Saturday, July 14, 2018
No it's not a fallacy.
Stupid article on the sunk cost "fallacy".
In grocery lines, the shortest line is usually short because other people have SEEN that the line is locked up by an intransigent customer or a credit-card problem.
In relationships, an outside observer is applying his own preferences to the people involved. Maybe you wouldn't stay there, but you're not the one who is making the decision. The insiders are usually making a rational choice.
In projects the decision is more often clearly irrational, but a failed project ALWAYS increases skills and knowledge. The ideas developed in a failed project are transferred into a new and successful project.
Experienced adults generally know when a switch is UNQUESTIONABLY better, and generally make a GOOD ENOUGH decision given the AVAILABLE knowledge. AVAILABLE is the keyword.
Better question: Why are these researchers STUCK on a line of thinking that is obviously fallacious?
Stupid article on the sunk cost "fallacy".
The behavior of people who remain committed to a choice, even when it is clear that an alternate choice would be a better option, has been a perplexing phenomenon to psychologists and economists. For example, people will continue to wait in the slow line at a grocery store, stick out an unhealthy relationship, or refuse to abandon an expensive, wasteful project -- all because such individuals have already invested time, effort, or money. This well-known cognitive phenomenon termed the "sunk cost fallacy" has long been considered a problem unique to humans. New research has discovered that humans are not the only species that share these economically irrational flaws.It's not a fallacy, and it's not an irrational decision. In all of the given examples, experience leads an adult to predict the results of switching lines or relationships or projects.
In grocery lines, the shortest line is usually short because other people have SEEN that the line is locked up by an intransigent customer or a credit-card problem.
In relationships, an outside observer is applying his own preferences to the people involved. Maybe you wouldn't stay there, but you're not the one who is making the decision. The insiders are usually making a rational choice.
In projects the decision is more often clearly irrational, but a failed project ALWAYS increases skills and knowledge. The ideas developed in a failed project are transferred into a new and successful project.
Experienced adults generally know when a switch is UNQUESTIONABLY better, and generally make a GOOD ENOUGH decision given the AVAILABLE knowledge. AVAILABLE is the keyword.
Better question: Why are these researchers STUCK on a line of thinking that is obviously fallacious?
Labels: skill-estate
¶ 12:20 AM
