So his thesis is also that stupid people assume that intelligent people are stupid. He considers himself more intelligent than those people.
I wonder if he would be as willing to look stupid in front of people that he considers as intelligent as him.
It sounded to me like he was saying: I am willing to look stupid to people that I consider inferior (dumber than me).
I think this is the impetus behind the whole 'crawl, walk, run' thing. If you're always hot to trot and pushing an image of "I know everything already and I don't need to ask basic questions", you're never going to build the foundations of understanding necessary to construct more complex understandings.
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 while overtaking traffic attempts to pass rather than yield). That the broker was trying to protect them from this isn't even a conflict of interest for the broker.
I wonder how many insurance brokers encounter the "I'm such an amazing driver, I don't really need insurance." macho man ... I'm presuming the broker, at least initially, assumed the author was one of "those drivers" and not "stupid".
Insurance is always a trade-off of EV for tail risk. In exchange for losing money on average (the insurance company has to earn money somehow, after all), you're protected from the worst case scenario. You can think of it like, yourself from parallel universe where you don't get into a crash, pays yourself in the parallel universe where you do get into a crash. And the insurance company skims a little off the top as payment for the service of sending money across parallel universes.
But if you can afford to just eat the cost of a crash, you don't need to pay the insurance company for that service. And maybe you can eat the costs of some crashes but not others: If you crash into a rich guy's car, maybe you can't afford those costs, but damage to your own car is capped at the price of your own car. So that's all Dan's doing: insuring the costs he can't pay (damage to others) but not the ones he can (damage to his own car).
The math isn't affected by his chances of being found at fault, or how good of a driver he is, at all.
But that's where I see a problem: this (or another reasonable thing) is not something that would take long to explain.
Looking stupid is a failure of communication. You're right, but you failed to give enough rope for others to follow, and that wastes everyone's time.
The improvement I'd suggest is to dig into why someome thinks you look stupid. You could think "they must be stupid", but that, in itself, is an overly simplistic and inefficient model.
However, sometimes, for some drivers, fully comprehensive insurance can be cheaper than 3rd party only for arcane internal insurance risk-accounting reasons. So by not letting his agent even look at the whole market he was cutting himself off from the possibility of cheaper insurance.
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.
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.
Whether this is still true in the modern world I don’t know - I probably saw this advice ten years or so ago on a well regarded money saving site.
It would greatly surprise me if buying comprehensive insurance itself served that good of a signal to offset comprehensive/collision insurance for say, a $20k to $40k car.
This was regarded as a weird corner case even then & was mostly just used as an example of why you should try tweaking various features of the insurance you were after, because the price could sometimes change in ways that might seem counter-intuitive.
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.
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.
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.
Also, skipping collision happens most often when driving a really cheap car, which can be a marker for a bad driver.
Actuaries actually have numbers for this things, but I am just speculating.
It's a proxy for not being able to afford to fix or replace your car at the drop of a hat.
>Also, skipping collision happens most often when driving a really cheap car, which can be a marker for a bad driver.
Once again, just a proxy for money.
As I understand it, Dan wants to skip on collision / comprehensive, not liability. I can imagine a number of scenarios in which you might not want to bother insuring an asset, even as you insure yourself for damage to others you might be at fault for.
Liability - that pays for damages/injuries to others
Collision/Comprehensive - that pays for damage to your car
It sounds like the author wanted Liability but didn't want to pay for Collision. If you have significant assets and/or a cheap car, it may be to your advantage not to get the collision. Except he didn't use the customary terms but described them rather elliptically.
In fact, take the money you save on Collision and get more Liability is not a bad idea.
This also checks with the OP in this subthread: The insurance seller will always push for more coverage for self-interested reasons.
(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.
Some will try to milk you for all you're worth. Others will try to stick to things that you plausibly need and hope that selling to more people and having a higher renewal rate will make up for the extra amount that they aren't squeezing out of each person.
$100k for coverage on your car? No thanks. $1? Sure. $1 but covers litterally nothing and has a million dollar excess? No thanks.
It seems to me like he puts some intentionality in attempting to look stupid and a sort of satisfaction when this happens.
Maybe ask the customer, “can I ask why you would like the one with the smallest box?” instead of making assumptions? Although note that this might also be classified as a question where the person asking is admitting they don’t understand why someone would want this aka “looking dumb” in the wording from the article
I read his post to the end looking for the answer to why he wanted the smallest box, furiously thinking of why. I could only think of three reasons that I rejected as unlikely. Frustrated, I came here to look at the comments. So many comments about the box. It's like the contents of the briefcase on Pulp Fiction. It's like a McGuffin that forces everyone to talk about his article.
I don’t why the author needed a small box, but I did think of my experience when I read his anecdote. I think a large part of his appearing impaired is not even attempting to explain his rationales, suspicions or methods in the moment. His goal seems to be to engineer these awkward interactions, when they could be otherwise lubricated or alleviated. He’s acting as though other people and their understanding are irrelevant to him; they are furniture or fixtures that should trust and obey unquestioningly, which is a bit ironic.
That last one makes the most sense, and explains why he didn't divulge it. That way, when the author is raided, they aren't going to ask, "hey, where's that computer that, comes in the smallest box?"
I'm imagining the author has this big book case, and one of the books is hallowed out and has an Apple machine in it. Maybe it's built into a false floor of a cabinet.
With his COVID action— people disagreeing with him, at first, wasn't what had serious health consequences. He said he started wearing N95s several days before the initial r0 estimate was even published, and that he based his opinion on SARS-CoV-1 data which many relevant experts didn't think was applicable. There's a reason they didn't jump to the same conclusions he did, and that reason is why they're experts. He essentially won a bet talks about it like he figured out how to beat poker.
And if he recieved a torrent of negative feedback for his penchant for air filtering in 2012, that says a lot more about his friends and family than his very not radical adoption of home air filters less than 10 years ago? The whole sick building/mold aversion/exhaust fumes/smoke/spent cooking fuel/etc realm of AQ concerns has been a publicly accepted health concern waaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer than 2012. Sharper Image was making a mint off of their Ionic Breeze air purifier at least a decade before that.
Like I said, he's obviously a smart guy, but this whole 'they all laughed at me and look at me now!' narrative is just not that impressive.
Sure, there was no public data on r0 and no proof that COVID19 was similar to the other SARS viruses. But given only the info of "Wuhan was under lockdown", wouldn't it be indicative of the seriousness and the contagiousness of the virus, at least in the eyes of Chinese government officials?
I always thought the "West" misinterpreted the events in China at their detriment. Perhaps they assumed that it merely reflected the inability of the Chinese government to control a pandemic instead of actual seriousness of the disease?
Anyway I started wearing a surgical mask regularly and made sure I washed hands thoroughly after the Wuhan lockdown was announced. I hate wearing masks but it was less than $1/day and some inconvenience compared with an unknown but potentially scary disease. Not sure how anyone would come to a conclusion that taking precautions could be a bad bet (on a personal level at least).
Ebola was a large and growing problem in Africa in 2015 which covered a larger swath of the population, had nearly identical messaging from the Government, and would trigger a lockdown in Sierra Leone. Lots of folks regularly travel between the west coast of Africa and major American cities. I'd argue it would not have been prudent to start wearing Ebola PPE at that point, either. Of course, because it was Africa and not China, it only got marginal news coverage compared to the enormity of the problem on the ground, and much less traction on technology platforms because to this day, 25% of Sierra Leone's population has internet access. Epidemiologists were every bit as concerned about Ebola as they were about COVID before COVID's higher initial R0 number was released.
I'd like to hear the justification for not donning Ebola PPE given what was ostensibly a nearly identical situation that fortunately ended up being handled a whole lot better. Or maybe he did and he left that one off?
I'm not sure why you're painting him as having psychological issues based on a blog post.
> He said he started wearing N95s several days before the initial r0 estimate was even published, and that he based his opinion on SARS-CoV-1 data which many relevant experts didn't think was applicable. There's a reason they didn't jump to the same conclusions he did, and that reason is why they're experts.
The same experts that were telling the public that masks were useless in March 2020. Experts are not always giving the best recommendations for your specific case.
> Like I said, he's obviously a smart guy, but this whole 'they all laughed at me and look at me now!' narrative is just not that impressive.
That's a very uncharitable way of interpreting that blog post. I personally see it as "next time you feel too stupid to do something, think about that blog post and maybe I'll give you the strength needed to do something that will have a good outcome".
Seems he glommed onto the mask because it was something an individual can control in the face of an ultimately nihilistic reality, over which one has little influence. Like buying toilet paper despite assurances there is no shortage, myopic assertions on the observable sure seems to make people feel better. Speaking of shortages, the criticisms of n95's stemmed from a legitimate shortfall among medical personnel, despite questionable value to panic-buying consumers. "The Science" I'm sure he cites behind this rationale has been pretty clear regarding how Covid spreads. Prolonged close indoor personal contact. Wearing the n95 at the grocery store or while walking the dog poses little benefit because those situations pose little risk. Given serological investigation puts the rates of asymptomatic infection anywhere between 10 to 40:1, his roomie is more likely to have contracted it from him than from her unwillingness to wear a mask. Possibly while sitting at the dinner table with our author, rolling her eyes as he urgently espoused the virtues of the public N95. We'll never know for certain, but he'll surely continue to conversely reason her disagreement on the matter led to that, "stupid" conclusion.
Given the clarity of hindsight, global epidemiological statistics remaining largely unaffected by public mask policy starts to makes sense. After all if his reasoning behind the mask had an air of truth to it you'd be able to observe at least some impact on infection rates before and after mandates. Yet for the most part communities all followed a the similar bell-shaped trajectory, regardless of policy or political orientation. I see a lot of people pretending this isn't the case, that there isn't two years of data suggesting otherwise, meanwhile the rest are quietly bartering with their gods the others will get over it and move on with their lives. It's really a shame his article blundered into Covid territory, because he was starting to say something worthwhile. Like most conversations Covid, the substance evaporated as we were left with largely emotional appeals. Shame we can't talk about politicized risks pragmatically, trying to fit them into a wider context of facts and numbers. Like, why am I even talking about Covid when upwards of 8M people, largely children under 5, die every year from respiratory diseases caused by pollution? Sure seems the world has other problems. Maybe, like politics and religion, the topic just isn't suited for polite company.
Another perhaps relevant thought, which is perhaps crass: If PG or Alan Kay ever claim that they are willing to look stupid, I feel like people would not believe them. On the other hand if Feynman does it, people would feel the sincerity. (At least the version of Feynman Feynman marketed, not the Feynman who couldnt suffer Gellman)
Another thought: maybe its better to be willing to look immature.
There's distance between:
"people think I'm stupid because I'm not scared to show that I don't know about something"
and some of the examples which are more along the lines of
"people think I'm stupid because I act as a self-entitled genius who provides little context or reasoning behind choices and expect everyone to line up behind with no question"
What is the Apple store employee supposed to do to not make someone feel stupid when they ask for the smallest box? What are the chances they're not a clueless customer in need of help and have solid reasons behind?
The boss raises an eyebrow when someome proposes to skip half of the test suite? Means a lack of trust.
The insurance dealer does his job and tries to get a higher premium? Not surprised.
There's quite a bit of narcissism here: "They though I'm stupid but I'm not", " I was right in the end". It's actually arguing how everyone else is dumber in the end.
A more sincere approach would have been to explain how he realized how stupid he actually was and how not being defensive about it helped. But perhaps the author knows better after all.