Editing 1768: Settling
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
This is a chart showing the outcomes when [[Randall]] was confronted with situations he wasn't happy with. It counts 13 situations which he realizes, in retrospect, he should have left sooner than he did, and only 2 situations where he should have stayed. The implication is that, in his experience, it's generally better to leave a situation you don't like, rather than stick with it in the hope that it will improve. | This is a chart showing the outcomes when [[Randall]] was confronted with situations he wasn't happy with. It counts 13 situations which he realizes, in retrospect, he should have left sooner than he did, and only 2 situations where he should have stayed. The implication is that, in his experience, it's generally better to leave a situation you don't like, rather than stick with it in the hope that it will improve. | ||
| β | People often stick with situations they are not happy with (a broken relationship, an unfulfilling career, a stale piece of cake) because they think sticking with the situation is better than throwing it away, and fear that they won't find something better if they leave | + | People often stick with situations they are not happy with (a broken relationship, an unfulfilling career, a stale piece of cake) because they think sticking with the situation is better than throwing it away, and fear that they won't find something better if they leave. This risk aversion can lead to people sticking with something a lot longer than they ought to if they want to be happiest. Humans' aversion to loss is common; you, being at the necessary reading level for this wiki, can surely easily recall many times when you feared to lose access to something or someone you valued. |
Economists and behavioral scientists refer to this behavior as the "sunk cost fallacy", more formally known as {{w|Escalation of commitment}}. Colloquially, this is a situation where resistance to change is justified by the amount of effort or time already expended. A proverb recognizing the error in this thinking is [http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/186789/etymology-of-throw-good-money-after-bad "Throwing good money after bad"], while a competing proverb seemingly justifying the behavior is [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_for_a_penny,_in_for_a_pound "In for a penny, in for a pound"]. The popular book {{w|Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow|"Thinking, Fast and Slow"}} by Daniel Kahneman details many "errors" in human decision-making, like our aversions to losses, the sunk cost fallacy, and others. | Economists and behavioral scientists refer to this behavior as the "sunk cost fallacy", more formally known as {{w|Escalation of commitment}}. Colloquially, this is a situation where resistance to change is justified by the amount of effort or time already expended. A proverb recognizing the error in this thinking is [http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/186789/etymology-of-throw-good-money-after-bad "Throwing good money after bad"], while a competing proverb seemingly justifying the behavior is [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_for_a_penny,_in_for_a_pound "In for a penny, in for a pound"]. The popular book {{w|Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow|"Thinking, Fast and Slow"}} by Daniel Kahneman details many "errors" in human decision-making, like our aversions to losses, the sunk cost fallacy, and others. | ||
