it's analogous to pavlov's dog - you're still teaching it what to do if you keep smacking it each time it does something what you don't want it do

it just gets there by process of elimination

Where are you saying it goes by the process of elimination?

I'm imaging a naive model with finite options

I really mean that you're imposing it to search for the outcome that you're looking for

being the ethnostate, I assume you mean in this case

yup

because you don't know

you might toppple the gov

and then it naturally restructures itself into something worse

and then you gotta topple it again

Yeah, what I'm saying is that anything not organized according to nature will eat itself

marx was also an armchair anthropologist

That he was

and his idea to topple the bourgoise didn't end up in anything better

despite his model suggesting it would

it's dangerous to much such extreme decisions on such an inexact science

my eyes are getting blurry

let me ask you this

it won't seem relevant, but I'm curious how you'll asnwer

ok

Do you ever play poker?

last time was 2 hours ago, but it feels just like yesterday

How conservatively do you bet?

I get where your'e going with this

you're tellng me you make your decision based on expected value

however, you don't know what the deck is made of here, as the science isn't there yet

and , the variance is too large

Well, how do you play, though

I don't bet according to my psychological risk aversion, whatever it is

at least, I try not to

I folllow basic guidelines which are there to give me a sufficient probability to not go broke, given that I make +EV decisions

i.e 500th of my bankroll on a MTT

maybe 100th on a cash game

I don't know if you're familair with those terms

I'm a regular poker player

Can't say I'm an avid player

I was just curious how risk averse you were

everything is calculated before hand, so that the main decisions aren't up to my risk aversion

the one from my psyche

of course, I sometimes face boundary decisions within game