that's not irrationality, that's decision-making under uncertainty, which is the norm, not the exception. probabilities are dynamic, information is imperfect, a

that's not irrationality, that's decision-making under uncertainty, which is the norm, not the exception. probabilities are dynamic, information is imperfect, and so decision-making must incorporate that uncertainty. the sunk cost fallacy is simply considering existing loss when deciding on continued investment (in time, money and other resources), when you should only consider future cost for future benefit. it's thinking erroneously that existing loss is not already locked in, that it's salvageable somehow. but no, it's already lost. in a project with continuously updating probabilities of success, and under imperfect information, the go-or-no-go decision should only be based on the likelihood of future gains exceeding future losses, not future+existing losses. in this framework, persistence would be having credible evidence (e.g., non-public information), not just belief, of the likelihood of future net gain relative to opportunity cost. it'd be irrational to be persistent simply on belief rather than credible information and probability estimation.