The expected monetary value of life insurance to the insured is, if used as directed, always zero!
Also, I’m not sure if anyone has told you this before, but cognitive dissonance is supposed to be a private thing, like going to the bathroom or popping a zit.
Edit: Since my point is that the insured will have no gain, the expected monetary value of life insurance to the insured is always negative—thanks mattnewport.
but cognitive dissonance is supposed to be a private thing, like going to the bathroom or popping a zit.
I see no compelling reason care about another person’s mundane, unavoidable bodily functions. But I can see a number of compelling reasons to care about another person’s sanity.
So if I suspect I’m mentally unhealthy or ill-adjusted, I should just keep it to myself, rather than communicating honestly about my situation with a group of folks on the internet and running the risk of… making bgrah449 feel uncomfortable?
Mentally healthy, well-adjusted people don’t tend to freely admit negative things about themselves at all, cognitively dissonating or not. (With a few exceptions along the lines of demonstrating lower value to a significantly lower status other in order to promote comfort.)
The expected monetary value of life insurance to the insured is, if used as directed, always zero!
I don’t understand this sentence. Are you saying that money is of no use to the dead? There’s a very real sense in which this is not true: people do have preferences as to what happens to their money after they die. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t write wills.
Also, I’m not sure if anyone has told you this before, but cognitive dissonance is supposed to be a private thing, like going to the bathroom or popping a zit.
Also, I’m not sure if anyone has told you this before, but cognitive dissonance is supposed to be a private thing
Umm, why? If you’re experiencing cognitive dissonance, you should let others know of it, so they can help you consider the issue and hopefully resolve the cause of the dissonance.
Surely the expected monetary value is always negative (the insurance company has to make a profit)? The expected utility is presumably positive if the decision to purchase life insurance was rational.
Well from that perspective the monetary value is even more negative—you pay out a premium but you are guaranteed never to personally receive the payout. The monetary value doesn’t depend on you being alive to collect the payout though. The expected monetary value of insurance is always negative (absent insurance fraud) but the expected utility may be positive.
The expected monetary value of life insurance to the insured is, if used as directed, always zero!
Also, I’m not sure if anyone has told you this before, but cognitive dissonance is supposed to be a private thing, like going to the bathroom or popping a zit.
Edit: Since my point is that the insured will have no gain, the expected monetary value of life insurance to the insured is always negative—thanks mattnewport.
I see no compelling reason care about another person’s mundane, unavoidable bodily functions. But I can see a number of compelling reasons to care about another person’s sanity.
Mentally healthy, well-adjusted people cognitively dissonate privately. EDIT: When they can help it.
So if I suspect I’m mentally unhealthy or ill-adjusted, I should just keep it to myself, rather than communicating honestly about my situation with a group of folks on the internet and running the risk of… making bgrah449 feel uncomfortable?
Got it.
What’s the upside for you? The Internet coming back with a prescription of well-adjustment?
Mentally healthy, well-adjusted people don’t tend to freely admit negative things about themselves at all, cognitively dissonating or not. (With a few exceptions along the lines of demonstrating lower value to a significantly lower status other in order to promote comfort.)
I don’t understand this sentence. Are you saying that money is of no use to the dead? There’s a very real sense in which this is not true: people do have preferences as to what happens to their money after they die. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t write wills.
Money is of no use to the dead. But reliable guarantees about how wealth will be distributed after death is something the living value.
I don’t see why and didn’t want the imagery.
Would the fox be happier with an audience?
Thanks for that link. I hadn’t heard that one.
Umm, why? If you’re experiencing cognitive dissonance, you should let others know of it, so they can help you consider the issue and hopefully resolve the cause of the dissonance.
Also, it’s perfectly fine to show your irrationality here.
Surely the expected monetary value is always negative (the insurance company has to make a profit)? The expected utility is presumably positive if the decision to purchase life insurance was rational.
The insured won’t be cashing any checks; his monetary gain is zero.
Well from that perspective the monetary value is even more negative—you pay out a premium but you are guaranteed never to personally receive the payout. The monetary value doesn’t depend on you being alive to collect the payout though. The expected monetary value of insurance is always negative (absent insurance fraud) but the expected utility may be positive.
Your first statement is right; I’m making a correction in the original comment. My point was that the dead can’t spend money.