Seeking help:
We're failing to explain the "sunk costs" fallacy. The general public still thinks sunk costs should be taken into account when figuring out if a project should proceed. This is terrible economics. Cynical politicians abuse this blind spot. What should we do? #SiteC
We're failing to explain the "sunk costs" fallacy. The general public still thinks sunk costs should be taken into account when figuring out if a project should proceed. This is terrible economics. Cynical politicians abuse this blind spot. What should we do? #SiteC
Note: as far as #SiteC is concerned, Horgan is also mixing up sunk costs (what's already been spent, about $6bn, some of which went to useful, overdue local upgrades) & "cost to cancel" which he's calling "$10 billion" - a figure he pulled out of a hat & never showed his work on.
The idea of "sunk costs" is known as a fallacy for a reason. But people find it counterintuitive that it doesn't matter what you've already spent, it only matters what is left to be spent & whether that remainder is economic to spend. So I just seek a way to better transmit this.
There are common expressions in English that warn against the sunk cost fallacy, & some people do understand that they apply to #SiteC. "Cut your losses" is a classic. Yet we're not getting this across. Media is not helping. time.com/5347133/sunk-c… #bcpoli
"Humans get caught in this psychological trap for several possible reasons..Sticking with the plan, even when it no longer serves you, could be an attempt to correct cognitive dissonance..." time.com/5347133/sunk-c… #SiteC
..."Sticking with the plan, even when it no longer serves you, could be an attempt to correct cognitive dissonance: the mental disconnect between paying for something and not getting the expected return on investment. It could also be a knee-jerk reaction to regret." #SiteC
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
