|
On March 03 2011 10:39 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote + I think you're confusing sex with gender. Sex is purely biological, gender has a lot more to do with the environment that person is in. i still dont know what you mean. english isn't my first language, care to explain?
Don't worry too much about the sex/gender distinction.
The use of gender in a manner interchangeable with sex is older by hundreds of years than the use of gender to mean the social and cultural aspects of sex rather than the biological ones. That more recent use, which the Oxford English Dictionary accurately calls a "euphemism for sex" originated in feminist theory and is an example of trying to win an argument by manipulating the definitions behind the scenes.
At best, calling someone out on "confusing" sex and gender is an honest mistake. Maybe the caller-outer has been taught that there is a hard and fast difference and is trying to share the enlightenment. It could just as easily be garden variety pedantry, though, and, at worst, it's a passive-aggressive move to rig the terms of the debate in one's own favor.
|
I didn't read the 33 pages of posts...just the original one.
I just wanted to share my thoughts on this, since I'm a group insurance Underwriter. Keep in mind, I live in Canada so it might be different for me.
It might look like they are descriminating against you due to your sex but if an insurance company has statistics that prove one gender is more of a risk to insure than another, they can rate genders differently.
|
On March 03 2011 13:20 RedMorning wrote:
I didn't read the 33 pages of posts...just the original one.
I just wanted to share my thoughts on this, since I'm a group insurance Underwriter. Keep in mind, I live in Canada so it might be different for me.
It might look like they are descriminating against you due to your sex but if an insurance company has statistics that prove one gender is more of a risk to insure than another, they can rate genders differently.
Can they do this with race too?
Just curious because I also live in Canada.
|
On March 03 2011 13:22 how2TL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2011 13:20 RedMorning wrote:
I didn't read the 33 pages of posts...just the original one.
I just wanted to share my thoughts on this, since I'm a group insurance Underwriter. Keep in mind, I live in Canada so it might be different for me.
It might look like they are descriminating against you due to your sex but if an insurance company has statistics that prove one gender is more of a risk to insure than another, they can rate genders differently. Can they do this with race too? Just curious because I also live in Canada.
For Canada group insurance, I only know of first nations getting rated differently but that's because they have a few government programs that pay benefits first (the insurer is basically a "top off") and usually have a different claiming trend.
Back on the topic of gender...
If you get a life insurance policy, a female non-smoker will have a different rate compared to a male non-smoker. Insurance companies think of basically everything lol
|
but if an insurance company has statistics that prove one gender is more of a risk to insure than another
I would also like to know how such a link is proven.
If a woman has a gender change and becomes a man, will s/he be more likely to be in an accident simple because she changed gender? If you believe such a link exists, then your answer must be yes. Yet such an answer doesn't make much sense as nobody drives with their sex organs.
Do such studies take into account brain chemistry, personality type, etc? Or do they simply say men 55% accidents -> women 45% accidents, thus - > men's price should be > women's price?
Let's say a certain personality type was more likely to have accidents, and males were more likely to have such a personality, does that mean all males are more likely to have an accident? no.
It would be quite easy however, to simply blame gender instead of the personality type, for example.
|
On March 03 2011 02:13 Keitzer wrote:
it's not sexism... it's statistics
... i said that because the insurance companies see that the amount of males (eg. age 25 and lower) that get into accidents compared to females of the same age group is a lot higher per male... thus they start their rate off higher since remember: IT'S A BUSINESS! They're out to make money....
supply and demand... the "demand" of male incidents per "supply" of males (ratio) is higher than the female demand/supply ratio
so no.. it's not sexism, it's statistics
edit: if companies do this with race... that's also statistics... bitch all you want, they're out to make max cash (while keeping you safe)
|
Discriminating against someone just because of their gender is indeed sexism, even if it is based off statistics..
Them being a business is also not an excuse for discrimination.
You can also address the points I brought up in the above post.
edit: if companies do this with race... that's also statistics
It's also illegal.
|
nay this is all based on stereotypes. all know that girls are weaker, smaller and less "important" than males, thus they get less payed and so forth. some ppl are just to stupid.
I can say for one that me mum prolly got better job than any of your dads lol, no offense intended though,but what im saying is, this is oldpasta. its only a few retards that still do this kind of things.
|
On March 03 2011 14:03 Jones993 wrote:Discriminating against someone just because of their gender is indeed sexism, even if it is based off statistics.. Them being a business is also not an excuse for discrimination. You can also address the points I brought up in the above post. It's also illegal.
it's not discrimination...
they're not blindly charging more for males/blacks(?)/etc....
edit: to clarify... discrimination = unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
and it's not unfair based on prejudice... it's facts that they will (not every person, but the ratio is higher) will get into more incidents than the others
they're basing it off facts they (and other companies) have collected over the years, PROVING that it's more likely to happen with X and not Y (Y being females / non-blacks (again, ?) / etc)
and how is it illegal if it's across all sex/gender/race?
|
On March 03 2011 13:55 Jones993 wrote:Show nested quote +but if an insurance company has statistics that prove one gender is more of a risk to insure than another I would also like to know how such a link is proven. If a woman has a gender change and becomes a man, will s/he be more likely to be in an accident simple because she changed gender? If you believe such a link exists, then your answer must be yes. Yet such an answer doesn't make much sense as nobody drives with their sex organs. Do such studies take into account brain chemistry, personality type, etc? Or do they simply say men 55% accidents -> women 45% accidents, thus - > men's price should be > women's price? Let's say a certain personality type was more likely to have accidents, and males were more likely to have such a personality, does that mean all males are more likely to have an accident? no. It would be quite easy however, to simply blame gender instead of the personality type, for example.
If you get a gender change, I don't think the government would consider you a female (if you were "formally" a male). With that being the case, insurance companies would still look at you as a male.
Insurance isn't based on your personality. Hence why a 65 year old nice funny guy wouldn't get the same rate as a 18 year old nice funny guy.
I work with Life/Health insurance so I'll explain how those rates are determined (it's the same for all types of insurance). Insurance is all about probability. What are the odds of this event happening to this group of people. To determine this, we look at historical claiming trends.
**The numbers I use are just for examples**
Lets say out of 100 women, 70 of them will claim dental in one year. Out of a 100 men, 60 of them will claim dental in one year. Obviously this is a very small sample but we can use this example to extrapolate the general "rule of thumb". From our stats, we know that women are more likely to claim dental compared to men. If we insure a company consisting of 90% women, we can expect more claims to be incurred according to our statistics which is why we can charge higher premium rates for some groups.
"What if they don't claim lots? Not everyone is the same!"
For group insurance, depending on the funding method of the plan, the low utilization will allow for lower rates when you have to renew your insurance. Again, this depends on the funding method and many other factors (Fully pooled, experience rated with pooling, fully experience rated, refund, non-refund, etc).
To sum everything up and to make things simple, the general idea is to pool all the premium together so it will pay all the claims if you were to pool those together (and pay admin feels...and PROFIT!! :D). Thats why if you don't ever claim anything, you still have to pay for insurnace. That money has to come from someone to pay that million dollar life claim! : )
|
On March 03 2011 14:03 Jones993 wrote:Discriminating against someone just because of their gender is indeed sexism, even if it is based off statistics.. Them being a business is also not an excuse for discrimination. You can also address the points I brought up in the above post. It's also illegal.
I'm not trying to come off rude, but saying "It's also illegal" on a topic you don't know much about isn't the best thing to do. If you're a lawyer, then I retract my statement.
I'm no lawyer myself, but if the statistics prove that a group of people have a significant claim trend difference than the standard claiming trend...the insurer is allowed to rate them differently. Insurance companies can also deny insurance to anyone if they can prove they would be insuring unfavorable risk.
Lets say we both apply for insurance. I'm a bad risk, you aren't. Will they charge us the same rate? Nope! Why? I'm a higher risk which means more unfavorable claims will be incurred resulting in more money spent by the insurance company. If claims are higher than the premium intake, premiums go up for everyone.
|
On March 03 2011 14:03 Jones993 wrote:
Discriminating against someone just because of their gender is indeed sexism, even if it is based off statistics..
No it's not. You look at a sample and see that a certain portion of the sample has a higher accident rate than another portion. You notice: The dangerous portion are women (or men).
But, at the same time, the dangerous portion could also identify itself by characteristics such as "below 25 years old" or "older than 60 years".
It's not discrimination because you don't specifically look at the weakness of a certain gender, instead you're generally looking for certain characteristics which provide a higher accident rate.
Discrimination would also include unfounded negativity towards a certain gender without evidence (for example statistics) to back certain assumptions up, e.g. saying that women, in general, are not as intelligent as men. And this practice is certainly not used in insurance companies.
An analogy: For whatever reason your company sells German language courses. You take a bunch of people in the US and take data on them. You notice that most white people have a higher probability of having German parents than the black people in that sample, and therefor decide to distribute more ads ( flyers ) in African American neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods.
OK, that example is pretty stupid and not realistic at all, but I can't think of a better one right now.
Is that racism? No it's not. You just determine a couple of facts. To make it racism you would have to add a couple of unfounded assumptions and assign them to the respective groups, for example saying that Germans are in general smarter than all other people in that sample and on that basis decide to distribute more flyers in African American neighborhoods. That would be racism.
|
On March 03 2011 14:26 heishe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2011 14:03 Jones993 wrote:
Discriminating against someone just because of their gender is indeed sexism, even if it is based off statistics..
No it's not. You look at a sample and see that a certain portion of the sample has a higher accident rate than another portion. You notice: The dangerous portion are women (or men). But, at the same time, the dangerous portion could also identify itself by characteristics such as "below 25 years old" or "older than 60 years". It's not discrimination because you don't specifically look at the weakness of a certain gender, instead you're generally looking for certain characteristics which provide a higher accident rate. Discrimination would also include unfounded negativity towards a certain gender without evidence (for example statistics) to back certain assumptions up, e.g. saying that women, in general, are not as intelligent as men. And this practice is certainly not used in insurance companies. An analogy: For whatever reason your company sells German language courses. You take a bunch of people in the US and take data on them. You notice that most white people have a higher probability of having German parents than the black people in that sample, and therefor decide to distribute more ads ( flyers ) in African American neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods. OK, that example is pretty stupid and not realistic at all, but I can't think of a better one right now. Is that racism? No it's not. You just determine a couple of facts. To make it racism you would have to add a couple of unfounded assumptions and assign them to the respective groups, for example saying that Germans are in general smarter than all other people in that sample and on that basis decide to distribute more flyers in African American neighborhoods. That would be racism.
Very well explained! : )
|
On March 03 2011 14:09 rezzan wrote:
nay this is all based on stereotypes. all know that girls are weaker, smaller and less "important" than males, thus they get less payed and so forth. some ppl are just to stupid.
I can say for one that me mum prolly got better job than any of your dads lol, no offense intended though,but what im saying is, this is oldpasta. its only a few retards that still do this kind of things.
Wait, what?
No seriously what? I have read through your post about your mum prolly like ten times by now, but I still don't understand what you're trying to communicate. I feel like I'm going deeper down the rabbit hole with each successive reading.
|
On March 03 2011 13:14 Jones993 wrote:
Demanding outragous things is not a valid debate strategy.
Do you seriously think a model linking crime to race could not be made?
Create a simple neural network > feed it examples of crime taking into account race, etc. -> check the weighting given to race at the end.
I'm pointing out the difference between fact and speculation. You're saying somebody "could" make a rigorous model predicting crime that use race as an explanatory variable. I'm saying insurance companies HAVE rigorous models predicting claims that involve age and sex as explanatory variables. No could/would/should about it. It's been done.
I also pointed out the practical difference between giving someone a different insurance premium versus giving someone different legal treatment. Furthermore, I mentioned that when an insurance company gives someone a rate, they're able to sit at their desk and say "okay, you're a white female age 29 working as a banker, living in Indianapolis, homeowner, one car accident three years ago" etc. When a law enforcement officer sees somebody, they have no idea about that person's past or anything else.
More analogous in terms of consequence is unequal pay. Now, if a business group made a model of employee performance that showed that, all else equal, men produce more value in the workplace than women, then the pay difference would have the same level of justification. As it stands right now, while the insurance practice is very loosely analogous to certain pay practices, the difference is that one has been rigorously proven and the other has not.
I've worked on insurance models; I have some idea what I'm talking about. That is all I was responding to was the amount of speculation in this thread, which shows a completely understandable level of ignorance about the rigor of actuarial modeling versus something arbitrary like choosing to pay your male manager $150k while paying your female manager $90k. If you reread my post, you'll see I'm not even making an argument that insurance companies should be allowed to do this (in fact a few pages ago, I state that I have mixed feelings about the practice). The only purpose of that post was to discuss the extreme difference that goes into an insurance company making a predictive model that includes age and sex as a factor, versus something non-rigorous like saying "X% of blacks go to jail, while only Y% of whites go to jail, therefore whites are inherently less violent than blacks."
--------------------------------------------------------
Because my experience is with health care, I'll give some examples that show why you can't just get rid of sex using other explanatory variables and medical history.
A woman has a certain percent chance of getting pregnant that can be modeled using her age, marital status, whether she is already a mother, etc. A man will never get pregnant under any circumstances. Women do not get prostate cancer. Women have an extremely higher risk of breast cancer than men. The list goes on...
There will never be a way, without using sex, to accurately explain the difference between the incidence of certain medical claims for men and women. Men and women have genetic differences that directly affect their health outcomes. You could feed an unlimited number of possible variables into the model, and sex will still come out as significant.
Age works similarly. As people age, their immune system becomes weaker due to the aging process. Their bones become less dense and more fragile. The odds of their DNA becoming damaged increases and their telomeres become shorter. Differences in lifestyle, environment, medical history, etc cannot explain this difference. Old people are simply more likely to get sick as a direct consequence of their age.
Whereas with crime and race... well, do you think it's genetic? Because if it isn't, then your hypothetical neural network model would be able to flesh that out if you gave it all of the necessary explanatory variables along with prior criminal record. And if that is the case, then the two are not comparable because race would only be correlated with crime, while age and sex actually cause differences in health.
|
On March 03 2011 14:29 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2011 14:09 rezzan wrote:
nay this is all based on stereotypes. all know that girls are weaker, smaller and less "important" than males, thus they get less payed and so forth. some ppl are just to stupid.
I can say for one that me mum prolly got better job than any of your dads lol, no offense intended though,but what im saying is, this is oldpasta. its only a few retards that still do this kind of things. Wait, what? No seriously what? I have read through your post about your mum prolly like ten times by now, but I still don't understand what you're trying to communicate. I feel like I'm going deeper down the rabbit hole with each successive reading.
"we have to go deeper"
|
On March 03 2011 14:33 Keitzer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2011 14:29 HULKAMANIA wrote:On March 03 2011 14:09 rezzan wrote:
nay this is all based on stereotypes. all know that girls are weaker, smaller and less "important" than males, thus they get less payed and so forth. some ppl are just to stupid.
I can say for one that me mum prolly got better job than any of your dads lol, no offense intended though,but what im saying is, this is oldpasta. its only a few retards that still do this kind of things. Wait, what? No seriously what? I have read through your post about your mum prolly like ten times by now, but I still don't understand what you're trying to communicate. I feel like I'm going deeper down the rabbit hole with each successive reading. "we have to go deeper"
How about you go on in and wire me back a report on what you find. I'm scared to go.
On March 03 2011 14:30 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2011 13:14 Jones993 wrote:
Demanding outragous things is not a valid debate strategy.
Do you seriously think a model linking crime to race could not be made?
Create a simple neural network > feed it examples of crime taking into account race, etc. -> check the weighting given to race at the end. I'm pointing out the difference between fact and speculation. You're saying somebody "could" make a rigorous model predicting crime that use race as an explanatory variable. I'm saying insurance companies HAVE rigorous models predicting claims that involve age and sex as explanatory variables. No could/would/should about it. It's been done. I also pointed out the practical difference between giving someone a different insurance premium versus giving someone different legal treatment. Furthermore, I mentioned that when an insurance company gives someone a rate, they're able to sit at their desk and say "okay, you're a white female age 29 working as a banker, living in Indianapolis, homeowner, one car accident three years ago" etc. When a law enforcement officer sees somebody, they have no idea about that person's past or anything else. More analogous in terms of consequence is unequal pay. Now, if a business group made a model of employee performance that showed that, all else equal, men produce more value in the workplace than women, then the pay difference would have the same level of justification. As it stands right now, while the insurance practice is very loosely analogous to certain pay practices, the difference is that one has been rigorously proven and the other has not. I've worked on insurance models; I have some idea what I'm talking about. That is all I was responding to was the amount of speculation in this thread, which shows a completely understandable level of ignorance about the rigor of actuarial modeling versus something arbitrary like choosing to pay your male manager $150k while paying your female manager $90k. If you reread my post, you'll see I'm not even making an argument that insurance companies should be allowed to do this (in fact a few pages ago, I state that I have mixed feelings about the practice). The only purpose of that post was to discuss the extreme difference that goes into an insurance company making a predictive model that includes age and sex as a factor, versus something non-rigorous like saying "X% of blacks go to jail, while only Y% of whites go to jail, therefore whites are inherently less violent than blacks." -------------------------------------------------------- Because my experience is with health care, I'll give some examples that show why you can't just get rid of sex using other explanatory variables and medical history. A woman has a certain percent chance of getting pregnant that can be modeled using her age, marital status, whether she is already a mother, etc. A man will never get pregnant under any circumstances. Women do not get prostate cancer. Women have an extremely higher risk of breast cancer than men. The list goes on... There will never be a way, without using sex, to accurately explain the difference between the incidence of certain medical claims for men and women. Men and women have genetic differences that directly affect their health outcomes. You could feed an unlimited number of possible variables into the model, and sex will still come out as significant. Age works similarly. As people age, their immune system becomes weaker due to the aging process. Their bones become less dense and more fragile. The odds of their DNA becoming damaged increases and their telomeres become shorter. Differences in lifestyle, environment, medical history, etc cannot explain this difference. Old people are simply more likely to get sick as a direct consequence of their age. Whereas with crime and race... well, do you think it's genetic? Because if it isn't, then your hypothetical neural network model would be able to flesh that out if you gave it all of the necessary explanatory variables along with prior criminal record. And if that is the case, then the two are not comparable because race would only be correlated with crime, while age and sex actually cause differences in health.
I like the health outcome analogy. I also like the line:
Whereas with crime and race... well, do you think it's genetic?
That's a show stopper right there.
|
On March 03 2011 14:03 Jones993 wrote:
Discriminating against someone just because of their gender is indeed sexism, even if it is based off statistics..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's not. You look at a sample and see that a certain portion of the sample has a higher accident rate than another portion. You notice: The dangerous portion are women (or men).
But, at the same time, the dangerous portion could also identify itself by characteristics such as "below 25 years old" or "older than 60 years".
It's not discrimination because you don't specifically look at the weakness of a certain gender, instead you're generally looking for certain characteristics which provide a higher accident rate.
Discrimination would also include unfounded negativity towards a certain gender without evidence (for example statistics) to back certain assumptions up, e.g. saying that women, in general, are not as intelligent as men. And this practice is certainly not used in insurance companies.
Very well explained! : )
What very well explained? He is being illiterate.
Specifically here It's not discrimination because you don't specifically look at the weakness of a certain gender, instead you're generally looking for certain characteristics which provide a higher accident rate.
Discrimination would also include unfounded negativity towards a certain gender without evidence
His argument is this "discrimination is being negative towards people without evidence". He does not know what discrimination means. Whether or not it is based on evidence is irrelevant.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
Clearly it is discrimination as it is making a distinction against someone based on category instead of on individual merit.
|
On March 03 2011 15:09 Jones993 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2011 14:03 Jones993 wrote:
Discriminating against someone just because of their gender is indeed sexism, even if it is based off statistics..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's not. You look at a sample and see that a certain portion of the sample has a higher accident rate than another portion. You notice: The dangerous portion are women (or men).
But, at the same time, the dangerous portion could also identify itself by characteristics such as "below 25 years old" or "older than 60 years".
It's not discrimination because you don't specifically look at the weakness of a certain gender, instead you're generally looking for certain characteristics which provide a higher accident rate.
Discrimination would also include unfounded negativity towards a certain gender without evidence (for example statistics) to back certain assumptions up, e.g. saying that women, in general, are not as intelligent as men. And this practice is certainly not used in insurance companies. What very well explained? He is being illiterate. Specifically here Show nested quote +It's not discrimination because you don't specifically look at the weakness of a certain gender, instead you're generally looking for certain characteristics which provide a higher accident rate.
Discrimination would also include unfounded negativity towards a certain gender without evidence His argument is this "discrimination is being negative towards people without evidence". He does not know what discrimination means. Whether or not it is based on evidence is irrelevant. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination. Clearly it is discrimination as it is making a distinction against someone based on category instead of on individual merit.
You keep repeating the same argument which has been proven invalid. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm pretty sure I have a more acceptable answer than you do. As an Underwriter (google it if you don't know what it is) of group insurance, I understand the risks associated with different groups of people. I've discussed this with senior underwriters, actuaries (google that if you don't know it), and lawyers...they all give me the same responses. I'm going to take their word for it (seeing as it's their JOB) over yours.
If you can't provide an adequate argument besides a definition of discrimination, please don't waste everyones time. If you truely think that insurance companies discriminate against groups of people, file a lawsuit and try to make some cash out of it. Good luck with that.
|
It has not been proven invalid. You continually refuse to address the points I have made
[If you can't provide an adequate argument besides a definition of discrimination, please don't waste everyones time
I have, you just refuse to address them. You can also stop pretending words don't mean what they mean when a dictionary is just a click away. Kindly concede on the point on what discrimination is or stop using the word
There will never be a way, without using sex, to accurately explain the difference between the incidence of certain medical claims for men and women. Men and women have genetic differences that directly affect their health outcomes. You could feed an unlimited number of possible variables into the model, and sex will still come out as significant.
There is no link between medical claims and driving. You are using a strawman by bringing up specific gender medical problems and pretending they somehow transfer over to driving.
Insurance isn't based on your personality. Hence why a 65 year old nice funny guy wouldn't get the same rate as a 18 year old nice funny guy.
You completely missunderstood the point I made. I never claimed insurance is based on personality.
they're basing it off facts they (and other companies) have collected over the years, PROVING that it's more likely to happen with X and not Y (Y being females / non-blacks (again, ?) / etc)
Basing a decision off of facts does not mean the decision is being made in a scientific way. Facts can be misused, and you are indeed misusing them.
Let's say a certain personality type was more likely to have accidents, and males were more likely to have such a personality, does that mean all males are more likely to have an accident? no. Would they all be charged more anyway? Yes. This is not fair, and is discrimination based on category instead of on individual merit. It would be quite easy however, to simply blame gender instead of the personality type, for example. It doesn't have to be personality type, that was an example.
I'm not trying to come off rude, but saying "It's also illegal" on a topic you don't know much about isn't the best thing to do. If you're a lawyer, then I retract my statement.
You don't need to be a lawyer to know racial profiling is illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling
Racial profiling refers to the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest). The practice is controversial and widely considered inappropriate and illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
