By: thepokercapitalist

thepokercapitalist — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 04:07:33 +0000

Thanks for your comment. One could argue that the immediate affect of the 9/11 terrorist attack was to inspire a legion of haters toward America (Thus making a terrorist attack more likely and increasing the EV of one). If that were the case, and there was an increase in risk following the 9/11 terrorist attack some kind of alterations to policy might be appropriate. However, even if you assume some small increase in risk the reaction was disproportionate in relation to the rise in risk.

In reality it does not seem that the risk of a terrorist attack emanating from the Middle East has increased significantly since 9/11. Al-Qaeda’s radical positions do not appear to have gained traction with a significant majority of the population. It seems al-Qaeda’s radical positions remain that of a very vocal and violent minority in the Middle East. This was the case prior to 9/11 and remains the case after 9/11. Prior to the terrorist attack we failed to deal appropriately with threats because an attack of its kind had happened before. After the attack we over reacted due to emotion and fear. Keeping a closer eye on the EV of a terrorist attack (where, when, and how they might strike) is the best way to thwart potential future attacks. Reacting in an emotional and dramatic fashion to a catastrophe is not likely to help us avoid future tragedy.

-ThePokerCapitalist

By: Jc

Jc — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 03:23:28 +0000

Disagree w/event #2. 9/11 did increase the chance of a future attack because it showed the people who have hatred towards the US, that an attack was possible. It’s sort of like positive reinforcement in my opinion. Let a child who sees his parents drinking and swearing is much more likely to produce the same behavior than a child who’s parents never get drunk or curse.

Comments on: Expected Value In Life! What Every Non-Poker Player Should Know

By: thepokercapitalist

By: Jc