The Lottery part 2: Understanding

This is  a continuation of the discussion in the last post, The Lottery part 1: Where's the source?
in which I responded to a Facebook post shared on the Sociological Life page, which was an article with the attention grabbing title, "Poor Households Earning $13K Per Year Spend Over $1K On Lottery Tickets."

In the last post, I gave my first response to this article, which was: Where's the source for this provocative statistic?

In this post I move on to my second response to the article, which is to say that we need to be careful not to make the "fundamental attribution error." We should carefully look at why the poor might spend money on the lottery, instead of just dismissing all poor lottery players as irrational, irresponsible, and wasteful. Homans suggested that all behavior was rational to the person acting it out, and I think that poor lottery players make rational decisions to play the lottery. The point is to try and understand their logic, even if we do not agree with it.

There are couple of sources I came across that offer some insight into this question that I want to share:

The first is an academic paper that analyzes the issue sociologically, using a macro - quant approach:  "Why the Poor Play the Lottery: Sociological Approaches to Explaining Class-based Lottery Play"
The authors found that social networks played the strongest role in influencing this behavior, and a positive correlation was found between having feelings of futility in one's work or life and playing the lottery. There results help refute the idea of poor lottery players simply being dumb or wasteful. They suggest that social factors play an important role here.

The second source I want to share with you touches on this same social network idea. This is a much more informal online article at dailyfinance.com that discusses the issue anecdotally, and it is titled, "Poor people spend 9% of income on lottery tickets; here's why." (Notice that this article refers to the same statistic I went looking for). This is not an academic text, but the author makes some valid points that relate to the results found in the academic source above. I also find his points valid based upon my experience coming from a working class poor background.

There are both social and rational influences behind the decisions of the poor to "waste" money on the lottery. The experience attached to playing the lottery may be considered worth the price regardless of outcome. As the second source mentions, for some it has become a socialized ritual that may hold a place of high value in the family, much like dinner around the table or holiday rituals for many families. Also, for a lot of people whose overall life situation feels imprisoning and hopeless, buying a ticket inspires euphoric what-if daydreams about a life free from their current stress and limits, and these daydreams provide a much needed break from harsh realities. Seeing it from these perspectives highlights the complexity involved and the problem with dismissing this whole group as irresponsible and wasteful.

From this viewpoint we can see that poor people buying lotto tickets is not much different from the middle class spending money on Christmas decorations for their family holiday rituals or vacations for that much needed get away. The middle class might spend thousands or even tens of thousands to be a beach bum or a mountain recluse while the poor people shell out $2 a pop for a small taste of the escape they will likely never get.

Again, I certainly agree that the lottery has a negative financial impact on the poor, but who am I to say that it is all just wasteful spending that has no value and serves no purpose. To dismiss this as simple stupidity or irresponsibility seems at best inconsiderate and at worse ignorant. Instead, I find myself looking at the bigger picture and asking: In the land of opportunity, what causes so many people to feel so uninspired and doubtful about their future that they find their source of hope in a gamble with impossible odds???  ... Now, there is a discussion worth having. Maybe next time.

D. Matthew Ray

The Lottery Part 1: Where's the source?

 This post about the "lotto" was actually inspired by a facebook post shared on the Sociological Life FB page, which is facebook.com/sociologicallife. (Check out the FB page and feel free to comment). The post was sharing an article by conservative media man Andrew Breitbart. The article is titled "Poor Households Earning $13K Per Year Spend Over $1K On Lottery Tickets". 

Let me begin my response by saying Thank You to Brandon Patterson, who shared the post. This is a disheartening headline. Also, I want to be very clear that I agree with many of the critics out there that the lottery by and large is a tax on the poor. While the lottery is certainly voluntary and legal, and I do not know enough to say whether it intentionally preys on the poor, the reality is that it does effect them substantially. Much of the money collected in the lottery comes from those who can least afford it. Ironically, I receive lottery scholarship money to help pay for my education, but I still recognize the problem.

Back to the article: I have two responses to this article. I will discuss the first one on this post, and the second in a much shorter follow up post.

The first response is a simple question: Where is the source that supports this headline???  As a sociologist I am always curious about the data. I want to see the actual methods and results associated with claims, both because I enjoy understanding the research and because media claims are often hyperbolic or outright unfounded. Finding the answer to my question proved to be more difficult than I thought.

 The only link Breitbart gives seems to be arbitrarily tied to the random word "rely" in his piece. This link leads here, to theweek.com article, "How the $500 million Powerball lottery is a tax on the poor." I don't understand why Breitbart would use a bold statistic in his headline and not even give an original source or explanation for that statistic. So, my journey began to find the source of this provocative statistic. The Week article quoted and linked to Natasha Lennard at Salon (another media site), and in this quote she mentioned a version of the statistic and gave the vague credit to a PBS report earlier this year.

Therefore, I followed that link to Natasha's post, "Powerball's Dark Side."  There I saw Natasha's statement, which was actually the best supported yet in that it gave both credit and a link right there in the text for anyone to verify. Here is her statement:

"Meanwhile, a PBS report earlier this year showed that, for America’s very poorest, the lottery is a heavy expenditure: Households that earn at most $13,000 a year spend 9 percent of their money on lottery tickets." 

As you can see, she placed a helpful link to the PBS report directly in the statement. However, when I clicked on this link I found out that PBS is not the original source either. (((heavy sigh))). But, I was now very close. In the video of the PBS report (and the transcript provided below it), the reporter quotes the statistic and gives credit to the actual source: "Households earning under $13,000 per year spend about 9 percent of their income on lottery tickets, on average, according to a 2008 study from 'The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.'"

Finally, the original source... well, at least the title of the journal where the original source came from. Unfortunately, PBS does not bother to provide any actual links or reference to the specific source. My long rabbit trail from Breitbart's grand title led me through 3 other sites in search of the source only to stop here. So, I had to google it in hopes of finding the data. This is where it gets surprising and frustrating.

I googled around and quickly found several sites espousing this statistic and referencing the same journal study, which turned out to be "Myopic risk-seeking: The impact of narrow decision bracketing on lottery play". This is the copiously alluded to source of this very provocative statistic.

Here comes the crazy part: I DO NOT SEE THIS STATISTIC IN HERE ANYWHERE. I kid you not. Numerous sites of varying degrees of credibility and prestige are parroting this same statistic, but I did not see it in the source at all! What is going on here? I am shocked. Now, I am very open to the possibility that I have somehow missed it. I did not scour the article. I did skim through all the results and even did a search by terms to try and find this statistic in case I missed it. Nothing. So, I also looked over the data to see if this statistic was derived from the data but not in the discussion. Nothing. However, I am still human and just a lowly student, so I may be wrong. In fact, I invite anyone to find what I have missed and point it out to me in the comments below or on the FB page. Honestly, I would rather be wrong on this one. I dare you! ... No, but seriously this is crazy. Where are they getting this statistic? Am I missing something?

Stay tuned for the next post to hear my second response: Understanding.

D. Matthew Ray

The Problem of Social Inequality

Social Inequality in America is a big issue. This video is a trailer for a new set of documentaries on the issue. I have to point out one flaw I saw in this clip, which is that there are multiple references to republican government officials being bought, but no specific references to democrats being bought. I find this laughably ridiculous because both sides of the aisle are chock full of purchased politicians. All of Capitol Hill is a corporate mistress in my opinion. While the republican party may be more ideally aligned with the rich, the corruption is very "bipartisan." In my opinion, the two party system is just a good puppet show that helps placate America and prevent any substantial change, but there I go getting all conspiracy theory-ish again. Hopefully, the full documentary is a little less biased.

That being said, this clip, and the website, seem to be on the right track in general. America is absurdly wealthy and developed as a nation, and yet inequality is getting worse. Why is that? Statistics show that the wealth continues to accumulate in the hands of the already wealthy. The cliche that the rich keep getting richer while the poor get poorer is in fact true. The issue here is not that some people are rich nor that some are poor. It is not about "class warfare" and despising the rich because they have and we do not. No, the problem is not about the rich having too much. Rather, it is about so many not having enough. Who cares if Richie Rich lives in a billion dollar mansion without having to work a day in his life, as long as the rest of us at least have the opportunity to work hard and afford a modest home and reasonable lifestyle that doesn't force us to beg or die young of stress-induced heart attacks from working 3 jobs to survive. Actually, some do care a lot about this dichotomy, but most Americans are okay with some inequality. Inequality is inherent and unavoidable in our society as it is, but gross levels of inequality are not unavoidable, and they are killing the American dream.

The American dream is based on meritocracy, the idea that success is based upon personal merit. If you work hard enough and play by the rules, you can and will achieve success, which is usually pictured as a middle class life that includes the picket fence and all. Is this true or did someone just make this up? Well.. It was true at one point for some people. For the great immigrant masses coming to America up until the 20th century, this idea was plausible, if not probable. This idea remained fairly accurate into the 20th century for SOME (think of the path for African-Americans or women other than picturesque married housewives). But, is it true today?  Not really. If the heart of the dream were that some people who work really hard might possibly achieve a middle class life, then it would be absolutely true. However, the idea that anyone who works hard enough and plays by the rules can achieve a middle class life (or even a noticeably better life), is simply not true. Everyone does not have this opportunity. So many are never given near enough social capital to attain this dream. For them, the American dream is a myth that haunts them daily. This is the problem of gross inequality. When conditions become such that success is primarily a matter of ascribed luck rather than merit, then the American dream dies and takes with it the hopes and futures of generations of people unlucky enough to be born outside of the privileged classes of society.

D. Matthew Ray

**Update:  Thank you to Amy Reynolds from Black, White, and Gray for pointing out this great Economist article on the issue. Especially good is the section under the heading "A long ladder is fine but it must have rungs."

Gender Socialization

Recently, in my digital rhetoric writing class an interesting thing happened. We were discussing political tweets, and about halfway through the discussion the professor stated an observation. She pointed out that the class was divided cleanly in half with all those actively participating in the discussion on one side, and all those remaining fairly quiet on the other. As it turns out one half was entirely men and the other women. It was brought up that girls are often socialized to not speak up and engage in conversations, especially about politics.

Yet, I have noticed that in general, the males dominate the conversations in the class. There is a clear gender divide. It seems to be a clear example of how boys and girls are socialized differently. Males are taught to be commanding and to take charge, whereas females are often taught to shy away from being too outspoken. The difference is very clear in my class. 

At first glance, this divide may seem harmless enough. We hear that women tend to be more driven by relationships and men by missions or goals. So, it would make sense that women would learn to be less aggressive in these conversations for the sake of maintaining good relationships right?  Perhaps. But the problem is that if women are not engaging in these conversations as much as men, then the thoughts, ideas, and overall progress of society is still being dominated by men, causing change to favor males over females. In order to achieve a truly egalitarian future, all voices need to be heard equally, and if my writing class is any indicator, we still have a ways to go.

D. Matthew Ray 

Christmas Light Show

Okay. After the last post on Black Friday I decided I needed something good to talk about. This post is pure entertainment. No profound thoughts here. Just a great Christmas light show. Whether you officially celebrate Christmas or not, there is a lot of fun to be had during this season. Case in point is this video showcasing a pretty impressive Christmas light show. Enjoy!

I can't believe it is time to say those words again already.

Merry Christmas

D. Matthew Ray

Black Friday

Tis' the season for animalistic consumer fights! That's right. Black Friday has come again. I find it ironic that we take a special day out of each year to remember what we are thankful for and focus on valuing family and friends, and then the very next day we erupt into a capitalistic frenzy and are ready to fight anyone necessary in the name of consumerism. Black Friday is a dark day indeed.

The videos and stories are ridiculous. People get trampled and injured and are anything but grateful and kind to each other, and all for what? So that the corporate moguls can sit back and watch Americans flood the aisles like hordes of mice or roaches, trained as if by Pavlov himself to run and shove at the sight of 50% off! They laugh all the way to the bank. Meanwhile, people get injured and act atrocious.

I say do away with Black Friday!!! How awful to trivialize and demean the spirit of Thanksgiving by following it with this insidious ritual of consumerism. I have no problem with great sales, but the corporations are perfectly capable of offering great sales and driving sales without creating these terrible conditions. A great example of this is what has come to be called Cyber Monday. This allows for a similar sales hype to give good deals and boost sales, but from the safety of one's own computer where no one will get steamrolled in their quest for the latest i-gadget.

D. Matthew Ray

P.S. How do you feel about Black Friday?  Is it really worth it?

Election Reflection

So.... the election is finally over. It will be such a bummer to not be bombarded with ads and facebook posts about who loves the country and how we must move forward. It's okay. It is. Post Election Depression is a common, treatable disorder. Just breathe.

Now that the decision is finished who you voted for or supported is not what matters. Obama is the Prez, and our country needs a lot of work. This election seemed to bring out a lot of negativity in my opinion. Negative ads, slanderous tweets and posts, and harsh division have surrounded this election. I didn't think such demonizing negativity was necessary or appropriate then, and it is certainly useless now. It is my sincere hope that we, as a country, can take a breather and realize that those on the other side of the aisle are not evil or ignorant. Most of us are trying to do what we think is right the best we know how. If we can just accept that simple notion, then perhaps we can respect and engage one another with dignity and hope for accomplishment.

Wouldn't it be great if facebook posts actually championed cooperation and complimented the positive work and ideas of both sides?  Wouldn't it be a huge relief (and possibly a verifiable miracle) if politicians from all parties actually sought to work with differing colleagues in order to accomplish the greatest good for the people of America? If bipartisanship wasn't trendy hot rhetoric anymore because it is merely the expected norm?

I am very interested in concerns represented on both sides of the aisle, and I am exasperated with government games like partisan bickering, manipulation, blame games, lack of transparency, and on and on. I have real issues with the whole government system, and I don't think any one president fixes them. I only hope that enough of our elected officials will stop acting like arrogant demagogues and will act like public servants so that we can actually accomplish things worth being proud of as a nation.

I Read Some Marx (And I Liked It)

This is just a really funny video that I had to share.  I found it at another good Sociology blog, Everday Sociology  (Thanks to Peter Kaufman).  It is quite funny but Peter's post raises a very good and relevant issue about the modern demonization of Karl Marx. Most people know little to nothing about Marx. His name is only thrown about as politically charged insults. Certainly, all sociologists do not love Marx, but I would argue that any good sociologist will at least acknowledge that Marx had some valid points, and that his work is very relevant even today.

What is your view on Marx?  Love him? Hate him? Love his beard?? (me too)
Will the general public ever get to a point where they actually understand him, or will he continue to be caricatured in partisan political rhetoric?

Is the GRE legitimate?

Took the GRE yesterday.   ....ugghhh  What an ugly monster that was. According to the estimated scores I got, I did really well on the verbal section and pretty well on the quantitative section.  It was rough, and after taking it I found myself questioning the point of it. Most of the test questions were beyond material I need for my everyday academic life. The GRE is supposed to test graduate potential, but it seemed a bit irrelevant to me, and apparently to others. Check out this article:

http://psychcentral.com

I can understand why someone completely bombing the GRE might cause a red flag for graduate admissions, but I do not see the reverse. That is to say that I do not think that scoring really high on the GRE is a good indicator of a student's likely success in graduate school.
What do you think of the GRE? Is it a good indicator or a useless (or even biased) obstacle?

Hello Blogosphere

Hello all,

This is my first official blog. So I'll try not to suck too bad, but no promises. 

I am a senior sociology major at a small liberal arts college, and currently preparing applications for doctoral programs in sociology. I am also married with two kids. I started this blog to talk about issues, current events, and life in general from an emerging sociologist's point of view.

So, if you are into sociology or seeing life from a different perspective (or you just don't have anything better to do with your time), stop by and drop a comment.