Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Willingness to look stupid

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 811 posts

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#531

Post by lotsofpulp »

JJMcJ wrote: post #512
lotsofpulp wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am curious to the mechanics of how the accounting situation arises that an insurer would benefit from taking on more liability for less revenue. The entire business is heavily regulated and based on accurately accounting and pricing risk. It seems suspect that a regulator would allow such an obviously mispriced insurance product.

They are not taking on more liability. The insurance company now has no responsibility to repair the insured vehicle so they have less responsibility. I suspect Collision insurance is very profitable compared to liability.

pja made the claim that in some instances, collision/comprehensive + liability can be cheaper than just liability alone.

I expressed surprise that collision/comprehensive + liability can be cheaper than just liability alone, since, on the face of it, the insurance company seems exposed to more losses due to possibly having to pay the insured for their car damages.

In my comment, I wrote liability referring to the insurer’s liability for paying to fix/replace the insurer’s car, not liability as in auto liability insurance where the insurance company pays others for damage you cause to them.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#532

Post by whatshisface »

ValentineC wrote: post #514
beaner wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was just a setup to eventually providing an answer she already had in her pocket, is that the same thing really that's being discussed? Willingness to look stupid and earnestness to find an answer?

Sounds a bit like the Socratic method [1], just used for making sure everyone is aligned with the fundamental goals. As someone who's recently been put in a position to make sure everyone's aligned (and failing quite a bit at it), it sounds like genius, in my opinion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

The Socratic method is where they eventually realize the answer, not one where you make them all feel frustrated before finally revealing it.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#534

Post by SilasX »

the__alchemist wrote: post #434
Ensorceled wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The insurance dealer does his job and tries to get a higher premium? Not surprised. This is actually an example of where the author IS stupid. You will often be found "at fault" in cases where you are not actually at fault (the other driver lies better than your truth) and there are many cases (at least in Ontario) where you are legislatively at fault even if you did nothing out of the ordinary (making a left turn…

I don't think that's what the author was getting at here - a compelling reason is that the value of the payout to fix your own car x the probability of it happening is lower than the total premium extra. Eg the "Insurance is only worth it for things you can't afford" mentality. This also checks with the OP in this subthread: The insurance seller will always push for more coverage for self-interested reasons.

That's opposite my experience: I took an appointment a few weeks ago from my insurance agent (Texas) who wanted to review my existing insurance vs my needs. On the call I laid out that same logic -- I can afford repairs to my car out of pocket, so it doesn't make sense to insure it, so maybe I should drop it (just keep liability) -- and she agreed, and was happy to tell me the savings!

(I didn't go through with it on the call and maybe she would have put up resistance then, so who knows.)

Edit: From reading the source, it seems like the author didn't clarify that that was the logic he was using, or that he could afford the damage to his car out of pocket. Insurers are probably accustomed to people overextending themselves and skimping on insurance without being able to afford such things, which is risky and something agents have to head off early on.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#535

Post by ravenstine »

ativzzz wrote: post #492
ravenstine wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a useful skill to employ, though at the same time the frequent need of it is a sign of a dysfunctional system. Not always, but a lot of the time, I think. For one, many of these issues would be avoided if, for example, engineers were included in meetings with decision makers and designers during early phases of development, rather than introduce engineers to effectively tell them what to do now that all the d…

You call it dysfunctional but I think it's just a communication technique to accelerate learning, like the author describes, that can be used in a plethora of situations and not just business meetings.

Oh, I definitely agree. My point, and maybe you still wouldn't agree, is that it can be a good technique to use under ideal or adequate circumstances yet also be a sign of functional weakness if it needs to be used too frequently.

Plenty of otherwise good things can be signs of dysfunction. An example could be a workplace where people are free to chill, do what they want, ride scooters, play games, etc., which can be really healthy and good for creativity, but also may be a sign of weak leadership and nothing actually getting done (wasting time and jeopardizing the future of teams). Having process is usually better than no process at all, but process can also waste time and be counterproductive.

In other words, nothing is necessarily to be viewed as good or bad.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#536

Post by mwfunk »

People need to be absolutely fearless about looking stupid. Whether or not you look stupid at any given moment is an imponderable, an unanswerable question. The fear of looking stupid is more paranoia and insecurity than anything else. As long as you do your absolute very best to communicate to other people, even when that's difficult or impossible, that's the only thing that matters. If someone else decides you're an idiot you have no control over it, and if you're truly doing your best to communicate then someone else dismissing you as stupid is on them.

What's much more self-destructive than being afraid of looking stupid is feeling like you need to look like you know 100% of what is going on at all times- this inevitably leads to bullshitting and half-truths and weird circuitous conversations where it's unclear who actually knows what. Never try to conceal ignorance. People who matter and people who you actually would want to work with and work for would never judge someone for admitting ignorance or asking questions. People who don't matter, and people no one would want to work with or for are the ones who get on someone's case for asking what they think is a stupid question.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#538

Post by SilasX »

pja wrote: post #462
lotsofpulp wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am curious to the mechanics of how the accounting situation arises that an insurer would benefit from taking on more liability for less revenue. The entire business is heavily regulated and based on accurately accounting and pricing risk. It seems suspect that a regulator would allow such an obviously mispriced insurance product.

The explanation I saw was that people who buy comprehensive insurance are by and large regarded as lower risk than 3rd party only buyers & sometimes that weighting can tip the balance to make comprehensive cheaper than 3rd party, if the insurer thinks you’re otherwise a low risk buyer. All insurers have to go on to gauge your risk are the signals available to them & the type of insurance you’re buying is a signal. Wh…

That ... still makes no sense. "Discounting insurance for revealed [lower] risk class" doesn't work if the insured can easily fake membership in the lower risk class, which is trivial here -- just ask for comprehensive!

What I think you might be confusing this with, is that one piece of the insurance is cheaper if you bundle it with others. That is, liability-only might be $50, but if you if you get liability + collision, it's $80, which breaks down into $40 for liability and $40 for collision. The insurer is taking more liability -- but also more revenue, so no funny business.

The "high-risk poor" can't "cheat" here because they can't afford the extra $30 to begin with, and "being willing/able to spend $30 just to be safe" is an actionable signal of being low risk.

But you still shouldn't have a scenario where you get strictly greater coverage for strictly less money.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#540

Post by pjot »

aroberge wrote: post #517
technobabble wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm commenting on this thread so I can save it for future reference.

Perhaps a better approach is to click on "favorite" at the top. I personally find it easier than trying to go through my comments history.

Additionally, if you click the timestamp of a comment, you can “favorite” the individual comment!
Post reply on HN