3 ms·

This is not loss aversion and is explicitly covered in the article.

• vezycash 8y ago
  Whether my example was stated explicitly in the article is irrelevant. What's important is the primary motive behind an action. In fact, strategy in military, business and soccer is divided into two - offensive and defensive. Offensive strategies are primarily motivated by gain. Defensive - by turf protection, prevent loss of market, or prevent a goal. Both strategies use similar, virtually the same tools. And like loss aversion the difference is simply motive. If China learns that Iceland is planning an attack on them and decides to attack first, it's a defensive strategy. Again, the key is motive. It doesn't matter what the action is, what matters is why it's done. If I kill someone for the heck of it (gain), it's called murder. If instead, it's to protect myself (loss aversion) it's called self defense. Limiting loss aversion to just financial behavior is a myopic view of the subject.
  • watwut 8y ago
    The discussion is about loss aversion phenomenom as defined and used in psychology. It is not about what you intuitively guessed from how it sounded like to you. But also, you horribly simplified military and soccer strategies too. Fun fact: army can decide for offensive strategy, because defense would end up in bigger losses. They may also go for defensive strategy despite bigger loss, bc some other reason. Lastly, no not every kill to protect yourself is self defense. That is not how law and sentencing works.