wouldn’t it be worth contracting with actuaries to make important personal decisions?
Actuarial science is based on statistics and so is most useful when dealing with large populations.
Given that the probability distributions of these events are quite wide, and that personal tolerances of adverse outcomes, as well as the levels of appreciation for favorable outcomes also vary quite widely, I would expect the standard actuarial data to be of limited utility for personal decision making.
It also is based on unscientific dogma related to business ‘best practice’. For instance, asset pricing based on CAPM and other financial assumptions that aren’t vetted by scientists.
Actuarial science is based on statistics and so is most useful when dealing with large populations.
Given that the probability distributions of these events are quite wide, and that personal tolerances of adverse outcomes, as well as the levels of appreciation for favorable outcomes also vary quite widely, I would expect the standard actuarial data to be of limited utility for personal decision making.
Frequentist statistics, AFAICT.
It also is based on unscientific dogma related to business ‘best practice’. For instance, asset pricing based on CAPM and other financial assumptions that aren’t vetted by scientists.