6 ms·

Your comment makes me think of Theranos. Imagine if they could string us along long enough and meanwhile the researchers there figured out some breakthrough. Wo

by mcny 5y ago

Your comment makes me think of Theranos. Imagine if they could string us along long enough and meanwhile the researchers there figured out some breakthrough. Would we see the con artist as a visionary?

inglor_cz 5y ago
Famously, first three rockets made by SpaceX failed and the one that got into the orbit first was literally the last one they had available funds for. Musk would have been considered entirely rational if he pulled the plug after the third crash, thus saving himself some millions. Maybe a certain level of irrationality is necessary to push things beyond usual limits, even though that effort often fails.
- antasvara 5y ago
  That example seems more like Musk put a very, very high value on entering orbit. It's not irrational to continue trying to put rockets into orbit if you value that accomplishment more than millions of dollars.
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  Why? After three failed rockets they knew much more about building rockets, and they could with much more confidence assess their probability of success, so at that point it was more rational to spend money that it was before the three failures.
- BoiledCabbage 5y ago
  This thread is confusing to me. I thought everyone knew about sunk-cost fallacy, but all I keep seeing is people referring to "sunk-cost fallacy" like it's the antonym for "persistence" or something. Sunk cost fallacy isn't saying: don't be persistent in chasing goals, or give up early. It's specifically saying the costs to get you to your current point are already lost and should not factor into whether you chose to continue forward or not. Only the potential future cost and your estimate of likelihood of future success should. Not "how much you're already invested".
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Is that even a realistic frame of mind for human beings? I think previous experience will weigh on you, and losing money is a painful emotional experience.
djmips 5y ago
Yes. And I think the world works that way sometimes.

by mcny 5y ago

inglor_cz 5y ago

Famously, first three rockets made by SpaceX failed and the one that got into the orbit first was literally the last one they had available funds for. Musk would have been considered entirely rational if he pulled the plug after the third crash, thus saving himself some millions. Maybe a certain level of irrationality is necessary to push things beyond usual limits, even though that effort often fails.

antasvara 5y ago
That example seems more like Musk put a very, very high value on entering orbit. It's not irrational to continue trying to put rockets into orbit if you value that accomplishment more than millions of dollars.
Ma8ee 5y ago
Why? After three failed rockets they knew much more about building rockets, and they could with much more confidence assess their probability of success, so at that point it was more rational to spend money that it was before the three failures.
BoiledCabbage 5y ago
This thread is confusing to me. I thought everyone knew about sunk-cost fallacy, but all I keep seeing is people referring to "sunk-cost fallacy" like it's the antonym for "persistence" or something. Sunk cost fallacy isn't saying: don't be persistent in chasing goals, or give up early. It's specifically saying the costs to get you to your current point are already lost and should not factor into whether you chose to continue forward or not. Only the potential future cost and your estimate of likelihood of future success should. Not "how much you're already invested".
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Is that even a realistic frame of mind for human beings? I think previous experience will weigh on you, and losing money is a painful emotional experience.

djmips 5y ago

Yes. And I think the world works that way sometimes.