Hacker News Reader

Comment by nojs | Hacker News Reader

This is basically equivalent to asserting that people's risk calibration is skewed too conservatively, and that you can't calibrate it properly until you've actually experienced the negative outcome you're worried about.

While probably true in general, there are some cases where it's obviously not true (like the parachute example - if you haven't hit the ground, you're opening your chute too early).

The more interesting question is then: how do you know whether you're in a parachute case or a frantically locking doors case?

View on HN

I think this is also like the whole "you learn that the stove is hot by touching it once" philosophy, which kinda discounts humans' abilities to learn through second-hand information in my humble opinion!

There's a huge amount of literature about people underestimating negative risk to problems, so the assertion seems to be scientifically incorrect. But there is definitely a strain of this in lots of successful business ventures (for better or for worse), so it's probably good advice if you want to make a lot of money!

Bonus points for being able to navigate the negative social consequences for being the person with this risk calibration without feeling too guilty about it.

It's basic loss aversion https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/loss-psychology.asp

> While probably true in general, there are some cases where it's obviously not true (like the parachute example - if you haven't hit the ground, you're opening your chute too early).

Yeah, it depends on the size of the downside in the risk.

I should nick myself shaving once in a while? Ok, fine.

I should miss a flight once in a while? You must be joking. No way, pal.

A person who travels for business twice a week on the company expense should miss a flight once in a while? Yeah ... ok, that might just work for them.

> I should miss a flight once in a while? You must be joking. No way, pal.

If the number of samples is very low then the saying wouldn't apply yet. If you do self-fund a lot of flights then yes way, pal. Wasted unpleasantly-spent time is money too, if there's enough of it.

Let's make it a direct tradeoff. How many extra hours in an airport is worse than missing a flight? I'm sure there's a number for that. I bet the vast majority of people would answer within an order of magnitude of 100 (so between 10 and 1000 hours).

At the airport I don't merely sit and wait. I catch up on email and paperwork, maybe start watching a movie. It's not wasted time so I don't mind being there 30 mins extra for safety.

Only 30 minutes? I would never cut it that fine.

The cost of "missing a flight" varies hugely. In some cases it just means I arrive 3 hours late to a meeting I wasn't that interest in being at in the first place. In other cases it means I miss my connecting flight, have to pay out of pocket for a new flight and a hotel and miss one day of my big holiday that I've been looking forwards to all year.

Well the suggestion wasn't that you cut every flight closely, it's more that you should bring your average down.

For the purpose of the direct trade-off, pick a median flight.

I also guess that people who hold those opinions mostly travel for work, don't pay for their own tickets and have the sort of job where showing up a bit late for meetings once in a while won't get you fired. So for them missing a flight is like me missing a buss.

For most people their 'median' flight is taking them to their special vacation they've been saving up for and planning for years.

Well again "If the number of samples is very low then the saying wouldn't apply yet."

If you'd trade x hundred hours for a missed flight, and cutting that close would have only saved you 15 airport hours in your entire life, then you're doing fine!

> For most people their 'median' flight is taking them to their special vacation they've been saving up for and planning for years.

If you go on at least one flight a year, you can name a number of hours. It'll just be higher than business guy.

If you don't even fly that much, then you're exempt from question.

> Wasted unpleasantly-spent time is money too, if there's enough of it.

Ah, but with access to a good airport lounge, the extra time there is quite pleasantly spent. And YMMV, but for me, time spent stressed about being late for a flight is extremely unpleasantly spent.

> The more interesting question is then: how do you know whether you're in a parachute case or a frantically locking doors case?

Isn't it obvious most of the time? Just consider what the risk would be, and then consider if you're OK with that risk actually happening. Most people probably wouldn't be OK with a parachute failure or a robbery, but they'd probably be okay with missing a single flight or getting a speeding ticket.

I guess the really interesting question is what happens if you actually aren't even aware of what the risk you're taking is. It's hard for me to think of examples of that case, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com