[can.politics] Lotteries -- explaining to "stupid" people

idallen@watmath.UUCP (08/05/85)

> Is there anything so wrong with profiting from people's stupidity (if
> indeed lottery playing is stupid) when the consequences have been clearly
> pointed out to the victims? -- Martin Taylor

Perhaps part of being "stupid" is that one does not understand "cause
and effect" well.  Thus, it is, by definition, impossible to "clearly
explain" the consequences, since the "stupids" are incapable of
understanding.  It's sort of like showing a blind person a picture of a
wolverine and saying "don't go near these things", then walking away
feeling righteous that one has "explained" the danger of wolverines.

As a communicator, I am responsible for making you understand me.  If
I present you with a communication that you don't understand, I can
not feel righteous about it being your "fault".  If I want to convey the
information, it is my job to verify that you *do* understand.  I can't
justify my failure to make you understand simply by righteously saying "I
tried -- I wrote down the mathematical formulae involved and she still
walked out into the traffic".

With "reasonable" human beings, one assumes a "reasonable" level of
ability to understand.  However, if you know ahead of time that someone
is going to misunderstand your communication ("don't buy lottery
tickets"), you haven't done your job 100 percent.  Maybe getting 100
percent is too hard to do; but, failure to communicate doesn't justify
self-righteousness for "having tried" and it certainly doesn't justify
the induced misery caused in people your faulty message failed to reach.
-- 
        -IAN!  (Ian! D. Allen)      University of Waterloo