Gambling is our generation’s smoking. And for applied behavioral scientists who choose to work in the industry, “I didn’t know” isn’t going to be an excuse.
To understand the problem, you first have to understand the scope. Gambling is big business, bigger than most people think: ~$70b in revenue last year in the US. That’s roughly the same as cigarette revenue.
And that business is directly connected to repetitive behaviors: a quarter of adult Americans are daily gamblers. Compare that to only a tenth that smoke daily. And the discrepancy will only get bigger, as youth gambling grows and elderly smokers die.
Those base rates matter. It is relatively easier to get people to increase the frequency of a behavior than it is to get them to start; it is easier to get existing gamblers to place more bets than it is to recruit new smokers. Which means dollar-for-dollar, the gambling industry is much more interested in applied behavioral science.
The job ads tell the story. Gambling companies (and yes, prediction markets are gambling companies) are already largely numbers-driven and predisposed to value the kind of methodical approach that applied behavioral scientists bring. And so it is no surprise that even a cursory look at the careers page of companies like Draft Kings and PolyMarket have plenty of job descriptions with terms like experimentation.
Especially in a bad market, those jobs are tempting: well-paid, advertised as fun because “gambling is entertainment”, and full of like-minded people who tend to be evidence-driven. My favorite Shakespeare quote applies: “My poverty, but not my will, consents.”
But there can be no illusion about the harm. ~60% of gambling revenue comes from people who are doing it at dangerous levels, destroying not only their own economic life but wreaking havoc on those around them. Just like drug addiction, gambling addiction means collateral damage.
And most people are aware. When four out of five folks recognize gambling addiction to be just as serious as alcohol addiction (and one in three believe it is more serious), ignorance is going to be a very poor defense.
Especially when it bleeds over into geopolitics. Six accounts made around $1 million in profit by correctly betting that the US would strike Iran in the hours before it happened. The accounts were newly made and placed no other bets. Subsequently, the White House issued a memo to staffers warning them against such behavior.
At best, it is war profiteering. At worst, it is war creating.
So do your career a favor and just say no. To be explicit about inhibiting pressures: from now on, if you are choosing to work in this space, my door is closed to you. But if you want to get out or find other options, I have open office hours for a reason, I will do all I can to help, and I am calling on other folks to do the same. Let’s create a pathway to meaningful work that doesn’t mean destroying the world.
Barry Schwartz argues that even a simple decision—like how to spend a free Saturday—reveals how complex human decision-making really is. With complete freedom, the mind cycles through countless possibilities, weighing productivity against relaxation, personal needs against social responsibilities, and short-term enjoyment against long-term goals. This abundance of choice can make deciding feel overwhelming rather than liberating.
He emphasizes that a key part of decision-making lies in how choices are framed. Whether someone approaches the day as a “me day,” a “we day,” or something broader fundamentally shapes which options feel relevant. Schwartz suggests that framing is not a flaw in decision-making but an essential feature, as it sets the context that guides what we consider and ultimately choose.
Schwartz also argues that real decisions are not made through simple, rational calculations. Instead, they involve a mix of emotions, values, relationships, and personal identity. People draw on different approaches—habit, pleasure, social expectations, or careful thought—depending on the situation, rather than following a single logical formula.
Ultimately, he believes that good decision-making depends on what he calls “intelligent reflection.” This involves considering multiple perspectives, connecting choices to personal values, and thinking about the kind of person one wants to be. Rather than reducing decisions to mechanical processes, Schwartz presents them as deeply human, shaped by both thought and meaning.
👉 Read the full piece here
You’re not “just” a behavioral scientist — you’re someone who knows human behavior is a competitive advantage. Here are 5 companies hiring people like you this week 👇
Senior Human Factors Researcher - Google
UX Designer, Google Maps - Google
Consumer Insights Director - EA (Electronic Arts)
Head of Customer Experience - Confidential
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.