I should write a bit about flipism.
Flipism, the idea that life choices can be outsourced to randomness, is like all things the product of a Donald Duck comic.
In the comic, he becomes a fervent flipist after a snake-oil philosopher convinces him of its merit. Donald gets in a car accident after flipping a coin to decide whether to hit the gas or the brake, etc. It catastrophically fucks up his life due to him making absurd decisions at the literal flip of a coin.
In the decades since, people played around with the idea. Obviously flipping a coin for every decision is absurd. But are there some decisions where you'd be better off by flipping a coin? Which decisions in fact are benefitted by outsourcing one's executive functioning to an entropy source?
Game theorists noted that the introduction of randomness allows for mixed strategies, ensuring Nash equilibria where previously none could exist. Flipping a coin could literally turn an unwinnable game into one that could be beaten.
Psychologists like Daniel Kahneman, noted the cognitive strain caused by even simple decisions, and how terrible humans are at estimating and calibrating on probabilities. Outsourcing executive functioning can relieve that cognitive overhead as well as produce decisions which inherently adhere to actual probability rather than skewed and biased models.
So, there are some decisions that do in fact benefit from being outsourced to randomness. My goal here is to explore pragmatic flipism: which decisions, in practice, are better done by stochastic decision-making processes?