We should only pursue the actions which are likeliest to rise above the froth of uncertainty

From Stubborn Attachments Is a Book about Uncertainty by Sam Brenner.  I have not read Stubborn Attachments.  This is a distinctly odd review.  But I do like a central element.  

My preferred view of the book's overall argumentative structure is more like the following:

G. Good things are better than bad things

H. We need to act in order to achieve good things

I. But there's a huge froth of uncertainty, and our actions might be counterproductive

J. So we should have faith

K. And also we should only pursue the actions with really high expected value and which are likeliest to rise above the froth of uncertainty

L. The actions that pass this test best are growth and rights, so we have to pursue both

Whether this is a good or useful summary of the book's argumentative structure, I do not know.

But it is a good summary of almost all difficult consequential decisions.  The easy and obvious stuff gets addressed daily.  The complex and difficult stuff rests on uncertainty.  What are the goals of our intended actions?, what are the trade-offs?, what are the second-order consequences?, who benefits and loses?  It is very challenging to arrive at an answer, and even harder to arrive at a consensus answer among the affected.  

"So we should have faith" - is indeed the answer in the face of uncertainty.  If we do not act, there is always a default.  That which will happen otherwise.  In what should we have faith?  In the interplay of values (goals) and culture (acceptable means) and personal competence (capabilities) and context.  Nobody is infallible and waiting for high confidence in high probability answers is the equivalent of waiting for Godot.  

Which is why "we should only pursue the actions with really high expected value and which are likeliest to rise above the froth of uncertainty."  When our culture drives us (or used to) towards empirical understanding, the scientific method, logic and reason, we can clear much of the quotidian detritus of micro-challenges.  Solving complex, dynamic, loosely coupled, chaotic problems means that we have low confidence in whatever solution we are proposing and therefore we need to be certain that there are indeed very high estimated returns which will make it worthwhile.

Solving these types of problems with only an average return means, because failure will be frequent, that we will end up worse off over time.  In a consensus based society, solving complex problems with uncertain outcomes and uncertain returns is a fast road to loss of Trust.  An outcome with which we are now tragically familiar.