3 ms·
I think the right/wrong is in the apparatus. Gambling is usually repetitive and involves operative conditioning, which can be addictive. Insurance is too but t
by kirykl 10y ago
I think the right/wrong is in the apparatus. Gambling is usually repetitive and involves operative conditioning, which can be addictive.
Insurance is too but to a much lesser degree. If I buy fire insurance and my house burns down, I get rewarded (as in operant conditioning). But only punished when my house lasts until I die or sell it.
- smallnamespace 10y agoThere's another, more direct reason: insurance is only supposed to allow you to 'hedge out' risks that you already have, whereas gambling or speculation is unrestricted. In the case where your house burns down, you're 'rewarded' in the insurance contract, but you should be close to net indifferent (after insurance) over whether your house burned down or not. That's why we don't let people buy insurance on other people's houses -- it creates a perverse incentive for the insurance purchaser to force a certain outcome.
- draw_down 10y agoInsurance doesn't ever really "reward", it just makes whole.