Gender-blind car insurance

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

greengiant
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:26 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby greengiant » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:23 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Except that when you filter by other statistics, like whether or not the african american can even afford the liquor in your bar, they even out. With driving, men in all demographics are more likely. That's a misunderstanding of statistics as justification.


What makes you think men in all demographics are more likely to be in accidents? There are plenty of young men who are safe drivers. It might be difficult to identify them, but that's a difference of degree, not kind.

I don't see why labelling all men as risky drivers (when only certain individuals are) is fundamentally different to labelling all people of one race more prone to crime (when only certain individuals are).

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby BlackSails » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:24 pm UTC

Everyone in this thread should just list their bayesian priors and do the calculations.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Dark567 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:24 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Actually, quite the opposite. African Americans aren't more likely to commit crime because something in their genetics or culture compels them to: they're more likely to commit crime because they're more likely to be poor.


Incarcerated:Impoverished Ratio
12.3 White
12.2 Hispanic
5.1 African-American

Even among the poor, African-Americans are more than twice as likely to commit crime.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:25 pm UTC

greengiant wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Except that when you filter by other statistics, like whether or not the african american can even afford the liquor in your bar, they even out. With driving, men in all demographics are more likely. That's a misunderstanding of statistics as justification.


What makes you think men in all demographics are more likely to be in accidents? There are plenty of young men who are safe drivers. It might be difficult to identify them, but that's a difference of degree, not kind.

I don't see why labelling all men as risky drivers (when only certain individuals are) is fundamentally different to labelling all people of one race more prone to crime (when only certain individuals are).


Ok, assuming that a man's likelihood to get in a crash does not spread across all demographics (and I thought we were making the assumption that it does), those demographics should not be included when pricing rates higher.

Incarcerated:Impoverished Ratio
12.3 White
12.2 Hispanic
5.1 African-American

Even among the poor, African-Americans are more than twice as likely to commit crime.


Is this Incarcerated : Incarcerated AND Impoverished?

If so, this goes against you: it means that an african american who committed a crime is more likely to be poor than a hispanic or caucasian. It has absolutely no bearing at all on whether or not a poor African American is more likely to commit a crime.
Last edited by sourmìlk on Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:35 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Dark567 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:35 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Is this Incarcerated : Incarcerated AND Impoverished?

If so, this goes against you: it means that an african american who committed a crime is more likely to be poor than a hispanic or caucasian.

No. I am saying Incarcerated : Impoverished, that is for every ~5 poor African Americans, one will be incarcerated, as opposed to whites or hispanics where it will be one in ~12.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Spambot5546 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:36 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
greengiant wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Except that when you filter by other statistics, like whether or not the african american can even afford the liquor in your bar, they even out. With driving, men in all demographics are more likely. That's a misunderstanding of statistics as justification.


What makes you think men in all demographics are more likely to be in accidents? There are plenty of young men who are safe drivers. It might be difficult to identify them, but that's a difference of degree, not kind.

I don't see why labelling all men as risky drivers (when only certain individuals are) is fundamentally different to labelling all people of one race more prone to crime (when only certain individuals are).


Ok, assuming that a man's likelihood to get in a crash does not spread across all demographics (and I thought we were making the assumption that it does), those demographics should not be included when pricing rates higher.

The Good Student and Safe Driver discounts were mentioned not long ago. Other factors are taken into account.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

greengiant
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:26 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby greengiant » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:37 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
greengiant wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Except that when you filter by other statistics, like whether or not the african american can even afford the liquor in your bar, they even out. With driving, men in all demographics are more likely. That's a misunderstanding of statistics as justification.


What makes you think men in all demographics are more likely to be in accidents? There are plenty of young men who are safe drivers. It might be difficult to identify them, but that's a difference of degree, not kind.

I don't see why labelling all men as risky drivers (when only certain individuals are) is fundamentally different to labelling all people of one race more prone to crime (when only certain individuals are).


Ok, assuming that a man's likelihood to get in a crash does not spread across all demographics (and I thought we were making the assumption that it does), those demographics should not be included when pricing rates higher.


That's what happens at the moment. You can, for example, get lower rates by informing your insurer you have a certain job. But I was actually trying to debunk your argument that using race/crime generalisation as a justification is very different to the gender/accidents one.

Edit: Partially ninjaed (this thread is moving too fast to keep up)
Last edited by greengiant on Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:39 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

AngelfishTitan
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:47 pm UTC
Location: A different post

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby AngelfishTitan » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:37 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Also, something I've forgotten to mention: even if somebody is significantly more likely to commit a crime in your bar, the chance that a given person will do it in the first place is low enough that it's essentially negligible.


Are you saying that most young men get into major accidents then?
Belial wrote:Note: this means you should assume that every post I make has the thrumming, furious power of half a bottle of irish whiskey behind it. Yes, even the ones I make from work. ESPECIALLY the ones I make from work.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:40 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Is this Incarcerated : Incarcerated AND Impoverished?

If so, this goes against you: it means that an african american who committed a crime is more likely to be poor than a hispanic or caucasian.

No. I am saying Incarcerated : Impoverished, that is for every ~5 poor African Americans, one will be incarcerated, as opposed to whites or hispanics where it will be one in ~12.


Oh ok. Unfortunately that still doesn't have any bearing on how I suggested a bouncer filter: what is the percentage of non-poor african americans who commit crimes as opposed to the percentage of non-poor caucasians who commit crimes? Even if poor african americans are more likely to commit crimes than poor caucasians, if non-poor ones are less likely then my point still stands.

Are you saying that most young men get into major accidents then?


No. I'm saying that the probability is high enough that insurance providers should consider it.

That's what happens at the moment. You can, for example, get lower rates by informing your insurer you have a certain job. But I was actually trying to debunk your argument that using race/crime generalisation as a justification is very different to the gender/accidents one.

Edit: Partially ninjaed (this thread is moving too fast to keep up)


I support what happens at the moment. I don't support insurance companies being forced to ignore gender entirely. If a first-year caucasian male driver is more likely to be in a major accident than a first-year caucasian female driver, then you should charge the male more.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Vaniver » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:57 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:Everyone in this thread should just list their bayesian priors and do the calculations.
You say that like there's some kind of science of probability or something. Why would we care about that when we could have opinions?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

greengiant
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:26 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby greengiant » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:05 pm UTC

I feel like we're dancing around the issue a little, by talking about specific crime stats. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that bar-going patrons of a certain race are statistically much more likely to commit crimes there than other patrons. Not only that, but that the bar stands a good chance of being shut down if much crime happens there. Would you support the bar-owner in barring entry to that race (or, less drastically, charging them a surcharge to mitigate his risk)?

If not, as I'm guessing (since you seem determined to prove the situation could never arise), what is the difference between the bar owner discriminating based on race (with his statistical justification) and an insurance company discriminating based on gender (with their statistical justification)?

Edit: And this really is about opinions. I don't think anyone doubts the actuaries' abilities. Just whether gender is a factor they should be allowed to consider.
Last edited by greengiant on Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:07 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Adacore » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:06 pm UTC

There's possible selection bias on the incarceration statistics as well - perhaps african americans are more likely to be incarcerated when they commit a crime than white or hispanic americans?

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Роберт » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:07 pm UTC

greengiant wrote:If not, as I'm guessing

You're guessing wrong, look at what he's stated earlier.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:08 pm UTC

greengiant wrote:I feel like we're dancing around the issue a little, by talking about specific crime stats.


Agreed

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that bar-going patrons of a certain race are statistically much more likely to commit crimes there than other patrons. Not only that, but that the bar stands a good chance of being shut down if much crime happens there. Would you support the bar-owner in barring entry to that race (or, less drastically, charging them a surcharge to mitigate his risk)?


If that race was significantly more likely to commit crime (say, to the degree that in a decade the probability of a crime being committed becomes 50% by letting them in, or something), and if that likelihood was even across all demographics that the bouncer can't check, then yes, I would absolutely support the banning of that race from the bar.

If you have a significantly more violent race, and that violence is inherent to them, it is absolutely OK to discriminate.
Last edited by sourmìlk on Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:18 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Роберт » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:08 pm UTC

Adacore wrote:There's possible selection bias on the incarceration statistics as well - perhaps african americans are more likely to be incarcerated when they commit a crime than white or hispanic americans?

I expect there is a bias on both African Americans being convicted of crimes and male drivers being listed as "at fault" for an accident.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:09 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
Adacore wrote:There's possible selection bias on the incarceration statistics as well - perhaps african americans are more likely to be incarcerated when they commit a crime than white or hispanic americans?

I expect there is a bias on both African Americans being convicted of crimes and male drivers being listed as "at fault" for an accident.


Right, at the moment it's not useful to assume a selection bias. It's not the point.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Роберт » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:10 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Right, at the moment it's not useful to assume a selection bias. It's not the point.
Agreed.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Dark567 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:11 pm UTC

greengiant wrote:. Would you support the bar-owner in barring entry to that race (or, less drastically, charging them a surcharge to mitigate his risk)?
Depends how high the risk was. If there was 99% chance that admitting a certain demographic would result in a murder, that is justification for banning that demographic from entering. Clearly the chance of any demographic committing murder in a bar is very low though, so any difference tends to be negligible. The risk of car accidents isn't negligible though, they happen much more often.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:13 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
greengiant wrote:. Would you support the bar-owner in barring entry to that race (or, less drastically, charging them a surcharge to mitigate his risk)?
Depends how high the risk was. If there was 99% chance that admitting a certain demographic would result in a murder, that is justification for banning that demographic from entering. Clearly the chance of any demographic committing murder in a bar is very low though, so any difference tends to be negligible. The risk of car accidents isn't negligible though, they happen much more often.


This x 1000.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Роберт » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:39 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Dark567 wrote:
greengiant wrote:. Would you support the bar-owner in barring entry to that race (or, less drastically, charging them a surcharge to mitigate his risk)?
Depends how high the risk was. If there was 99% chance that admitting a certain demographic would result in a murder, that is justification for banning that demographic from entering. Clearly the chance of any demographic committing murder in a bar is very low though, so any difference tends to be negligible. The risk of car accidents isn't negligible though, they happen much more often.


This x 1000.

Murder isn't that much rarer than fatal car accidents.

Annual car accident fatalities in the U.S. is around 40k.
Annual murders in the U.S. is around 15-20k.

If you want to include non-fatal accidents, you have to include other crimes as well. Anyway, I think we've revealed a fundamental difference of thinking on prejudice and discrimination that reveals the reason for the disagreement about gender-based car insurance prices.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Thesh » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:40 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Actually, quite the opposite. African Americans aren't more likely to commit crime because something in their genetics or culture compels them to: they're more likely to commit crime because they're more likely to be poor.


I'm not going to go through the statistics again (find the other thread if you want to see that), but there is more to crime rates than just poverty. I believe culture/society is a huge contribution to crime.

Based on my personal experiences, I believe there is a very large number of blacks in the US that are culturally very different than that of other demographics in the US. I personally believe that this culture difference is the biggest contributor to why blacks commit half the murders in this country (note that there are 43.6 million people in poverty in the US, only 10.8 million of those are black).

However, with that said, just because you are black doesn't mean you are culturally the same as those that are committing those crimes. It's just more complicated than saying poverty = crime (although I'm not saying poverty doesn't contribute).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Dark567 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:45 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Annual car accident fatalities in the U.S. is around 40k.
Annual murders in the U.S. is around 15-20k.

Right, which is why I said murder in bars which I am sure is significantly less than car accidents.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Роберт » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:55 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Роберт wrote:Annual car accident fatalities in the U.S. is around 40k.
Annual murders in the U.S. is around 15-20k.

Right, which is why I said murder in bars which I am sure is significantly less than car accidents.

Fine. But I initially was worrying about a molestation, sexual assault, and stuff like that. Besides, this is a fruitless trail to pursue further. Now that we've identified the fundamental differences in morality, there's no reason to try to pin down a specific analogy.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:02 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Actually, quite the opposite. African Americans aren't more likely to commit crime because something in their genetics or culture compels them to: they're more likely to commit crime because they're more likely to be poor.


I'm not going to go through the statistics again (find the other thread if you want to see that), but there is more to crime rates than just poverty. I believe culture/society is a huge contribution to crime.

Based on my personal experiences, I believe there is a very large number of blacks in the US that are culturally very different than that of other demographics in the US. I personally believe that this culture difference is the biggest contributor to why blacks commit half the murders in this country (note that there are 43.6 million people in poverty in the US, only 10.8 million of those are black).

However, with that said, just because you are black doesn't mean you are culturally the same as those that are committing those crimes. It's just more complicated than saying poverty = crime (although I'm not saying poverty doesn't contribute).


Ok, I oversimplified.

Now that we've identified the fundamental differences in morality.


We could try to, you know, resolve that difference. But what is that difference anyways?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Роберт » Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:27 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Now that we've identified the fundamental differences in morality.


We could try to, you know, resolve that difference. But what is that difference anyways?

I didn't say we shouldn't try to resolve the difference, I said pinning down a specific instance that is analogous to gender-based insurance pricing is not necessary.

Pragmatic, efficiency based morality, vs there are some actions that are wrong morality.
Prejudice based on inherent genetic attributes is okay if it's useful vs prejudice it is not okay, in this specific instance.
Edit: sorry, I realize gender isn't 100% correlated to genes, and there are no "race genes". So ignore the genetic part.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:43 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
Now that we've identified the fundamental differences in morality.


We could try to, you know, resolve that difference. But what is that difference anyways?

I didn't say we shouldn't try to resolve the difference, I said pinning down a specific instance that is analogous to gender-based insurance pricing is not necessary.

Pragmatic, efficiency based morality, vs there are some actions that are wrong morality.
Prejudice based on inherent genetic attributes is okay if it's useful vs prejudice it is not okay, in this specific instance.
Edit: sorry, I realize gender isn't 100% correlated to genes, and there are no "race genes". So ignore the genetic part.


So, you're justifying your stance via a blanket statement, i.e. "prejudice is bad"? But then you'd have to back up the statement that prejudice is always bad, including in this situation.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby nowfocus » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:15 pm UTC

Obvious the solution to an unfair system is to add more unfairness. Does everyone fully understand that moving away from gender blind car insurance increases the amount of people who pay to much?

Does everyone also realize that this gives massive incentives to deny men car insurance by any means necessary?

Vaniver wrote:
BlackSails wrote:Everyone in this thread should just list their bayesian priors and do the calculations.
You say that like there's some kind of science of probability or something. Why would we care about that when we could have opinions?

Not sure if this is sarcasm, but why use bayesian priors here? It can basically be used to support irrational opinions.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

greengiant
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:26 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby greengiant » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:20 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:So, you're justifying your stance via a blanket statement, i.e. "prejudice is bad"? But then you'd have to back up the statement that prejudice is always bad, including in this situation.


I doubt anyone would be willing to make a statement quite that all-encompassing, but basically yeah. As far as I can see now, we've pretty much split into two camps - 'companies should be gender-blind, except in specific circumstances (such as, maybe, specific health requirements)' and 'companies should be free to gender-discriminate as long as they can justify it, except in specific circumstances (such as, maybe, where bias is the cause of statistical differences)'.

Not sure what more there is to say, I think we can probably all understand the opposing position, we just disagree with it. Analogies have failed to show any inconsistencies, group A are just as unhappy to discriminate based on race, group B just as happy. We could try and justify our positions by appealing to a specific moral theory, but that's a bit backwards - moral theories are only good in so far as they agree with what we consider right/wrong. If you disagree about what's right/wrong, you're likely to disagree about moral theories that take a stance on the issue.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:23 pm UTC

nowfocus wrote:Obvious the solution to an unfair system is to add more unfairness. Does everyone fully understand that moving away from gender blind car insurance increases the amount of people who pay to much?


How? And it wouldn't it be unfair to charge a group that's composed of safer drivers as much as a group that's not?

Does everyone also realize that this gives massive incentives to deny men car insurance by any means necessary?


What?

As far as I can see now, we've pretty much split into two camps - 'companies should be gender-blind, except in specific circumstances (such as maybe specific health requirements)' and 'companies should be free to gender-discriminate as long as they can justify it, except in specific circumstances (such as where bias is the cause of statistical differences)'.


I fall into the category of "companies should examine things on a case by case basis."

So, if you fall into category a), tell me why this shouldn't be an exception?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby nowfocus » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:31 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:How? And it wouldn't it be unfair to charge a group that's composed of safer drivers as much as a group that's not?

Lets use some numbers:
1000 people. 500 men, 500 women. 20 men will get into accidents, 10 women will. An accident costs 100 dollars.
Current system: men pay 4 dollars, women pay 2 dollars.
Total 'unfairness', defined as the sum total of dollars people pay more than they should:
480*4 + 490*2 = 2900
Under gender equality system, everyone pays 3 dollars. Total 'unfairness':
970*3 = 2910
More unfairness under the split system. Difference seems small, but it increases with the size of the claim, the number of other risk factors you can seperate on, and I imagine most accidents cost more than 100 dollars. For demonstration purposes only.

Hmm - I think I meant to write 'to a gender blind system' - sorry if that was the source of the confusion.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:36 pm UTC

nowfocus wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:How? And it wouldn't it be unfair to charge a group that's composed of safer drivers as much as a group that's not?

Lets use some numbers:
1000 people. 500 men, 500 women. 20 men will get into accidents, 10 women will. An accident costs 100 dollars.
Current system: men pay 4 dollars, women pay 2 dollars.
Total 'unfairness', defined as the sum total of dollars people pay more than they should:
480*4 + 490*2 = 2900
Under gender equality system, everyone pays 3 dollars. Total 'unfairness':
970*3 = 2910
More unfairness under the split system.


2910 > 2900

2910 is from the "equal" system

unfairness is less in the split system.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby nowfocus » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:41 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:unfairness is less in the split system.
nowfocus wrote:Hmm - I think I meant to write 'to a gender blind system' - sorry if that was the source of the confusion.


We actually agree - I just keep writing wrong words. Sorry - I'm a bit sick.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:41 pm UTC

nowfocus wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:unfairness is less in the split system.
nowfocus wrote:Hmm - I think I meant to write 'to a gender blind system' - sorry if that was the source of the confusion.


We actually agree - I just keep writing wrong words. Sorry - I'm a bit sick.


Oh, ok.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

torgos
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:47 pm UTC
Location: The Hammock District

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby torgos » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:57 pm UTC

achan1058 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
I personally believe that insurances should only based upon amount you drive, location that you drive, history of accidents, and perhaps years of having your license (and even this one is iffy to me).


Insurance companies have quite limited knowledge of your specific driving habits; they only have data about people who resemble you demographically, and have to make decisions based on that data.

Anyway, the effect of such a policy would be obvious enough: men will probably pay somewhat less for insurance, while women will pay more.
The secret ingredient is...love!? Who's been screwing with this thing?

greengiant
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:26 am UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby greengiant » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:58 pm UTC

You have to be careful defining 'unfairness' so simplistically. Consider my new system. Men pay 6 dollars each and women pay nothing. Now let's measure up the total 'unfairness' (defined as the sum total of dollars people pay more than they should).

480 men overpay by 6 dollars
0 women overpay

Total 'unfairness' = 2880

Look this system's even 'fairer' than the one you liked.

(edited for spelling)
Last edited by greengiant on Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:17 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Technical Ben » Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:11 am UTC

Роберт wrote:
Adacore wrote:There's possible selection bias on the incarceration statistics as well - perhaps african americans are more likely to be incarcerated when they commit a crime than white or hispanic americans?

I expect there is a bias on both African Americans being convicted of crimes and male drivers being listed as "at fault" for an accident.

But for that to be accepted people would have to accept they are racist bias.
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Xeio » Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:44 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Does everyone also realize that this gives massive incentives to deny men car insurance by any means necessary?
What?
Well, it's only really potentially a side effect from the change. Because at that point the options for the insurance company are "drop as many men as possible" or "raise rates by a lot on women", the latter creating many an unhappy customer. But in the long run, it won't really make them any less competitive against other insurers (though, I could potentially see companies that try to attract more women doing very well because they can offer lower rates, but then, every company would try that...).
Last edited by Xeio on Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:47 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:46 am UTC

Xeio wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
Does everyone also realize that this gives massive incentives to deny men car insurance by any means necessary?
What?
Well, it's only really potentially a side effect from the change. Because at that point the options for the insurance company are "drop as many men as possible" or "raise rates by a lot on women", the latter creating many an unhappy customer. But in the long run, it won't really make them any less competitive against other insurers (though, I could potentially see companies that try to attract more women doing very well because they can offer lower rates).


And the former losing customers. I'd imagine they'd go with the latter.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby Xeio » Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:49 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Xeio wrote:Well, it's only really potentially a side effect from the change. Because at that point the options for the insurance company are "drop as many men as possible" or "raise rates by a lot on women", the latter creating many an unhappy customer. But in the long run, it won't really make them any less competitive against other insurers (though, I could potentially see companies that try to attract more women doing very well because they can offer lower rates).
And the former losing customers. I'd imagine they'd go with the latter.
You presume raising rates and creating disgruntled customers would not lose them customers? Granted, what's in the best interest of the company would really be a numbers game (I'm sure they have actuaries working on this as we speak).

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Gender-blind car insurance

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:53 am UTC

Xeio wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
Xeio wrote:Well, it's only really potentially a side effect from the change. Because at that point the options for the insurance company are "drop as many men as possible" or "raise rates by a lot on women", the latter creating many an unhappy customer. But in the long run, it won't really make them any less competitive against other insurers (though, I could potentially see companies that try to attract more women doing very well because they can offer lower rates).
And the former losing customers. I'd imagine they'd go with the latter.
You presume raising rates and creating disgruntled customers would not lose them customers? Granted, what's in the best interest of the company would really be a numbers game (I'm sure they have actuaries working on this as we speak).


Of course. But I'd imagine the risk men pose it not enough to justify dropping all of them in favor of retaining a small percentage of women.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests