Hi, everybody. This is Gadsad. Some of you who follow my work might remember when I explained

my doctoral dissertation from way back in 1994. For those of you who may not remember, my doctoral

dissertation was in the area of psychology of decision making, specifically. It looked at how much information do you need to acquire

between two competing alternatives for you to stop acquiring additional information and commit to a

choice and so this is known as a sequential binary choice model.

And what you basically do, you have these stopping thresholds

where you accumulate evidence, either in support of alternative A or alternative B,

until you reach one of the two stopping thresholds.

If you reach the stopping threshold of alternative A,

you stop acquiring additional information. You choose alternative A or the same thing for

alternative B. And I will put a link to an episode I had done where I had explained that work.

And the power of that doctoral dissertation, if I can speak of my own work, is that

it really explains the cognitive processes that exactly defines how people make decisions

irrespective of the decisions that they are making, whether it be choosing between

prospective spouses to marry or apartments to rent or political candidates to vote for.

And I took this principle and I applied it in other contexts, in an epistemological context,

which I won't get into here.

But what I wanted to do today is use that stopping threshold model to explore how much

evidence would you need to acquire before you stop and agree that the open border policies of the West are terribly detrimental,

suicidally and pathetically so, or no, they're wonderful. And so you can acquire information,

different sources of information until you either reach the threshold that tells you

open borders are a bad idea or open borders are a great idea.

...