I savor the succulent choleric chaos of declaring that I value mere phlegm above yellow bile. That is almost a contradiction, but not quite; and the resulting blend has a choleric quality as well: a delicious humor.
I think the experiment's conclusion that subjects sought to model the cards instead of to maximise wins is only valid if they had the probabilities, and/or could easily verify them, at the start; and (as many have noted) saw the deck reshuffled after each trial. (Without the probabilities, it sounds like their 'mistake' would be not noticing a majority color or not optimising when they did - I think I read the experiment as intended, but readers might find doing so easier if given these conditions.)
In case you were exposing a core uncertainty you had - 'I want a) people to exist after me more than I want b) a MODEL that people exist after me, but my thinking incorporates b) instead of a); and that means my priorities are wrong' - and it's still troubling you, I'd like to suggest the opposite: if you have a model that predicts what you want, that's perfect! Your model (I think) takes your experiences, feeds them into a Bayesian algo, and predicts the future - what better way is there to think? I mean, I lack such computing power and honesty...but if a... (read more)