Ignore Sunk Costs (2009)
seths.blog
Ignore Sunk Costs (2009)
1–10 of 101 posts
Re: Ignore Sunk Costs (2009)
#2Probably do better reading these all in one place than trying to cobble them together from random blogs from 2009.
This one is the Irrational escalation or Escalation of commitment/Sunk Cost Fallacy.
Re: Ignore Sunk Costs (2009)
#3Probably do better reading these all in one place than trying to cobble them together from random blogs from 2009. This one is the Irrational escalation or Escalation of commitment/Sunk Cost Fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
This article has too many biases. What's needed is a prioritized list :) This is the tl/dr phenomenon...
Re: Ignore Sunk Costs (2009)
#4Probably do better reading these all in one place than trying to cobble them together from random blogs from 2009. This one is the Irrational escalation or Escalation of commitment/Sunk Cost Fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
I'm not sure it's fair to imply that the wikipedia article for a topic is equivalent in value to a blog post about that topic.
Re: Ignore Sunk Costs (2009)
#5Hold'em poker is specifically good at teaching this viscerally. Nothing lets you feel the mistake of valuing sunk costs than holding onto a once-strong starting hand way too long.
Re: Ignore Sunk Costs (2009)
#6[deleted]
Re: Ignore Sunk Costs (2009)
#7Probably do better reading these all in one place than trying to cobble them together from random blogs from 2009. This one is the Irrational escalation or Escalation of commitment/Sunk Cost Fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
I'm not sure it's fair to imply that the wikipedia article for a topic is equivalent in value to a blog post about that topic.
True, the blog post probably has less value.
Re: Ignore Sunk Costs (2009)
#8Probably do better reading these all in one place than trying to cobble them together from random blogs from 2009. This one is the Irrational escalation or Escalation of commitment/Sunk Cost Fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Seth's blog is arguably one of the most popular blogs of all time, so it's not a "random blog".
The fact that you haven't heard of it says more about you than the blog.
Re: Ignore Sunk Costs (2009)
#9The "argument from waste," as economists call it, makes sense from a business and investment standpoint, but I'm a staunch believer that in every-day decision making (barring Vegas trips) it isn't usually a fallacy[1]. The paper cited is abstract (and borrows from Nozick, who also wrote a criticism of the sunken cost fallacy in the early 90s). But the conclusion is:
> Sometimes it is reasonable to honor sunk costs. Why? It’s reasonable to want to maintain plausible deniability about having suffered diachronic misfortune. Sometimes, honoring sunk costs is the only way to do this. It’s reasonable to want to maintain plausible deniability because having this desire is instrumental in successful cooperation, and successful cooperation is essential to our success as social creatures.
In Seth's concert example, this is particularly relevant: your spouse might be a huge Springsteen fan, for instance. She might have dressed up, and made a whole night of the event. Your friends might have also bought tickets and they are waiting for you. These are all technically "sunken costs" -- but not honoring them might hinder current (or future) cooperation.
[1] http://www.mit.edu/~rdoody/SunkCostFallacyIsNotaFallacy.pdf
Re: Ignore Sunk Costs (2009)
#10Don't know if this was linked, but the relevant podcast episode if anyone's interested https://www.akimbo.link/blog/s-2-e-13-ignore-sunk-costs