3 ms·

> Ever gone to the cinema and stayed to the end of a film you actually loathed 10 minutes in? I think the author is assuming that what preceded will therefore

> Ever gone to the cinema and stayed to the end of a film you actually loathed 10 minutes in? I think the author is assuming that what preceded will therefore follow. Hate the first 10min? The rest of the movie will be bad. Lose $100 gambling? You'll keep losing. I think people evaluate more based on percentages and alternatives. What's else an I going to do if I leave the movie early? What are the odds of me enjoying that activity versus the chance the movie night turn around or the value I'll get from being able to knowledgeably talk about the film with friends. Or, did I lose the money gambling from making bad bets or is it just the natural up and down? For example, if you sell a stock every time it goes down in value, you'll be pretty broke. I think people choose to carry on with diminishing or unlikely returns if the likelihood and magnitude of the turnaround is sufficiently more attractive than stopping. That reasoning makes perfect sense as long as you're evaluating your options accurately. I was always taught not to consider sunk costs in your decisions, just know where you stand in the present and think about what you want in the future. What happened in the past can't be undone.

Jtsummers 8y ago
The author understands the fallacy just fine. As do you. The flaw is your assumption in paragraph 5. People give the sunk costs greater weight than you, and so you seem to be assuming this fallacy doesn’t really exist. They stick with a bad movie because they spent the ticket money. Not because they expect the actors to have received lessons and coaching that makes act 3 an Oscar contender. Dinner with their friends would be a better return (for the evening) but they get caught up in that $10 they spent and the “loss” of that if they walk out.
- sverige 8y ago
  >Not because they expect the actors to have received lessons and coaching that makes act 3 an Oscar contender. This is the actor fallacy. Sure, there are good and bad actors, but what makes a movie (or play) worthwhile is the script, then the director, then other stuff like cinematography, set decoration, lighting, etc. Actors are actually the most replaceable and least important part of the equation. Counterintuitive, I know, especially in light of the publicity machines that are at work 24/7. And for goodness' sake, don't mention this to the actors. So if the plot premise sucks in the first 10 minutes, you might as well bail out then. It ain't gonna get better.
  - Jtsummers 8y ago
    Fair enough. It was one element of the whole thing and I could’ve listed more.
    - sverige 8y ago
      Sorry, I'm a pedant by nature. I was not trying to pick at you. It's something I learned early that most people misunderstand. I'll return to my usual grammar correcting now. :O
brownbat 8y ago
I understand the sunk cost fallacy, but I agree that I'm not sure this is the greatest example of it. Or maybe I relate to films in a completely different way from anyone else. For example, gaping plot holes or impossible character motivations often turn me off. But I love apparent inconsistencies that are fully explained by the end. I basically want filmmakers to convince me they put more thought into their film in the months of making it than I could in the hours of watching it. Or... some of my favorite films are a slow burn that suddenly clicks into an intense ending that surprises you by raising the intensity far above the setup. The Third Man, Hara-kiri, M, Oldboy, The Hidden Blade. By either of these criteria, it can be incredibly difficult to know whether a movie is good or terrible in the beginning. The extreme best and worst could begin very similarly, but they'll end in completely different places. A bit like if Croesus and Solon were just film critics.
matchagaucho 8y ago
There's a fine line between persistence and sunken cost fallacy. Professional Poker players know that when pot odds are 33% for a given hand, they must consistently play that hand at least 3 times for the odds to fall in their favor. To the Author's point, though, betting on people is less about odds and more about politics... so failing projects are likely to continue failing.

Jtsummers 8y ago

The author understands the fallacy just fine. As do you. The flaw is your assumption in paragraph 5. People give the sunk costs greater weight than you, and so you seem to be assuming this fallacy doesn’t really exist. They stick with a bad movie because they spent the ticket money. Not because they expect the actors to have received lessons and coaching that makes act 3 an Oscar contender. Dinner with their friends would be a better return (for the evening) but they get caught up in that $10 they spent and the “loss” of that if they walk out.

sverige 8y ago
>Not because they expect the actors to have received lessons and coaching that makes act 3 an Oscar contender. This is the actor fallacy. Sure, there are good and bad actors, but what makes a movie (or play) worthwhile is the script, then the director, then other stuff like cinematography, set decoration, lighting, etc. Actors are actually the most replaceable and least important part of the equation. Counterintuitive, I know, especially in light of the publicity machines that are at work 24/7. And for goodness' sake, don't mention this to the actors. So if the plot premise sucks in the first 10 minutes, you might as well bail out then. It ain't gonna get better.
- Jtsummers 8y ago
  Fair enough. It was one element of the whole thing and I could’ve listed more.
  - sverige 8y ago
    Sorry, I'm a pedant by nature. I was not trying to pick at you. It's something I learned early that most people misunderstand. I'll return to my usual grammar correcting now. :O

brownbat 8y ago

I understand the sunk cost fallacy, but I agree that I'm not sure this is the greatest example of it. Or maybe I relate to films in a completely different way from anyone else. For example, gaping plot holes or impossible character motivations often turn me off. But I love apparent inconsistencies that are fully explained by the end. I basically want filmmakers to convince me they put more thought into their film in the months of making it than I could in the hours of watching it. Or... some of my favorite films are a slow burn that suddenly clicks into an intense ending that surprises you by raising the intensity far above the setup. The Third Man, Hara-kiri, M, Oldboy, The Hidden Blade. By either of these criteria, it can be incredibly difficult to know whether a movie is good or terrible in the beginning. The extreme best and worst could begin very similarly, but they'll end in completely different places. A bit like if Croesus and Solon were just film critics.

matchagaucho 8y ago

There's a fine line between persistence and sunken cost fallacy. Professional Poker players know that when pot odds are 33% for a given hand, they must consistently play that hand at least 3 times for the odds to fall in their favor. To the Author's point, though, betting on people is less about odds and more about politics... so failing projects are likely to continue failing.