I have to ask now: do you trust your own emotions? I don't mean as a guiding beacon for making decisions, either. What you just said implies that you can't ever trust that your emotions are anything but illusions and trickery.
If you want to ignore/discard your emotions, that's your right, of course. But "sunken cost fallacy" applies outside of emotions as well, and I don't want to see people crippled by self-doubt.
Pretty much. You have to shut emotion out of big decisions or you will justify whatever mistake you make after the fact.
Sunken cost fallacy is predominantly a financial thing, with either investments "I dumped $1000 into GameStop, maybe I should buy more to average down" or overrunning projects "This roof rebuild is taking way longer than it should have, but I can't give up now". But it can be referred to in any situation, including the vaccine "I've already got it, but I guess I should get the booster to keep it working", marriage "I'm already in one, they can't be that bad. I just have to hold the line and hope it doesn't get like people say" etc.
As Warren Buffett says, nobody cares how much you put in to achieve something, only the value of it, as he found out when he tried to keep the original business behind Berkshire Hathaway running. It was a lot of effort for low rewards relative to it.
Ah, right, I forgot you were fairly involved in investment stuff. Makes sense you'd understand the sunken cost thing is intended to apply there. I just wanted to make sure you weren't taking it to an extreme.
Outside of financing, I disagree that emotions should necessarily be discarded. Personally, if my emotions get me in trouble, I try to either update the data that the emotions came out of or I try to remember to be more logical for whatever type of matter it was. Most of the time, it is a choice to rely on emotions (I consider instinct and reflex as similar forms of non-logic), so one should take responsibility for that choice if it results in failure or trouble.
Although, similar to your Warren Buffett example, I think it's alright to fuck up a lot as long as you eventually straighten up. Some people are just slow learners, after all. Such a person should feel like a retard for wasting resources - and once a cetain threshold is reached on that waste, it becomes impossible to justify even with success. I'm reluctant to apply this strictly, because I see too many people give up where they're mis-evaluating their waste vs potential gain.
You're making a distinction where there is none.
Emotional gain is subjective and can be influenced by the sunk cost fallacy.
You're tripling down on bullshit, man.
I ask again:
Are you serious with this line of argument?
I'm 100% serious. You can rationalize anything by arguing on emotion.
Even the retards who got the vax can say "well, it makes me feel safe" even though there's no quantifiable gain.
It's not about emotions, dude.
Do you think having children is a worthwhile endeavor?
By the way, there's an entire argument against you that I'm ignoring. Care to guess what it is?
I have to ask now: do you trust your own emotions? I don't mean as a guiding beacon for making decisions, either. What you just said implies that you can't ever trust that your emotions are anything but illusions and trickery.
If you want to ignore/discard your emotions, that's your right, of course. But "sunken cost fallacy" applies outside of emotions as well, and I don't want to see people crippled by self-doubt.
Pretty much. You have to shut emotion out of big decisions or you will justify whatever mistake you make after the fact.
Sunken cost fallacy is predominantly a financial thing, with either investments "I dumped $1000 into GameStop, maybe I should buy more to average down" or overrunning projects "This roof rebuild is taking way longer than it should have, but I can't give up now". But it can be referred to in any situation, including the vaccine "I've already got it, but I guess I should get the booster to keep it working", marriage "I'm already in one, they can't be that bad. I just have to hold the line and hope it doesn't get like people say" etc.
As Warren Buffett says, nobody cares how much you put in to achieve something, only the value of it, as he found out when he tried to keep the original business behind Berkshire Hathaway running. It was a lot of effort for low rewards relative to it.
Ah, right, I forgot you were fairly involved in investment stuff. Makes sense you'd understand the sunken cost thing is intended to apply there. I just wanted to make sure you weren't taking it to an extreme.
Outside of financing, I disagree that emotions should necessarily be discarded. Personally, if my emotions get me in trouble, I try to either update the data that the emotions came out of or I try to remember to be more logical for whatever type of matter it was. Most of the time, it is a choice to rely on emotions (I consider instinct and reflex as similar forms of non-logic), so one should take responsibility for that choice if it results in failure or trouble.
Although, similar to your Warren Buffett example, I think it's alright to fuck up a lot as long as you eventually straighten up. Some people are just slow learners, after all. Such a person should feel like a retard for wasting resources - and once a cetain threshold is reached on that waste, it becomes impossible to justify even with success. I'm reluctant to apply this strictly, because I see too many people give up where they're mis-evaluating their waste vs potential gain.