I think the conclusion I draw from this is that, on the margin, there should be more times when people think I am stupid. I can’t think of a good example off th

I think the conclusion I draw from this is that, on the margin, there should be more times when people think I am stupid. I can’t think of a good example off the top of my head of this happening. I think the car insurance example is perhaps an example of the three-part explanation talked about in the article because sometimes comprehensive cover is cheaper than third party cover (the argument goes 1. Comprehensive is better because it covers everything, 2. Third party is cheaper because it covers less, 3. Actually comprehensive is sometimes cheaper for weird reasons like riskier drivers self-selecting for third party cover) but I could also be wrong here. An obvious way would be that the author’s case is not one where comprehensive cover is cheaper and a less obvious way would be if comprehensive cover is deceptively cheap (eg maybe if you get into an accident where the insurer covers first-party damage because you have a comprehensive policy, your future premiums under any policy are higher than if your insurer had only paid for third party damage.)