Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Eugine_Nier comments on LW Women- Minimizing the Inferential Distance - Less Wrong

58 Post author: daenerys 25 November 2012 11:33PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (1254)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 27 November 2012 02:38:17AM 5 points [-]

If the context is that you (or others) are telling me that it wasn't the thief's fault that they stole my TV, or that the fact that my house was unlocked is evidence that I consented to the taking of my TV

That also depends. An insurance company would be well within its rights to charge you a higher premium if you refused to lock your house.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 27 November 2012 09:28:50AM 0 points [-]

Right — but an insurance company would do that even if it didn't reduce theft overall, but merely shifted theft away from their insured customers onto others. It could even be negative-sum thanks to the cost of locks. If we actually want to reduce theft overall, shifting it around doesn't suffice.