3 ms·

Sunk cost itself is not a fallacy; it's usually coupled with something else that is a fallacy. For example, in the case of gambling, the fallacy is that future

Sunk cost itself is not a fallacy; it's usually coupled with something else that is a fallacy. For example, in the case of gambling, the fallacy is that future random events are influenced by past random events. If you pulled 99 times on a slot machine with 1% chance of winning, your chance of winning on the next pull isn't 100% or even 50%; it's 1%. There are many cases where past effort does contribute to a payout threshold, which is likely why we evolved the "sunk cost" behavior to begin with. For example, if you spent 5 minutes trying to loosen a tight bolt, it's possible that the bolt has been loosened somewhat and you could fully loosen it in a few more minutes, so giving up is suboptimal. The problem is trying to determine which cases are which.

WillPostForFood 3y ago
The problem is trying to determine which cases are which. If you don't know there is nothing you can do. But the situations where teaching sunk cost can help is is when you DO know, but emotionally don't want to let go. Like when you your business is lost, and shouldn't put any more money in, but emotionally are clinging to the "I've spent so much time and effort and savings on this, I can't just walk away".
pessimizer 3y ago
No, sunk cost is just a fallacy. If you've already put $90 into something with a 50% chance of returning $100 if you invest another $10, with all other things being equal, it's a bad idea to spend that $10 if there's a cheaper $9 option that also has a 50% chance or returning $100. > For example, if you spent 5 minutes trying to loosen a tight bolt, it's possible that the bolt has been loosened somewhat and you could fully loosen it in a few more minutes, so giving up is suboptimal. This is exactly the sunk cost fallacy, though. Wishful thinking: "it's possible that the bolt has been loosened somewhat" If "it's possible," then it's not a sunk cost fallacy, it's the best option. The sunk cost fallacy is when you prefer a tight bolt that you've put a lot of effort into to a looser bolt that you haven't put any effort into.

WillPostForFood 3y ago

The problem is trying to determine which cases are which. If you don't know there is nothing you can do. But the situations where teaching sunk cost can help is is when you DO know, but emotionally don't want to let go. Like when you your business is lost, and shouldn't put any more money in, but emotionally are clinging to the "I've spent so much time and effort and savings on this, I can't just walk away".

pessimizer 3y ago

No, sunk cost is just a fallacy. If you've already put $90 into something with a 50% chance of returning $100 if you invest another $10, with all other things being equal, it's a bad idea to spend that $10 if there's a cheaper $9 option that also has a 50% chance or returning $100. > For example, if you spent 5 minutes trying to loosen a tight bolt, it's possible that the bolt has been loosened somewhat and you could fully loosen it in a few more minutes, so giving up is suboptimal. This is exactly the sunk cost fallacy, though. Wishful thinking: "it's possible that the bolt has been loosened somewhat" If "it's possible," then it's not a sunk cost fallacy, it's the best option. The sunk cost fallacy is when you prefer a tight bolt that you've put a lot of effort into to a looser bolt that you haven't put any effort into.