Originally Posted by ezekial
My hypothesis is quite specific, to wit:
ECONOMICS IS THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS.
In other words, even when there are other motives, the economic ones are the most important.
Originally Posted by ezekial
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. As such, it is a conclusion.
When does it become a hypothesis? Perhaps when one, or more, examples are presented (with supporting facts)?
Originally Posted by ezekial
Both my posts and those of numan present a reason why collective decisions tend to be less complex than those of individuals. There is no hard and fast way to determine the process that leads to complexity.
Originally Posted by Logtroll
That issue is the threat of Kim Jong Un re: attacking the U.S. What form does the economic motivator take that provokes North Korea's saber rattling?
This example does not include collective decisions. I suspect that Hitler and Saddam Hussein did not indulge in the collective decision-making process, either.

What we have so far is:
- A conclusion/hypothesis that ECONOMICS IS THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS.
- No examples have been looked at to support the conclusion/hypothesis.
- Several examples have been presented that seem to indicate that economics is not always the main motivation for wars and interventions.
- A second incomplete hypothesis that collective decision-making causes economic motivatiors (?).
- Several examples of nation-level dictatorial decision-making, suggesting that not all large-scale decisions are made collectively.

This discussion isn't really about proving a hypothesis, is it. It seems to be more of a hit-and-miss defense of a conclusion against contrary facts.


You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller