Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Human response is neither a factor in risk nor hazard. They are each attained through objective fact. Once you have them, you have enough information to determine the appropriate response. If emotion makes you act in any way contrary to the evidence, you've made a mistake.
|
Interesting.
When considering risk and hazard, using the laws of large numbers, two informed individuals would logically be expected to arrive at the same conclusion on how to respond to risk and hazard. If that is a given, then a single super computer could be used to solve all of our risk and hazard questions. Human input would not be required because there is a theoretical "correct" answer. However, there are far to many variables, even for a super computer to take into consideration. Subjective assumptions have to be included into the equations. These subjective assumptions have an emotional basis.
For example, in life insurance. At birth the risks and hazards can be calculated for expected mortality. Further more demographic analysis, psychological testing, intelligence testing and some other factors can project things like expected income. Macro economic analysis can project things like CPI, taxes, personal consumption patterns, etc. We could plug all that information into a computer and when a person finishes school we should be able to come up with the "correct" amount of life insurance that person needs and we should be able to come up with the "correct" premium to be paid to provide the "correct" amount of coverage. But, what actually happens? And when we look at all that "factual" data and apply it to the decisions being made by an individual, how does it become meaningful to that particular individual? Oh, and keep in mind this is just on simple decision to be made on a person looking at risk and hazards to buy a life insurance policy.