrong. This line of thought suggests that the end does not justify the means. What I feel is wrong with this is that it is by nature unjust. You will be punished for breaking a rule you never knew existed. Some people get around this by suggesting that we all inherently know the rules, but I think the fact that we are arguing over what they are suggests otherwise. In other words, punishing people for breaking a rule they never knew existed is unjust and that is exactly what this position suggests. (If you wish to debate it, Id be happy to do so, either by email, or in some other forum, or whatever). The second position is consequentialism, that things are wrong because of their consequences. There is often a blurred line between consequentialism and some other fields because of course you have to establish good and bad consequences, which is a question of values and you have to convert these into absolutes. However, simplistically, this viewpoint suggests that the end does justify the means. That its ok to kill someone if that brings about the best result in the situation. Some might argue as an example that killing Hitler would have been justified because it would save the lives of millions of people. The problem with this view is that it is likewise unjust because you dont know what the consequences will be. Im sure weve all had cases where we did something with the best of intentions and it turned out poorly. According to consequentialism, you did wrong because things turned out poorly, but how can we be condemned for something we didnt know? It is unjust.
This brings us to virtue ethics, which suggests that neither the consequences, nor the actions determine right or wrong. Rather, it is a question of how your decisions, your will, reflect on your excellence as a person. The reason why this is acceptable when the others fail is that the consequence is inherent, there is a direct reflection that cannot be altered and you are inherently aware of what it is. Thus, it is just. Notice the subtle differences between this approach and say a deontological approach though. Deontology does not allow for the imperfect knowledge of man, nor does consequentialism, but here, your motivation becomes relevant. Keep in mind, motivation doesnt specify a particular response. For example, someone kidnaps your child and threatens to kill the child if you go to he police. Now, someone motivated by courage might go to the police anyway, overcoming the fear for the child with the belief that he stands the best chance of saving the child if he does go to the police. On the other hand, he might overcome the fear of facing the situation alone and courageously avoid going to the police. In both cases, the person was courageous, and that quality reflects well upon them, but they took opposite actions. So, this view of ethics takes into account your individual beliefs, circumstances etc. There is something else that is important to note. Namely, the reflection on your excellence as a person has nothing to do with how people perceive you. People could think you did the most horrible thing and were just acting out of greed, but that doesnt reflect on whether you did right or wrong, ethics become very personal in this context.
I find it interesting that generally those who a deontological perspective tend to impose that view onto others, but take more of a virtue ethics approach with themselves. Not always of course, but in many cases. This is wrong, youre doing wrong! Well what about you? Oh, well it was ok for me because In a sense with virtue ethics, motivation becomes the deciding factor. Not intent, recall the expression the road to hell is paved in good intentions, but motivation.
So, what are these qualities or virtues that contribute to excellence? Virtues. Unlike in other cases, there is good arguments for and understanding of natural law in this context. Think of a culture where courage is scorned. Can you? I doubt it. We often say that was stupid, not courageous, or that was cowardly, but never courage is a bad thing. There are of course many of these, hard work (people sometimes say working too much is a bad thing, but have you ever heard of a culture where hard work is considered a bad thing?), fortitude, justice, truth, love etc. These arent learned rules or lessons, they are inherently understood concepts. You dont need to preach love to a newly discovered race or people in order for them to know of and understand love. I hope you can see that.
How does cheating fit into virtue ethics? Cheating itself become irrelevant, the relevant question becomes what is the motivation of those involved? This is one of the big differences between magicians and cheats in most cases. In most cases, cheats arent very well motivated, while magicians are reasonably well motivated. Are cheats trying to make the world a better place? It is conceivable, but unlikely and rare. Rather, the tendency in cheating is generally, for the most part (notice how I qualify my statements here, its a lesson some of the more outspoken could learn and something that those who read my posts should notice before getting emotional and lashing out), rooted in qualities contrary to virtue. Often selfish, often the very opposite of hard working, a viewpoint that seeks an easy out, seeks to avoid the hard work and struggle for success, often contrary to an attitude of justice etc. etc. etc. This is why there is a concern. I make no excuses, there are times when hypothetically this isnt the case, but generally these types of concerns exist. By contrast, you frequently encounter magicians who practice magic with the desire to help people experience wonder, they make the world a little better by lifting the spirits of those for whom they perform and are propelled by this. The deceptions occur for the sake of the audience rather than at the selfish expense of the audience. A fundamentally different view between how the audience is viewed exists. This is the difference. It isnt always the case, there are magicians motivated by money or ego, individuals with a selfish disregard for their fellows or their audience, those who are condescending and possess an air of superiority, who revel in manipulation rather than communication. I make no excuses for these people, but as a general rule, there is a clear difference between the motivations on each side.
How about the fine lines I mentioned with regard to cheating? The answers again are presented in very simple form. You dont have to worry about hard and fast rules, the question is not the individual actions, but rather the motivation involved, thats where the line is drawn, and it varies from one individual to the next. If someone feels they are taking advantage of another player by exploiting sloppy play and they do so, then they are poorly motivated. On the other hand, they may be well motivated and choose not to exploit such things, even going so far as to help the other player by pointing out the sloppy play. Some might have a colder approach, feeling that the lesson is best taught the hard way, by exploiting it and allowing the player to feel the pain associated with his errors. One isnt right and the other wrong; it is a question of the motivation, exploitation and selfishness vs. love, respect and selflessness.
Likewise for gambling, it isnt right or wrong as some might say, it is a question of ones motivation in gambling. Lifes a gamble, you wake up in the morning and youll take risks measured against prospective gains. Most of these are simple and insignificant, and gambling for entertainment with a loving and virtuous motivation isnt a bad thing at all. But doing it with a poor motivation, out of a will that opposes excellence, virtue, it is a wrong thing.
So how about the laws? The laws dont establish morality, people establish laws and hopefully we do our best in making those laws, but there is no hard and fast rule that we should always follow them. We should follow them when we believe it is right, when we dont have a serious opposition to them, but when they preach something we oppose strongly it is our moral duty to stand up and oppose them. Five principles of living: duty, integrity, virtue, love & nobility.
Ideally, the laws are designed to protect the citizens to promote a strong, healthy culture and society. In order to do so we stipulate certain values held by that culture and are careful to protect those values. Sometimes the values are right, sometimes they arent. Sometimes we punish the innocent, sometimes the innocent go free. We strive for the best we can and sometimes as a society, for the sake of law, must remain dogmatic, because we, unlike God, do not know the hearts and minds of those we are judging, while our citizens can at least learn our laws.
Finally, regarding admirable people. I dont think its our place to judge, but we inevitably admire qualities. Generally, these qualities that we admire are things we would like to see in ourselves, that we should see in ourselves. Obviously, people are diverse and multi-dimensional, to reduce them to a single act or quality is to do them a grave injustice, whether it reflects favorably on them or not. Ultimately though, it is those virtues, those qualities and not the acts from which they spring that make a person admirable. We are each limited in our outlook, we cant determine the inner trials and tribulations each individual encounters, so our assessment is flawed, nor is it terribly important that we make such an assessment. But where we see qualities of excellence displayed, far from ignoring them for want of other such qualities, we should be inspired and strive to attain the same in ourselves.
Forgive my method of posting. I have a long history in a debate environment and discovered that it is far easier to determine what someone is responding to and consequently understand the context of their statements by quoting them. If it's problematic to you I apologize, I do have the best of intentions in doing so.
However, since you ask, I will oblige you, and it will be long so bear with me.
Artifice, Morality & Gambling
I believe a great deal of confusion arose in this thread due to emotional response and confusion over what exactly was being discussed, so I will attempt to divide it and analyze it systematically.
I would like to start by recognizing and imploring others to recognize individual differences. Not everyone is the same, not all situations are the same. Perhaps the easiest place for us to recognize this is in the physical, in examining skill, which is where this thread started and where I will begin. You simply cannot make a blanket judgement of "card cheats" anymore than you can for "magicians" or any other group. How skilled are they? If you take two magicians, one who is a beginner and one who is like Vernon and you asked that question, how would you answer it? To say "they are very good" would be false. To say "they are poor" would be false. Just within this simple example there is tremendous range, Vernon is very good, the beginner is poor. Likewise, we can't state "magicians are extremely good at sleight of hand" or "cheaters are very good at sleight of hand". Many magicians aren't and many cheaters aren't...but it goes beyond that. Most working magicians are very proficient at the material in their reporatoire, that happens when you perform the same material time and time again night after night. But they might be completely clueless regarding material that they don't perform. The same goes for cheats, one might be very good at bringing a cooler into play but have an awful bottom deal. So you can't make blanket statements. All of this is obvious to anyone who has lived, sat down and thought about it.
What we frequently do is make generalizations. Unfortunately, most people aren't extremely good at articulating themselves in a very precise manner and thus will often substitute blanket statements where they should be placing qualified generalizations. I think it's important to pick at the details here. Why? Because language is more than just words, sounds and arrangements of symbols, language is about ideas, your language and the language that surrounds you actually impact the way you think. (For those who have the time this is actually a fascinating study to break down various cultures, examine their language, everything from basic words to complex grammar. I'll give you a simple example. We often hear the phrase "everything is relative". This belief comes very much from our language, which is very much a relative language "hot", "cold", "big", "small", "fast", "slow". These are all relative words and becoming so acquainted with viewing things in this manner leads us to certain conclusions. By contrast, there are other languages where relatives don't exist, statements are made in absolute form. You can't say "he is standing behind the tree", there is no "behind" in the language, so it changes the way you think about things.) Thus, you'll forgive me when I demand more than simple errors that could be rationalized to an accurate position, I feel being precise is important.
Returning to this issue of generalizations and blanket statements. If you say "always" or "never", you are almost always wrong, because there are almost always exceptions. Keep in mind as well, that to prove an assertion like "all" or "none", requires knowledge of all cases, which no one truly has, while disproving such an assertion requires knowledge of only one exception. That is a case in this thread, some individuals came out and expressed very blanketing views that are easily disproven by illustrating just a single example to the contrary. Everyone would be well advised to be more specific when possible.
So, since we must deal with groups and not just individuals, we often come up with generalizations. The more precise these generalizations are the better and the more accurate they are, we should strive for accuracy, we should strive for truth. Yes, that is an opinion of mine, anyone who objects to it is welcome to do so. An example of this kind of generalization. Saying "most magicians are skilled at sleight of hand" is much less accurate than "most working magicians are skilled at the sleight of hand in their working repertoire".
So to answer the original question of the thread, how skilled are cheats? There is no simple answer because it depends from one cheat to another, but from everything I've seen and heard, the majority aren't that skilled. Perhaps one of the best sources on this subject would be the user "Unknown419" from the magic cafe and I believe this one as well. For those questioning the subject, reading over his comments in the thread "would a real cheat write this" might be enlightening. Another potentially good source is Steve Forte for obvious reasons. Steve's assertion tends to be that most magicians know a lot more sleights and are better at those sleights than most cheats, but that most cheats have a better understanding of when to perform the move and how to employ it.
For my part, I've never met a really skillful cheat. The cheats I've known aren't that great. That isn't to say really good ones don't exist, I've just never met them. And from what I've heard from others this is the rule, not the exception.
Now as for the mentality of cheaters. I'm going to state right off that just like for the sleight of hand, you can't make a blanket statement and I know personal examples of the blanket statements that have been made earlier in this thread. We can generalize yes, the more precise the generalization the better, but it is important that these are qualified generalizations and not blanket statements, that we acknowledge the exceptions involved.
Do all cheats cheat because they need the money? No, certainly not. Do some cheats need the money? Yes. Could they get money by other means? Often, yes, in some cases no. Something you really have to take into account here is culture and location. It is difficult in the western world to fathom the situation in some other parts of the world. We live in areas where people with microwaves and cable TV go to food banks to get food, these people really aren't that hard done by. By contrast, there are people in some countries who live on the streets with filth and virtually nothing who don't have food banks they can go to. Obviously, this cultural dynamic creates totally different scenarios for those living in them. The culture extends beyond these basic physical conditions as well to the mentality of the people, their attitudes regarding certain issues and their tolerance for those issues. I'll come back to this later.
Something I should clear up immediately is an area where I believe some confusion developed, namely professional cheating for money, cheating for money, and just plain cheating. Each is different in its own way, but each is similar as well. You cannot state "there is only one reason to cheat", because that doesn't account for this gradient. How many have ever cheated on a test? Was the reason for doing this the same as cheating at cards? How many have cheated in a manner that doesn't make them a winner and done so on purpose? Was this the same as cheating for money? The answer at least in some of the cases is no, they were not always the same, yet all were cheating. You can split straws all you like and try to telegraph the statement into a certain scenario in order to remain correct, but the reality is something very different and disputes have arisen over confusion on this point.
What might surprise some people is the secondary yet intrinsic nature of certain parts. I'll give you an example, business. Why are people in business? To make money. The purpose of business revolves around making money...but what of someone like Bill Gates who can't possibly use all the money he's made yet still goes to work at 6 am? Is it about the money for him? Obviously not. On the other hand, if you were to take away the money would he still do it? I can't answer that, but I suspect things would change. This illustrates one of the attitudes held amongst some cheaters. Do they need the money? Possibly not. Would they still cheat if they didn't need the money? Possibly, yes. If there wasn't any money involved would they still do it? Often not. (These results come from an interview I did with a regular card cheat, for those who might want to question them. Again, I won't take on the arrogance of some members of these boards in stating that this is the only experience. For some people it might be all about the money. For others the money might be irrelevant (and yes, both categories of people exist, again, I am speaking here from personal experience, so whether it is rare or not is up for dispute, but to totally eliminate this group would denote monumental ignorance and close mindedness on the subject). But this is one perspective that definitely exists.
(For those uncertain about the results given above, in at least one situation the answers given were. Do they need the money? No. Could they get it by other means? Yes. Would they still cheat if they didnt need the money, if they had as much as they could want? Yes. Would they do it if no money was involved? Generally no, or if they did, it wouldnt satisfy them in the same way. Again, this is just one viewpoint, there are others who wouldnt cheat people when money is involved, others who wouldnt cheat if they didnt need the money, and others who wouldnt cheat to give themselves an edge. The point is that all mentalities exist, I personally know of people in all categories, so to dismiss them is simply ignorance. But note on the other hand that this doesnt make these people the rule by any means.)
I am going to go out on a limb and state that for professional cheaters (that is to say, people who earn their living cheating), it is much more about the money than it is for those who arent professional cheats. Its important to make this distinction. Mr. Horowitz made a comment that generally reflects this viewpoint while remaining seemingly ignorant to the broader viewpoint. This isnt to begrudge him his experience, but it reflects a limited viewpoint just like the experiences of everyone are limited and must be taken in context.
So now, I come to the question of morality. Morality is yes, a field of philosophy and there are disagreements on the subject, there are disagreements on most subjects. However, certain viewpoints can always be eliminated when they fail to provide internal consistency. In other words, while we may not know the absolute truth on a grand scale, we can know that certain viewpoints are wrong. I understand that most people on these boards have probably never studied morality to any real degree. Most people have never thought about it much, never questioned the ins and outs, the subtleties, exceptions and reasons. This isnt necessarily a bad thing, but it means that most people have inconsistent morality, and in so far as that inconsistency is concerned, something is wrong. You cannot state that the sky is blue and the sky is not blue and be correct; you are proven wrong by your own internal inconsistencies. Likewise, you cant say killing is always wrong and then say killing is acceptable in these circumstances. One of those statements is wrong; possibly, they both are simply due to the fact that they are internally inconsistent.
Obviously, people generally dont like being told they are wrong; they dont like having to deal with their own faults and failures. People also generally dont like having their world or viewpoint challenged, so the disputes that have arisen are unsurprising. What is depressing is the apparent inability or unwillingness of individuals to confront, address and reason through the issues. For example, to state that cheating is wrong. Fair enough, you can take that viewpoint, but then the question is why is cheating wrong? (I do ask that those reading actually genuinely ask themselves these questions and attempt to answer them). The easiest answer is something similar to God said it is, or such and such a source says it is. Again, fair enough, it is essentially a statement that cheating is wrong in and of itself, by decree rather than out of a specific reason. I personally reject this point, I dont believe anything happens or is decreed without reason and yes, that is a an opinion, but I believe its a much more defensible one than the viewpoint that something is wrong by decree. (Ill get to this later).
Another reason might be it is wrong because it hurts others. Again, fair enough, but if you are going to say so then in order to be consistent you have to make two other statements. Cheating is not wrong if it doesnt hurt others, and anything that you do that hurts others is wrong. So, if you want to take that position be very sure you also accept the consequences of that position. If you are internally inconsistent then, though I disagree with you, Im likely simply to agree to disagree. (Note, there is the second question of whether your internal philosophy matches up with the external reality, but we wont address that yet). There is another question that you must confront here as well, namely why is it wrong to hurt others? (I think if youre following along youll begin to see how and why most people havent ever thought the issue of morality through).
Another reason might be it is deceptive. Again, fair enough, but you must be consistent. In other words, if you say it cheating is wrong because it is deceptive, then anything else that is deceptive (including magic) is also wrong. Likewise, if the cheating isnt deceptive (arguably a bit of a contradiction, but you could rationalize it), then it isnt wrong. Likewise, you are confronted with the question of why is being deceptive wrong? (I hope readers can see how, when I ask these questions it isnt a personal attack or challenge, but these are a genuine part of determining proper, consistent, morality. I hope we can agree that truth is good, that ideally, we get to the truth; we gain better understanding. I am always willing to listen to good reasoning, I dont have all the answers and would certainly be interested in a viewpoint that accurately expressed and explained the subtleties and nuances of this field of study. That requires the ability to answer these questions, to work through to the core of the philosophy).
Another reason might be it is against the law. If so, then if the law tells you that hugging your wife is wrong, then it is wrong. If the law tells you to cheat, then you should cheat. If there is no law, then apparently it isnt wrong. I think we can easily see why this cant be the standard where morality is concerned. The whims of men are simply too unreliable.
Another might be that it brings negative consequences. (Obviously, youd have to define negative consequences; a common one might be a hedonistic viewpoint, which in itself isnt very quantifiable). This would mean that any case where it brings positive consequences it is good and every case where anything brings negative consequences it is bad. (This is a rough view of the viewpoint espoused by consequentialism. Its what most people, when you get right down to it seem to believe. But there are huge disputes over what the consequences are and what makes the consequences good or bad).
A myriad of other possibilities might exist and I am genuinely interested in hearing them, but if someone wants to put a viewpoint forward they should be able to defend it and follow it through to its logical conclusion. If you reject an aspect of this conclusion then, as a result of integrity you should give up the viewpoint that led you there.
I know some people like to try and separate cheating from other issues, but all morality flows from the same core, you cant pull cheating out, cheating is nothing special, it is a product of the same environment, psychology and philosophy as the rest of life, so its important to view the foundations. Perhaps some people arent well versed in the process of philosophy and science, theres nothing wrong with that, but if you want to discuss the subject, you should realize that ultimately you have to get down to the root from which the other aspects spring. Generally the issues that bring us there are not terribly central or worthy of discussion on their own. After all, none of us, nor any concept or idea exists in isolation.
My opinion, having studied the subject thoroughly and being both willing and able to answer the questions that flow from the position is that one can in good conscience only take the position of virtue ethics with respect to morality. This flies in the face of history and general culture. It isnt a viewpoint that is easy for a society to work with, but it is I believe the only truly effective solution presented on the subject. I will explain. There are basically three lines of thought on the subject of morality. The first is deontology, at its simplest level, this is the issue of decree I mentioned above. That certain things are wrong simply in and of themselves, by some magic force, power, or statement. It is wrong because God says it is wrong. This line of thought suggests that the end does not justify the means. What I feel is wrong with this is that it is by nature unjust. You will be punished for breaking a rule you never knew existed. Some people get around this by suggesting that we all inherently know the rules, but I think the fact that we are arguing over what they are suggests otherwise. In other words, punishing people for breaking a rule they never knew existed is unjust and that is exactly what this position suggests. (If you wish to debate it, Id be happy to do so, either by email, or in some other forum, or whatever). The second position is consequentialism, that things are wrong because of their consequences. There is often a blurred line between consequentialism and some other fields because of course you have to establish good and bad consequences, which is a question of values and you have to convert these into absolutes. However, simplistically, this viewpoint suggests that the end does justify the means. That its ok to kill someone if that brings about the best result in the situation. Some might argue as an example that killing Hitler would have been justified because it would save the lives of millions of people. The problem with this view is that it is likewise unjust because you dont know what the consequences will be. Im sure weve all had cases where we did something with the best of intentions and it turned out poorly. According to consequentialism, you did wrong because things turned out poorly, but how can we be condemned for something we didnt know? It is unjust.
This brings us to virtue ethics, which suggests that neither the consequences, nor the actions determine right or wrong. Rather, it is a question of how your decisions, your will, reflect on your excellence as a person. The reason why this is acceptable when the others fail is that the consequence is inherent, there is a direct reflection that cannot be altered and you are inherently aware of what it is. Thus, it is just. Notice the subtle differences between this approach and say a deontological approach though. Deontology does not allow for the imperfect knowledge of man, nor does consequentialism, but here, your motivation becomes relevant. Keep in mind, motivation doesnt specify a particular response. For example, someone kidnaps your child and threatens to kill the child if you go to he police. Now, someone motivated by courage might go to the police anyway, overcoming the fear for the child with the belief that he stands the best chance of saving the child if he does go to the police. On the other hand, he might overcome the fear of facing the situation alone and courageously avoid going to the police. In both cases, the person was courageous, and that quality reflects well upon them, but they took opposite actions. So, this view of ethics takes into account your individual beliefs, circumstances etc. There is something else that is important to note. Namely, the reflection on your excellence as a person has nothing to do with how people perceive you. People could think you did the most horrible thing and were just acting out of greed, but that doesnt reflect on whether you did right or wrong, ethics become very personal in this context.
I find it interesting that generally those who a deontological perspective tend to impose that view onto others, but take more of a virtue ethics approach with themselves. Not always of course, but in many cases. This is wrong, youre doing wrong! Well what about you? Oh, well it was ok for me because In a sense with virtue ethics, motivation becomes the deciding factor. Not intent, recall the expression the road to hell is paved in good intentions, but motivation.
So, what are these qualities or virtues that contribute to excellence? Virtues. Unlike in other cases, there is good arguments for and understanding of natural law in this context. Think of a culture where courage is scorned. Can you? I doubt it. We often say that was stupid, not courageous, or that was cowardly, but never courage is a bad thing. There are of course many of these, hard work (people sometimes say working too much is a bad thing, but have you ever heard of a culture where hard work is considered a bad thing?), fortitude, justice, truth, love etc. These arent learned rules or lessons, they are inherently understood concepts. You dont need to preach love to a newly discovered race or people in order for them to know of and understand love. I hope you can see that.
How does cheating fit into virtue ethics? Cheating itself become irrelevant, the relevant question becomes what is the motivation of those involved? This is one of the big differences between magicians and cheats in most cases. In most cases, cheats arent very well motivated, while magicians are reasonably well motivated. Are cheats trying to make the world a better place? It is conceivable, but unlikely and rare. Rather, the tendency in cheating is generally, for the most part (notice how I qualify my statements here, its a lesson some of the more outspoken could learn and something that those who read my posts should notice before getting emotional and lashing out), rooted in qualities contrary to virtue. Often selfish, often the very opposite of hard working, a viewpoint that seeks an easy out, seeks to avoid the hard work and struggle for success, often contrary to an attitude of justice etc. etc. etc. This is why there is a concern. I make no excuses, there are times when hypothetically this isnt the case, but generally these types of concerns exist. By contrast, you frequently encounter magicians who practice magic with the desire to help people experience wonder, they make the world a little better by lifting the spirits of those for whom they perform and are propelled by this. The deceptions occur for the sake of the audience rather than at the selfish expense of the audience. A fundamentally different view between how the audience is viewed exists. This is the difference. It isnt always the case, there are magicians motivated by money or ego, individuals with a selfish disregard for their fellows or their audience, those who are condescending and possess an air of superiority, who revel in manipulation rather than communication. I make no excuses for these people, but as a general rule, there is a clear difference between the motivations on each side.
How about the fine lines I mentioned with regard to cheating? The answers again are presented in very simple form. You dont have to worry about hard and fast rules, the question is not the individual actions, but rather the motivation involved, thats where the line is drawn, and it varies from one individual to the next. If someone feels they are taking advantage of another player by exploiting sloppy play and they do so, then they are poorly motivated. On the other hand, they may be well motivated and choose not to exploit such things, even going so far as to help the other player by pointing out the sloppy play. Some might have a colder approach, feeling that the lesson is best taught the hard way, by exploiting it and allowing the player to feel the pain associated with his errors. One isnt right and the other wrong; it is a question of the motivation, exploitation and selfishness vs. love, respect and selflessness.
Likewise for gambling, it isnt right or wrong as some might say, it is a question of ones motivation in gambling. Lifes a gamble, you wake up in the morning and youll take risks measured against prospective gains. Most of these are simple and insignificant, and gambling for entertainment with a loving and virtuous motivation isnt a bad thing at all. But doing it with a poor motivation, out of a will that opposes excellence, virtue, it is a wrong thing.
So how about the laws? The laws dont establish morality, people establish laws and hopefully we do our best in making those laws, but there is no hard and fast rule that we should always follow them. We should follow them when we believe it is right, when we dont have a serious opposition to them, but when they preach something we oppose strongly it is our moral duty to stand up and oppose them. Five principles of living: duty, integrity, virtue, love & nobility.
Ideally, the laws are designed to protect the citizens to promote a strong, healthy culture and society. In order to do so we stipulate certain values held by that culture and are careful to protect those values. Sometimes the values are right, sometimes they arent. Sometimes we punish the innocent, sometimes the innocent go free. We strive for the best we can and sometimes as a society, for the sake of law, must remain dogmatic, because we, unlike God, do not know the hearts and minds of those we are judging, while our citizens can at least learn our laws.
Finally, regarding admirable people. I dont think its our place to judge, but we inevitably admire qualities. Generally, these qualities that we admire are things we would like to see in ourselves, that we should see in ourselves. Obviously, people are diverse and multi-dimensional, to reduce them to a single act or quality is to do them a grave injustice, whether it reflects favorably on them or not. Ultimately though, it is those virtues, those qualities and not the acts from which they spring that make a person admirable. We are each limited in our outlook, we cant determine the inner trials and tribulations each individual encounters, so our assessment is flawed, nor is it terribly important that we make such an assessment. But where we see qualities of excellence displayed, far from ignoring them for want of other such qualities, we should be inspired and strive to attain the same in ourselves.
-
Guest
Re: artifice at the card table
great stuff-just one quick thing for you 2 guys with the one word names. when you post such rambling things to each other, no one reads them.