Listening to some financial podcasts about ‘wealth building” I noticed some analogies to racial activism (perhaps not surprising since child equivalents of EGI can be transformed into financial impacts based on estimated “values” of a human life, e.g., for insurance purposes).
One point made was that calculating probabilities is not sufficient; one must also estimate the potential value obtained from each outcome. Thus, outcome A may be more probable than outcome B, but if the payoff of B is far greater than that of A, it would be most prudent to invest in B rather than in A, since the “expected value” of B-oriented scenarios is greater than that for scenarios oriented around pursuing A.
This is one of the points I’ve previously made about Breezy’s “citizenism.” Yes, it may be that civic nationalism is more probable as an achievable outcome than racial nationalism (see: Trump, Donald J. as an example). Nevertheless, the potential outcome of racial nationalism is so far superior to anything achievable from civic nationalism (perhaps infinitely greater if one supposes that civic nationalism in America following current demographic trends would result in the White race replacement that racial nationalism would prevent), then it is obviously more prudent, form a cost/benefit ratio to pursue approaches leading to racial nationalist outcomes.
Another point made by financial analysts and advisers is to be process-driven rather than merely results-driven. An example given is to imagine a process in which there is 55% probability of success and 45% probability of failure, with equal relative outcomes of gain/loss respectively (and assume there are no other approaches that would give a higher expected value than pursuing this 55:45 advantage). A person who is purely results-driven, if they had lost after the first try, would give up, saying: I tried it and lost. A process-driven person would realize that, over time, this approach would yield value, given a sufficient sample size of attempts.
That’s very simplistic of course, and is not an argument against considering results – after all, if you attempted this approach 1,000 times and kept on losing, those results would inform you that the process was flawed. After all, you need feedback to judge whether the process is as effective as you originally thought. Further, you may not have the resources to keep on losing waiting for the process to work; there are many considerations where results are important. So, perhaps it is best to say that you should be BOTH process-driven and results-driven, not one or the other. At the beginning, it is best to emphasize process over results, to generate sufficient sample size so that the results become relevant. Later, the importance of a results-driven approach increases, but should never rise to the level of completely excluding process. Indeed, process can be refined based upon results (and of course results are driven by process, modified by probability).
I’m critical of Der Movement from the basis of BOTH process (which I find stupid and wrong-headed) as well as results (decades of failure represent a sufficient sample size to judge the lack of efficacy of process).