3 ms·
I'd personally take B. If something goes wrong on the trip, I'd much rather be almost there, as there will be more ways to complete the journey. But I think it
by wpietri 3y ago
I'd personally take B. If something goes wrong on the trip, I'd much rather be almost there, as there will be more ways to complete the journey.
But I think it flips for me when commuting, in that a short local ride is easier for me to mentally discount as it's part of my routine. E.g. I used to live one MUNI stop from BART, and I came to see that first leg as negligible in the same way that walking to the MUNI station did.
- glenngillen 3y agoI initially felt the same as you, but then I thought about some of the times this has actually happened. After 18hrs on a plane I just want to be home or in my hotel. I’m not in a headspace where dealing with any level of inconvenience is welcomed even if the the rational response is “well at least you’re close to where you want to be and have a range of options to choose from, some of them possibly quite familiar if you’re coming home”. I don’t want options. I don’t want to think. I just want to collapse into a bed.
- wpietri 3y agoSure, I too want to just get there. I'd rather it just worked. But if I compare the disappointment of having a problem when I'm almost there versus one where I've just started, I'd definitely take the former. In either case I've already gone to the trouble of starting a long trip. A failure at the 90% point means I'm almost there and just have the work of finishing it, and short trips have many more options than long ones (e.g., short-hop flight vs transit vs renting a car vs taking a Lyft). But a failure at the 10% point means that I've gone to a lot of trouble, gotten very little out of it, and will have fewer options for finishing. I get people's preferences are different here, and maybe this is just me making use of whatever drives the sunk cost fallacy to keep momentum up and not get discouraged. But I'd definitely prefer B.