1: I see the main point of OP as variance-expectation trade off, where variance is bad when risk averse e.g. whet bad outcomes are much more bad than good outcomes are good. Perhaps you meant this—what you said reads like you may have meant that the process of overshooting teaches you new stuff.
2: When learning to park in an empty parking lot I realized I was consistently turning too early and so decided to go for enough that I’d expect to overshoot just as often/by as much; this suddenly made me much better and got me to learn the correct turning time faster. Notably, there was no risk of hitting someone if I overshot to the right instead of to the left.
I haven’t flushed out my idea clearly. I’m saying something like “In asymmetric scenarios, the more costly failures are, the harder it is to reach the optima (for a given level of risk-averseness)” + “In hindsight, most people will think they are too risk-averse for most things”. It isn’t centrally relevant to what OP is saying upon reflection.
1: I see the main point of OP as variance-expectation trade off, where variance is bad when risk averse e.g. whet bad outcomes are much more bad than good outcomes are good. Perhaps you meant this—what you said reads like you may have meant that the process of overshooting teaches you new stuff.
2: When learning to park in an empty parking lot I realized I was consistently turning too early and so decided to go for enough that I’d expect to overshoot just as often/by as much; this suddenly made me much better and got me to learn the correct turning time faster. Notably, there was no risk of hitting someone if I overshot to the right instead of to the left.
I haven’t flushed out my idea clearly. I’m saying something like “In asymmetric scenarios, the more costly failures are, the harder it is to reach the optima (for a given level of risk-averseness)” + “In hindsight, most people will think they are too risk-averse for most things”. It isn’t centrally relevant to what OP is saying upon reflection.