You do have to wonder about the mental capacity of someone who would bet that a person would do something entirely within the control of that person (and when not doing it would have no signifcant cost to that person) without knowing whether they were betting against that person.
So many people go into any form of gambling (which is fully what I consider prediction markets to be) believing that they have a gimmick or system that’s going to work.
Or the naive belief that everyone is going to play fair, despite generations of scandals where people have proven they will NOT given enough motivation (gambling addicted players, coaches, etc.).
And that’s leaving out all the people that look at Trump’s commutation and Santo’s statements about “thanking Jesus” for saving him upthread as “proving” he’s not the crook he was proven to be.
As for Santos’ critical thinking abilities, I’m pretty sure we can point to everything about his career to confirm that it’s something he discarded early on for anything more complicated other than “Good thing I’ll never get caught!”.
At least players and coaches have some significant motifivation not to throw games (albeit not always enough). Santos not turning up to the SotU was never going to cost him anything.
True, Santos, in this like many other things, is an extreme case. And I’m not excusing their foolishness, but I can see it happening without needing to fall upon “mental capacity” issues. Blind faith in the system, information silos about his actual crimes rather than claims of victimhood, or the usual “Trump says he’s good, so…”.
Just the usual ream of human self-delusion, or at least, the usual-for-Trump-era levels of blind belief that if Trump xits/twuths, it must be so.
I don’t mean that in any formal legal or medical sense. I was just meaning “a bit stupid”.
They thought he was letting them on his racket and didn’t realize they were the marks.
Quoting from The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity [ PDF warning ]
Law #1: Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in
circulation.
•
Law #2: The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that
person.
•
Law #3: A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while
himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
•
Law #4: Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In
particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances
to deal and/or associate with stupid people infallibly turns out to be a costly mistake.
•
Law #5: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person. A stupid person is more dangerous than
a bandit.
I’m certainly not one of the bright lights of this board, being barely middling, but these laws come to mind when I’m out there in the world. I’ll admit to arrogance and confirmation bias, but even in these later days, the SDMB has quite a few well educated and well trained debaters, far and above the median in almost all respects.
And even then some of us (I’ll include myself from time to time to be sure!) use that same intellect to convince myself I’m right, when I should be pondering how I’m wrong instead.
The sort of people who fall for Santos and Trump probably never let that self-doubt take hold in their minds. Or rather, they can’t - because if they ever considered it, they might have to realize how thoroughly they’ve been had. Stupid isn’t just uneducated, or lower processing power, it’s the failure to consider things from a rational POV, rather than what feels good. Which is why we see so many faces eaten. They find one thing that makes them feel good/in control and tune out the rest even if it’s right in front of them.
Again, Santos is an extreme case - as is Trump. For whatever reason, Trump is better at selling that sizzle, and fits the image of what a “strong” leader is for far too many people who don’t want to think about problems, just that someone else will fix it for them.
Santos though doesn’t impress anyone, and his grifts are more embarrassing than anything else. He got away with as much as he did from apathy and the support of MAGA giving out covering fire and being ONLY concerned with their thin margins over all else… until it had people laughing at MAGA, and that’s something they can’t tolerate.
The fact that Santos is reduced to these petty little actions shows how much he’s been tossed aside. $17k is peanuts compared to what those just a little less foolish have managed by clinging to Trump.
So they bet he would do what he openly said he would do, the odds of which Kalshi put at 75%, and they somehow thought that constituted letting him in on his racket?
I thought a “racket” in betting consisted of conspiring to achieve an unexpected result, such that one can take advantage of long odds in its favour. And being let in on that racket is being told that the unexpected result is going to happen.
“I thought the Generals were due!”
And of course stupid people always assume they are non-stupid people. Or, to quote Ricky Gervais:
I’m not sure whether Santos or the people who believed him were more stupid in this instance, but there’s plenty of pain to go around.
In these cases like Santos, that everyone else is going to play fair and assume you will too, and you’ll get one over them.
More seriously though, I’m sorry but one would think betting on yourself over an outcome you can produce or not at will, should be out of the question to begin with.
But no else would know that he said he was attending. It was only the few brilliant people who read his tweet, so they totally have the inside line to secret info. And if the odds of something happening are 100% and the line is only 75%, that’s like printing money.
It’s easy to delude yourself.
I’m not really sure how this particular incident is supposed to make Santos look bad. It just reveals the profound stupidity of people who participate in “Kalshi”, both as bettors and as management.
Really? He told people he was going to be at the SOTU, so they would bet that he would be there. Then, he bet that he wouldn’t be there, and in fact did not show up, so he could collect the money that the suckers had wagered.
And you think that is acceptable behavior? I’d consider it lowlife, sleazeball, and crooked. But YMMV.
This. It’s why Santos got a lifetime ban, because it’s a huge problem for the gambling platforms. Not just Kalshi.
Exactly, and Kalshi showed how vulnerable they are to that sort of scam.
I had some fun reading that, but I’m surprised it didn’t refer to past work on the subject of stupdity.
There’s a little more of where that came from at:
All Santos really has to do is cuddle up to the Trumps and he’ll be ok again. Don Jr. has invested heavily in both Kalshi AND Polymarket.
“Advisory Role and Equity: Donald Trump Jr. joined Kalshi as a marketing adviser, receiving upwards of $300,000 in company shares that have since grown significantly in value.”
He’s also an advisor to Polymarket of course.
And there’s always Friedrich Schiller: