Reply to comment
I think a simpler
May 7, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 28 weeks ago
Comment id: 29678
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
I think a simpler explanation is, given the question out of context, that if you *lose* $100 that entails the loss of time/energy that went into acquiring the $100 in the first place whereas if you just *won* $100 you are gaining something you didn't have (which makes you happy) but it isn't truly satisfying as having earned it. This probably fits most people aside from people that get thrills from winning (e.g., gamblers) or from stealing.