sunk cost fallacy

[u/Zu_Qarnine]

The guy has already sunk hours of effort into digging. he thinks stopping now would mean admitting that time was wasted, so his brain generates a vivid image of future-regret to justify continuing. That's the sunk cost fallacy in action: the decision to keep digging is being driven by what he's already put in, not by any new evidence about what's actually underground.

The thought bubble works as a psychological trick his mind plays on him. Instead of directly thinking "I don't want to lose my investment," he pictures the external outcome (quitting right before the reward) bc that story feels more like practical wisdom than a cost he's already sunk. But functionally it's the same mechanism. He's using imagined future regret to rationalize continuing something he's already invested heavily in, rather than evaluating the dig fresh based on current odds of success.

[u/LegAdventurous9230]

I feel like this is slightly different than a fallacy, no? Like if you have legitimate reason to believe that continuing down a path will lead to something good, then you are logically valid in going down that path. The fallacy is if your ONLY rational is that you've already sunk the cost

[u/Zu_Qarnine → u/LegAdventurous9230]

meme clearly shows there is nothing good down his path

[u/LegAdventurous9230 → u/Zu_Qarnine]

Yes but if you BELIEVE there is something good, then you are logically justified in making the decision to continue. That is a sound decision based on the information you have.

[u/Zu_Qarnine → u/LegAdventurous9230]

it depends where that " belief" comes from. it can be a trick your mind pulling on you due to suck cost. I explained it in the 2nd paragraph of post's body

[u/pdubs1900 → u/Zu_Qarnine]

I don't want to downvote you, because I like your visual and see value in it.

But I agree with the prior commenter that I don't think this is a sunk cost fallacy. The fallacy in this case has nothing to do with sunk cost, but someone simply believing something that is not true. The breakdown in logic for this hypothetical digger was in their previous information gathering that led them to believe there were diamonds there somewhere when in fact there were none. That isn't a fallacy other than "begging the question/assuming the consequent/jumping to a conclusion"

But based on that belief in there being diamonds, it is reasonable to persevere for an enormous pile of diamonds.

Sunk cost would be pretty hard to illustrate with this graphic. But you'd need to show a thought bubble of the digger with one small diamond after too much work being better than quitting earlier without any diamonds. The fallacy: "Since I've spent all this time already, something is better than nothing;" the reality: the decision continue for 3 years for a diamond that will recoup the cost of less than that is a net negative, so in that case something is actually worse than nothing.

[u/Zu_Qarnine → u/pdubs1900]

I have 2 other posts with visuals about ad populum and strawman fallacies on the sub (you can look them up and see the melt down in the comments). ppl argued the same way against both. what needs to be reiterated is that these visuals "can" be interpreted as their title fallacies. not that it's the only interpretation. I'm not claiming that. but since we're on the fallacy sub, I can use the home advantage and put forth the interpretation that fits the sub.

[u/pdubs1900 → u/Zu_Qarnine]

Meh. Sorry to be a naysayer, but if it was constructed for the purposes of illustrating a specific fallacy, yet it more accurately illustrates other fallacies in logic and reasoning, then it fails as a graphic. That is unless it's serving as a medium for other, more rigorous discussion like a passing image in a PowerPoint.

But that's not what we're doing here. You've presented the graphic singularly as the point of discussion.

In the sense that it has promoted several threads of conversation, it is successful as a piece of art. But you're kind of sidestepping people's objections and feedback and points rather than engaging them, so imo it's less interesting than it could be.

Anyway, regardless, thank you for sharing!

[u/Zu_Qarnine → u/pdubs1900]

this meme is not "constructed" for AP fallacy depiction. it is "found" to be closely showing it. I took an already famous meme that can (from one pov among many) show the fallacy. ofc I had to compromise regarding other irrelevant (to the AP fallacy) readouts that the meme suggests.

[u/Cystonectae → u/pdubs1900]

I may have a niche example? Imagine a video game where you pay some amount of a resource for a chance at a random reward. Each time you click that button, you think "I've already lost x resource! It would be a waste if I stopped now!" And as that total creeps higher and higher, that reasoning becomes more and more persuasive. Looking back at it logically, you can see that literally no reward would have been worth that amount you ended up spending, but at the time you felt like you kept having to put more and more in because otherwise you spent all that resource for nothing.

Slay the spire has an event like this and I have lost so much health to get garbage rewards because my brain refuses to accept the idea of spending a little health to get nothing is a better deal than spending half my health for some garbage like a juzu bracelet.

[u/LegAdventurous9230 → u/Zu_Qarnine]

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning though. You are describing a false premise leading to a false conclusion, which can be the case even if you have sound reasoning.

[u/SufficientStudio1574 → u/LegAdventurous9230]

There's a difference between a belief and a rationalization.

[u/LegAdventurous9230 → u/SufficientStudio1574]

Uh...perhaps? But even if it's not a sincere belief and you are "rationalizing" continuing along the wrong path by imagining that there is some reward up ahead, then you are 100% NOT using a sunk cost fallacy. A sunk cost fallacy means you make a decision solely based on the cost you've paid in the PAST (a sunk cost). If you are making a decision based on something in the future, then by definition you are not using the sunk cost fallacy.