The insurance industry consists of financial advisors planning for individual’s financial future through defensive investments that will payout in case of something happening to a person’s greatest asset—themselves. Each financial advisor is mandated to pass a professional exam to receive their license in order to take in clients in each state. There is a process in which clients are serviced and sold on different products of insurance. Advisors need to consider client needs and service them with products are in their best interest and within financial reason. <br/> To sell a product you must have clients, and the way that financial advisor receive clients are generally through two ways: company provided or their own connections. At the end of the day, the goal is to get in front of more people and expand you circle. In that sense, there are two common way people address this expansion of circles and that is build relationships versus networking. The goal of this paper is to dive deep in the insurance industry and analyze the sales process when comparing the difference in selling through building relationships versus selling through networking.<br/> The research plan I have in mind start from researching background and history, to current practices environment, to method process solutions. In the initial stages of my research, I will focus on background and history of the financial services industry in terms of sales and insurance. This will address insurance sales processes in the financial services industry and its features as well as benefits. After explaining the step by step process and potential results of the sales process in the insurance industry, I will start researching current environments of the industry. This will explain the history, key theoretical elements, and significant events of the industry. <br/> The history of the background will set stage for me to address situational challenges in the business based on my own experience to which I will do research to find plausible sales process solutions when comparing relationship sales to networking sales. This research will then be synthesized with my own experimental solutions as I work in the industry, which will help me complete chapter 4 and 5 of my theses – Methods and Execution of Results.

This thesis proposes an extension of David Lewis's causal influence account of causation, providing a method to calculate the `degrees of causal influence.' By providing a quantitative approach to causal influence, I find that that the influence approach can assess statements that involve causal redundancies, allowing the assessor to attribute primary causal responsibility to the contending cause with a higher net influence value. The causal influence calculation also addresses criticisms towards Lewis's influence account, namely those involving `inert zones' of influence, the use of the term `might,' trumping versus symmetric overdetermination, and Lewis's clause requiring stepwise influence. This thesis also compares the results of causal influence in multiple toy cases including Two Rocks, both the asymmetric and symmetric variants, demonstrating that causal influence overcomes many of the core issues in Lewis's initial counterfactual account of causation. Using the asymmetric Two Rocks variant, this thesis also provides a detailed example of how to use the calculation and a discussion of the calculation's limitations. The main drawbacks of the quantitative method for causal influence seems to be the effort that it requires and issues in finding measurable qualities to compare the similarity/difference between possible worlds. Using the Two Rocks case, however, the causal influence calculation reaches the same conclusions as what Lewis suggests. A primary remaining issue is applying the calculation to instances of causation by omission, however this seems to only be a problem in using the equations rather than a problem within the idea of causal influence itself. Also, there may still be issues in justifying comparative overall similarity. However, this is an issue that both the counterfactual and influence accounts face.

Four-dimensionalism is a popular philosophical view of how we persist through time. However, some philosophers, such as Mark Johnston and Eric Olson, argue that four-dimensionalism has perverse implications on our practical ethics. This is because, if four-dimensionalism is true, then there exist entities called personites. And if personites exist, then many of the ordinary prudential, social, and moral habits we engage in, like present self-sacrifice for future benefit, promising to do something painful in the future, or being held responsible for something the we did in the past, subjects personites to suffering without sufficient compensation, consent, or desert. And this would be immoral according to our common-sense morality. In this paper, I argue that if four-dimensionalism is true, and personites exist, then we are still morally permitted to engage in the above practices. If four-dimensionalism turns out to be true, it has no perverse implications on how we ought to live.