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

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".