this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
21 points (86.2% liked)
[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation
6470 readers
1 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
- Encourage conversation in your post
- Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
- Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Honoring past decisions and commitments Is not the sunk cost fallacy, though. The sunk cost fallacy is purely "throwing good money after bad". The best expression is one quoted by economist Emily Oster: "If you don't like your beer, stop drinking it."
Going to the gym is a terrible example, because by not not going to the gym, it's not the past you're taking away from... it's the future.
But if you're trying to develop an affinity for IPAs for some stupid reason, then shouldn't you keep drinking it?
Sure, that's future-oriented. It's stupid, but not fallacious.
But if you're just drinking it because you paid $8 and you don't want to "waste it", THAT is sunk cost fallacy.
Id say the gym isnt a bad example. If I've been regularly and sunk that time and cost into improving my fitness, not going and sitting on the lounge eating pizza doesnt just take away from the future it also invalidates the efforts in the past (annoyingly frigging quickly too) making the "sunk cost" a loss that I might not want to lose and give me motivation.