There’s a study on this… I o py remember it pretty vaguely, but the tl;dr was that if people win at gambling it doesn’t hold much appeal – the initial drive to continue gambling only comes after losses. Something about ‘making up for’ anything you lost drives the addiction behaviour far more. This struck me initially as kinda counter-intuitive (you’d think that people were more motivated by behaviours with positive outcomes, right?) so it always stuck in my head…
I already know what the sunk cost fallacy is, but it’s a statement of logic, not a statement about human psychology. And also I almost never use Google as my search engine, and try not to use it as a verb any more.
There’s a study on this… I o py remember it pretty vaguely, but the tl;dr was that if people win at gambling it doesn’t hold much appeal – the initial drive to continue gambling only comes after losses. Something about ‘making up for’ anything you lost drives the addiction behaviour far more. This struck me initially as kinda counter-intuitive (you’d think that people were more motivated by behaviours with positive outcomes, right?) so it always stuck in my head…
Google sunk cost fallacy
No
but you already invested so much effort into this
I already know what the sunk cost fallacy is, but it’s a statement of logic, not a statement about human psychology. And also I almost never use Google as my search engine, and try not to use it as a verb any more.
New response just dropped
You sank
Alas