Hacker News Reader

My wife and I have made one trip for every car that we bought.

1. We wanted a used Honda Civic. We found a used Honda Civic online, at a good price relative to Blue Book. We went to the dealership and bought the Honda Civic.

2. We wanted a used Honda CR-V. We found a used Honda CR-V online, at a good price relative to Blue Book. We went to the dealership and bought the Honda CR-V.

Both cars have been great. No need to overcomplicate things.

Stepping back, I've noticed a certain cognitive bias that's very common, but I don't know what its name might be. Basically, the bias is the idea that spending more time gathering information and analyzing is always good. To which I respond... maybe in some limited, abstract, ceteris paribus sense, but in real life? Not really.

1. You're not taking account of the opportunity cost, the things you could be doing that you're not because you're stuck on this one thing.

2. There is such a thing as overthinking / analysis paralysis, where your thinking actually gets worse the more you obsess about something. You may be better off unplugging, taking a walk, and coming back with a clear mind. You may be able to make a quick decision that's reasonably close to optimal and ends the sinking of your time into this one particular thing.

1. I researched car reliability, resale value, makes and models and determined that a Honda Accord best met my requirements.

2. There was exactly one Honda dealership within driving distance in the state where I wanted to buy the vehicle

3. I acquired this vehicle.

Later on, I was told that this was actually a Japanese Honda, and not an American Honda, and that the allegation was that although the same design, the Japanese Honda had superior reliability records and less variance around fittings, because the Japanese teams had a great deal of experience around assembly (at that time). More than 20 years later I am still driving the same vehicle, and I've had no major issues of any type.

>1. You're not taking account of the opportunity cost, the things you could be doing that you're not because you're stuck on this one thing

I do appreciate the point you made - there is an opportunity cost to your thinking, and overly focusing on one thing may be contrary. If I have learned anything from thinking about SV business models, it is that attention is a limited resource. Every moment we spend overanalyzing one thing, is time spent less on something more productive.

> There is such a thing as overthinking / analysis paralysis, where your thinking actually gets worse the more you obsess about something. You may be better off unplugging, taking a walk, and coming back with a clear mind. You may be able to make a quick decision that's reasonably close to optimal and ends the sinking of your time into this one particular thing.

"paralysis by analysis" is definitely a real thing. Although I believe it is important to go through the cognitive exercise of analysis, it can be counter-productive. Saw this at a workplace or two where budgets to execute projects were highly limited, so staff would analyze-to-death options for fairly low dollar activities. Spent more on analysis of paper projects by a factor, than actual project execution.

People think they have to be clever/smart when simply not being stupid and not doing stupid things is often more than enough.

Then they will go onto gold digging exercise to prove that they are smart to be smarter than those pesky dealers.

In the end when thing they bought turns out crappy (no gold in that mine:)) they will get defensive about it and will pull all kind of mental gymnastics to confirm what they did was worth investing time.

So such person won't even feel the opportunity cost, because they will make themselves believe that effort was necessary to find that good and they 'gamed the system'.

Yeah the car example did not resonate with me either.

(a) I hate car shopping, in particular any interactions with the salespeople

(b) I have the internet

(c) I don't believe there is some special deal I can unlock, I think that is a mistaken belief that many dealers like people to hold so they can make them feel like their getting them a special deal, when in reality the "negotiations" are just a bit of theatre

(d) I value my time and it's not worth a few $100 to drive all over looking for deals

c) - haha, that is probably true. I have a relative that just bought a new car. After a little negotiation, got a couple thousand (?) knocked off the price of like a $35k car. "Great deal" - but I'm pretty sure the dealer is prepared to offer a price that is only as low as a great deal for the dealer as well.

This is price discovery in action. From the dealer’s point of view it’s worth jacking up the price that they are willing to take because some consumers will just pay it. Other consumers will try to bargain and they’ll find a (slightly) lower price. When someone just pays the first price the dealer says, the dealer makes a few thousand more than they otherwise works have. This is the same reason there are food coupons. Very price sensitive people will go out of their way to use them but others will pay full price.

Exactly - that dealer could be negotiating dozens of car deals a day, has a ton of experience, PLUS he knows much more about his side of the deal (actual costs and back end rebates, etc)

A typical buyer negotiates for a car only a few times in their life.

Who do you think is likely to come out on top?

I had to fix my car once - the defroster wasn't working - and the bill came out wayyy higher than I had expected - like $1100 on a car that was probably only worth 3 or 4k by my estimates. I was pretty unhappy and I was trying to figure out where the breakdown had occurred. The dealer had talked to me about some complications they had run into and some options they could pursue to fix the heater, and I had given my approval. But I hadn't put together the labor rate and time spent. Was it my fault for not asking? If I had known up front I would have thought twice about sinking 1k into a 3k car. Ultimately I think the dealer held the power in that situation and while it was my fault, the dealer certainly didn't help make it clear. Anyways, that's how you lose trust and business.

Perhaps the author jumped to a conclusion that number of dealership visits correlates with informedness.

It seems reasonable to me; maybe I'm not modeling "most people" well, but it's hard to imagine someone going to dealerships multiple times for information; rather, they are shopping around for the dealerships to underbid each other so they can get a better price. That's a tip I read on the internet.

That's a tip that was valid before internet pricing became a thing. Essentially, the price you see online is the price you pay now, because dealers have (mostly, and FINALLY) learned that if I don't see it at a good price, I'm not interested. Some still have the 'come in to see the price' and they don't move the volume of those with robust internet sales teams [source here that i don't have. Anyone have one?]

Now the extra costs come in on accessories, service plans, and warranties, whereas they used to make more profit on the actual sales.

We just bought a vehicle in March, and it was the best, least friction experience buying a car. I found the package I wanted, I found the color I wanted, I evaluated the price against online sources such as KBB, truecar, and those types of things, then I contacted the dealer who had it in stock online and set a date to come buy it. They didn't try any weird old-timey car sales tactics, because the price is the price. They offered extras, add-ons, the warranties, and service packages, with clear prices, and were respectful when I declined.

I judge my doctors by wait time. I found a doctor where I never have to wait in the lobby more than 10 mins past my appointment time. Unless you have a really unique health condition I don't understand the culture's behavior around patient doctor relationships. Who cares what other doctors think of him or what his Yelp review is. When I have a sinus infection does he write a prescription for z-pack. End of story.

True for 90% of medical issues. The problem is those other 10% - will the GP you chose be able to handle them? Or, perhaps more critically, bow-out, and refer you when they cannot?

It's a tough problem to solve - wait time is certainly part of the solution, but so is bedside manner, the doctor's willingness to punt and refer you elsewhere for unique problems outside their area, price, location, and a hundred other things.

And that doesn't even address picking a specialist. You break your hand, how do you pick a hand surgeon on short notice? The cost of picking the worst guy could be high, but you know what they call the guy who graduated last in his class? Doctor.

I'm a little spectrumy so I often forget how important emotional support/bedside manner is to many people. I see my doctor as an automaton who I feed problems to and he feeds me solutions.

Even something like a broken bone falls under the category of "normal" health issue. It happens all the time. You will be fine with a perfectly mediocre doctor dealing with your broken bone.

My wife broke her hand a few years ago, it required surgery to repair. It was not a "normal" issue. I suppose it could be considered normal for a hand specialist, but when thumb mobility could be permanently compromised, you really don't want to pick the wrong surgeon.

As for bedside manner, I'm mostly with you - it's largely irrelevant. For me, it's more of a minimum acceptable level - as long as they're above it, all is good.

I don't understand this behavior. Did you think you added something valuable to the conversation by replying with a special case?

You claimed we'd be fine with a mediocre doctor, I was providing a counterpoint - the risk of a botched repair was permanent loss of hand function - why risk that with a mediocre doctor?

Expecting every person to couch every statement with the exceptions is bad social behavior. Most fractures are set in the ER or even urgent care, maybe a cast, you are fine.

Your "gotcha" response of a relatively rare case of a hand fracture requiring surgery with a specialist is not a meaningful response.

> the risk of a botched repair was permanent loss of hand function - why risk that with a mediocre doctor?

You make an excellent point, and I will point out a related anecdote.

A plastic surgeon in my wife's practice fell into a glass table severing a number of nerves and tendons in his dominant wrist & arm. Basically a potential career ending injury. Short of an amputation that is one of the worst injuries for a surgeon.

He did not go to any regular hand surgeon, or plastic surgeon that may have done a fellowship in hand. Nope. He got driven to Hopkins where they have one of the best teams in the Mid-Atlantic for complex, nerve involved hand & arm related injuries. A year or so later and he is completely recovered.

Some of the other leading honor roll hospitals [1] like Mass General, Cleveland Clinic, Mayo, etc - they have leaders in their field, and collections of gurus needed for really complex injuries where best outcomes are critical. Regular surgeons refer the super hard cases to them, because they are often times the best care possible in the US.

[1] https://health.usnews.com/health-care/best-hospitals/article...

Do you believe that a normal literate person who reads:

>a mediocre doctor can deal with a broken bone

interprets that as

>there are zero cases of broken bones that are extremely complex requiring highly specialized doctors

I'm really curious to know if you believe that is how humans communicate.

What I've found is that unfortunately there are many GPs that are bad troubleshooters. They know their standard sinus infection or gastro etc. that 90% of patients come to them with but anything that requires actually problem solving is beyond them. You gotta do that yourself.

The best GP I have had admitted when she didn't know but knew how to search and searched together with me or gave pointers for further experimentation and troubleshooting. He wait times suck because she does this. I love it.

Re: manners. This can be so different. I had an Indian colleague complain to me once about a really bad doctor. The doctor apparently told her mother that she had cancer. I was dumbfounded why that would be bad (she did actually have cancer). Apparently the doctor was supposed to tell a family member about it but not the mother.

I very clearly told her that if a doctor did tell a family member but not me I would be really really mad. Never mind doctor patient confidentiality rules.

She didn't seem to understand.

I agree. As a person that has bought many new cars I try to spend as little time at the dealer as possible. I would assume most savvy buyers do as well. Getting a hard sell or bad information from an aggressive associate is not high on my list of things to do.

Same goes for doctors. I need a recommendation for somebody in my area that I can work with. If a close friend likes a doctor there is probably a decent chance I will like them as well. I can also google them and things like that before deciding to go. It also isn’t a lifetime commitment. If I don’t like them I can change doctors very easily.

I think the bias on this comment thread would lead most people here to be well researched and not do the two things you mentioned. I wouldn't buy a car without research. The example of a doctor is more fraught - in the US I met the doctor and would have changed if I didn't read them and believe them to be competent in my judgement (And the institution I went to had already a high bar for quality).

I think what is missing from their comment is that people go to do those things without doing prior research. In the case which you go to the car salesman once, you have already done your research - same with the doctor.

I know people who would exhibit the behavior without doing the prior research. I am not sure if they believe the car salesman or not, I can't read their mind.

What the article hints at but does not discuss is time to action. For example, a bad decision can be revisited but the time lost to indecision is forever gone.

Some people are comfortable making hasty decisions. Just because a person visited only one car dealer does not suggest a lack of prior research. A person may know exactly what they want and the price range they are willing to pay for it with features they want. The last time I bought a car I went to one dealer and told them I want these features. They called around to various other dealers on my behalf because they wanted my business and they knew what to look for.

Time to action stresses arbitrary decisions which may not be hasty (no planning or research). The goal of a well considered time to action is to act quickly but in balance for risk analysis. This means either having a remediation already available or transferring the risk to someone else in order to make a decision now consequences be damned.

People may spend 3-4x as much time trying out and choosing a car as buying an expensive TV, even though the car costs ~20X more and more research, haggling, etc. on the car could be worth 3 TVs, but more on the TV could only be like at most .2 TVs.

People don't value money linearly. You wouldn't pay an additional $10 for a cup of filter coffee, but most people wouldn't think twice about paying an additional $10 for a car. But it's the same amount of money, so surely that's irrational in that situation.

In other situations it makes complete sense. If you have $1M, losing $10 isn't nearly as big a deal as when those $10 were all you had.

If you try to apply game theory to economics you apply a utility function to money to model this, and a logarithmic function maps quite well to how humans think about money.

> But it's the same amount of money, so surely that's irrational in that situation.

Not necessarily, since many people buy coffee way more often than they buy a car.

Not disagreeing with your conclusion but there’s a difference between spending $10 more for 3 years of utility vs $10 more for 3 minutes of utility.

Yes, but you very soon reach the point of diminishing returns when you try to research any purchase. After a maximum a few hours it is hard to find any more useful information about most consumer goods. You have read all the specifications, and the tests and the reviews and went to the stores to look at the products in person. So even if you might spend half a day researching an expensive TV, you won't make a better buy of a car even if you spend more than a day or two researching. And if you spend ten full days to buy a car, you are most certainly wasting your time (and will lose more income than you can optimise your car purchase).

The last three times I bought or leased a new car I visited dealers zero times. I decided what I wanted then I faxed (yes, faxed!) my requirements to the dealer who seemed to have inventory with instructions where and when to meet me with the vehicle and paperwork. This seems to work, except the one time the dealer thought I wanted to negotiate over the price and I showed them the door.

Buying a car is all about understanding that dealers are usually pretty desperate.

I bought my latest car in March. I performed most research and all price negotiation online. Even at that, I still visited 4 dealers. The first two to test a large SUV, which I thought I wanted, but ended up not liking. The third to test drive two smaller SUVs. And the fourth to pick-up the SUV I eventually purchased.

I wouldn't think this was an unusual pattern for many buyers in the internet age.

Last time we bought a car we knew what we wanted and what it should cost, but had to visit multiple dealers because they kept lying about availability, prices, etc.

It's not even subtext. The media has been screaming at everyone to trust the experts and defer thinking.

No, the problem is rejecting experts in place of loud-mouthed pundits, who either make crap up or cherry-pick outlier expert viewpoints without telling you they are outliers or bringing in non-outliers to counter.

Yeah, this is an evolutionary adaptation. Even long ago the world had too many stimulus and we develop patters of how to handle different types of situations. This is talked about extensively in the book, "Thinking, fast and slow". In today's world, the world is infinitely complex. No one has time (or the desire, frankly) to do appropriate research on a single issue let alone all the issues that need considered. I'd bet that almost no one did 20+ hours of research reading about mRNA vaccines and FDA clinical trial data before decided to take or not take the vaccine. Everyone picked someone to trust whether that was the FDA or social media or news media and then got on with their life. And generally, once we find a "trusted" source, we tend to trust them for everything regardless of lack of evidence or contradiction. Humans have a deep survival instinct of having packs and trusting in the pack to protect them. Everyone just wants to get on with their busy life and not have to worry about all of this, whatever it is.