Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 111 (click to see context) from:
* It has also been argued that UsefulNotes/{{World War 1}} lasted as long as it did was in no small part because of this fallacy, for all major powers involved. The blog Blog/ACollectionOfUnmitigatedPedantry even uses it as an example of failing to update an strategy when conditions change, and sums it up like this:
to:
* It has also been argued that the reason UsefulNotes/{{World War 1}} lasted as long as it did was in no small part because of this fallacy, for all major powers involved. The blog Blog/ACollectionOfUnmitigatedPedantry even uses it as an example of failing to update an strategy when conditions change, and sums it up like this:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 24,25 (click to see context) from:
It is also important to note that this fallacy is entwined with economic theory and thus will discount other valid reasons Bob might wish to continue, for example if he was trying to win the contest to impress his peers, or that the shop might be closed so it becomes a matter of "spend 15 dollars now vs spend 5 dollars tomorrow" (this concept is known as ''[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility Utility]]''). Likewise, if Bob calculates that he could sell the prize for more than the 15 dollars total he expects to spend, then it would not be a Sunk Cost Fallacy either (though it would still be illogical, since Bob should instead buy the prize for $5 and sell that for greater profit instead).
to:
Even if Bob calculates that he could sell the prize for twenty dollars, it's still a sunk cost fallacy (because continuing the contest will leave him $5 ahead after the sale, while just buying the prize elsewhere will leave him $7 ahead.)
It is also important to note that this fallacy is entwined with economic theory and thus will discount other valid reasons Bob might wish to continue, for example if he was trying to win the contest to impress his peers, or that the shop might be closed so it becomes a matter of "spend 15 dollars now vs spend 5 dollars tomorrow" (this concept is known as ''[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UtilityUtility]]''). Likewise, if Bob calculates that he could sell the prize for more than the 15 dollars total he expects to spend, then it would not be a Sunk Cost Fallacy either (though it would still be illogical, since Bob should instead buy the prize for $5 and sell that for greater profit instead).
Utility]]'').
It is also important to note that this fallacy is entwined with economic theory and thus will discount other valid reasons Bob might wish to continue, for example if he was trying to win the contest to impress his peers, or that the shop might be closed so it becomes a matter of "spend 15 dollars now vs spend 5 dollars tomorrow" (this concept is known as ''[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 100 (click to see context) from:
* ''WesternAnimation/TheOwlHouse'': [[Characters/TheOwlHouseEmperorBelos Philip Wittebane's]] initial reason for traveling the Boiling Isles was to rescue his brother Caleb. But after he killed Caleb in a fit of rage, Philip didn't return back home to report his failure and tragedy. Instead, he stayed in the Boiling Isles and devised a plan to wipe out all witches in one swoop so he can return home as the greatest witch hunter. A plan that required centuries to pull off, by which point Gravesfield has moved on from its witch hunting past. When his plan fails at the last minute and he is stranded in the modern world of Gravesfield, Philip refuses to accept defeat and instead digs up the last remaining Titan's Blood to go back to the Boiling Isles and finish the job. It's becomes evident that Belos didn't want to accept that his actions were AllForNothing.
to:
* ''WesternAnimation/TheOwlHouse'': [[Characters/TheOwlHouseEmperorBelos [[spoiler:[[Characters/TheOwlHouseEmperorBelos Philip Wittebane's]] initial reason for traveling the Boiling Isles was to rescue his brother Caleb. But after he killed Caleb in a fit of rage, Philip didn't return back home to report his failure and tragedy. Instead, he stayed in the Boiling Isles and devised a plan to wipe out all witches in one swoop so he can return home as the greatest witch hunter. A plan that required centuries to pull off, by which point Gravesfield has moved on from its witch hunting past. When his plan fails at the last minute and he is stranded in the modern world of Gravesfield, Philip refuses to accept defeat and instead digs up the last remaining Titan's Blood to go back to the Boiling Isles and finish the job. It's becomes evident that Belos he didn't want to accept that his actions were AllForNothing.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 80,81 (click to see context) from:
** This is what trips up Chapter 3's culprit. They created an elaborate deathtrap setup in three different rooms to be able to kill a victim while seemingly being uninvolved... and then got caught setting it up, resulting in them needing to kill the witness. Since you only need to kill one person to escape, the culprit could've just left it at that... but they decided to continue with their plan because they didn't want to waste the trap setup. Naturally, it's the second murder that provides the decisive evidence to get them executed, while the first murder left no real clues.
** This also factors into the mastermind's motivation: [[spoiler:having dedicated her life so completely to ''[=Danganronpa=]'', she cannot conceptualize a world without it]].
** This also factors into the mastermind's motivation: [[spoiler:having dedicated her life so completely to ''[=Danganronpa=]'', she cannot conceptualize a world without it]].
to:
** This is what trips up Chapter 3's culprit. They created an elaborate deathtrap setup in three different rooms to be able to kill a victim while seemingly being uninvolved... and then got caught setting it up, resulting in them needing to kill the witness. Since you only need The impromptu murder turned out to kill one person to escape, be the culprit could've just left it at that... closest thing to ThePerfectCrime in the series, as the witness had been wandering around alone in the middle of the night without anyone else's knowledge and there was nothing connecting the killer to the crime scene, but they the killer decided they'd put too much work into such a cool and thematic deathtrap and decided to continue go ahead with their plan because they didn't want to waste the trap setup. Naturally, it's the anyways. This second murder that provides the decisive leaves enough evidence to get them executed, while (with the first murder left no real clues.
aid of the killer misspeaking during the trial) to pin the culprit for ''both'' murders.[[spoiler: Although Korekiyo might not have cared as much about getting caught as killing Tenko so she could be an "admirable friend" for his late sister.]]
** This also factors into the mastermind's motivation: [[spoiler:having dedicated her life so completely to ''[=Danganronpa=]'', she cannot conceptualize a world withoutit]].it, and chooses to die in the school's destruction]].
** This also factors into the mastermind's motivation: [[spoiler:having dedicated her life so completely to ''[=Danganronpa=]'', she cannot conceptualize a world without
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*It has also been argued that UsefulNotes/{{World War 1}} lasted as long as it did was in no small part because of this fallacy, for all major powers involved. The blog Blog/ACollectionOfUnmitigatedPedantry even uses it as an example of failing to update an strategy when conditions change, and sums it up like this:
-->"By 1915 or 1916, it ought to have been obvious that no gains made as a result of the war could possibly be worth its continuance. Yet it was continued, both because having lost so much it seemed wrong to give up without ‘victory’ and also because, for the politicians who had initially supported the war, to admit it was a useless waste was political suicide"
-->"By 1915 or 1916, it ought to have been obvious that no gains made as a result of the war could possibly be worth its continuance. Yet it was continued, both because having lost so much it seemed wrong to give up without ‘victory’ and also because, for the politicians who had initially supported the war, to admit it was a useless waste was political suicide"
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[folder:Western Animation]]
* ''WesternAnimation/TheOwlHouse'': [[Characters/TheOwlHouseEmperorBelos Philip Wittebane's]] initial reason for traveling the Boiling Isles was to rescue his brother Caleb. But after he killed Caleb in a fit of rage, Philip didn't return back home to report his failure and tragedy. Instead, he stayed in the Boiling Isles and devised a plan to wipe out all witches in one swoop so he can return home as the greatest witch hunter. A plan that required centuries to pull off, by which point Gravesfield has moved on from its witch hunting past. When his plan fails at the last minute and he is stranded in the modern world of Gravesfield, Philip refuses to accept defeat and instead digs up the last remaining Titan's Blood to go back to the Boiling Isles and finish the job. It's becomes evident that Belos didn't want to accept that his actions were AllForNothing.
[[/folder]]
* ''WesternAnimation/TheOwlHouse'': [[Characters/TheOwlHouseEmperorBelos Philip Wittebane's]] initial reason for traveling the Boiling Isles was to rescue his brother Caleb. But after he killed Caleb in a fit of rage, Philip didn't return back home to report his failure and tragedy. Instead, he stayed in the Boiling Isles and devised a plan to wipe out all witches in one swoop so he can return home as the greatest witch hunter. A plan that required centuries to pull off, by which point Gravesfield has moved on from its witch hunting past. When his plan fails at the last minute and he is stranded in the modern world of Gravesfield, Philip refuses to accept defeat and instead digs up the last remaining Titan's Blood to go back to the Boiling Isles and finish the job. It's becomes evident that Belos didn't want to accept that his actions were AllForNothing.
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 56 (click to see context) from:
* Extensively discussed in ''Literature/TheDresdenFiles'' short story "[[Literature/BriefCases Bigfoot on Campus]]" in reference to the [[HornyDevils White Court of Vampires]]. Both Harry and River Shoulders reflect on how the White Court is founded on the MotivationalLie started by "some ancient bastard/bitch" stating that it's ''okay'' for them to be emotion-draining monsters. The aforementioned bastard/bitch's descendants have then been intentionally obscuring the truth from their own children until it's too late, and subsequently invoke this trope afterwards so that the new vampire will fall into line and accept all the Court's teachings as valid because the only alternative would be realizing that there's ''no'' excuse for having '''killed''' another human being. Related to this, Charles Barrowill can't accept the possibility that he might not have been a murderer if his parents had just been honest with him, and so tries to use an AppealToTradition argument (which ultimately just boils down to this trope) to make sure that his daughter grows up to be as much of a miserable and inhuman monster as he is.
to:
* Extensively discussed in ''Literature/TheDresdenFiles'' short story "[[Literature/BriefCases Bigfoot on Campus]]" in reference to the [[HornyDevils [[SuccubiAndIncubi White Court of Vampires]]. Both Harry and River Shoulders reflect on how the White Court is founded on the MotivationalLie started by "some ancient bastard/bitch" stating that it's ''okay'' for them to be emotion-draining monsters. The aforementioned bastard/bitch's descendants have then been intentionally obscuring the truth from their own children until it's too late, and subsequently invoke this trope afterwards so that the new vampire will fall into line and accept all the Court's teachings as valid because the only alternative would be realizing that there's ''no'' excuse for having '''killed''' another human being. Related to this, Charles Barrowill can't accept the possibility that he might not have been a murderer if his parents had just been honest with him, and so tries to use an AppealToTradition argument (which ultimately just boils down to this trope) to make sure that his daughter grows up to be as much of a miserable and inhuman monster as he is.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 87 (click to see context) from:
* [[spoiler:Locus]] from ''Machinima/RedVsBlue''. In his mind he has to keep [[JustFollowingOrders following orders]] because admitting he has a choice now would mean admitting he had a choice in all his previous actions, and he can't face that.
to:
* [[spoiler:Locus]] from ''Machinima/RedVsBlue''.''WebAnimation/RedVsBlue''. In his mind he has to keep [[JustFollowingOrders following orders]] because admitting he has a choice now would mean admitting he had a choice in all his previous actions, and he can't face that.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 94 (click to see context) from:
* ''Webcomic/TheOrderOfTheStick'' has Redcloak both lampshade this and deconstruct it, as expressed in ''[[Recap/TheOrderOfTheStickStartOfDarkness Start of Darkness]]''. It's not that Redcloak believes in [[BigBad Lord Xykon's]] plan, or even likes the idea of what Xykon is trying to achieve; in fact, Redcloak hates Xykon's guts. The reason Redcloak stays around in spite of his hatred is that Redcloak believes that if he quits, it'll make all of the horrible things he's done worthless. This is in spite of Redcloak being told by both his brother and Xykon himself that this is an empty excuse. He continues to support Xykon despite being entirely too familiar with the lich's BadBoss habits and knowing that completing the Plan with Xykon will ''not'' work out in his favor. But because Redcloak feels too invested to quit, Redcloak keeps himself trapped in villainy. This causes him to decay to the point that [[spoiler:when someone points out ''he already has what he wants'', he refuses to change course because it would mean admitting to himself that he's made ''any'' mistakes]].
to:
* ''Webcomic/TheOrderOfTheStick'' has Redcloak both lampshade this and deconstruct it, as expressed in ''[[Recap/TheOrderOfTheStickStartOfDarkness Start of Darkness]]''. It's not that Redcloak believes in [[BigBad Lord Xykon's]] plan, or even likes the idea of what Xykon is trying to achieve; in fact, Redcloak hates Xykon's guts. The reason Redcloak stays around in spite of his hatred is that Redcloak believes that if he quits, it'll make all of the horrible things he's done worthless. This is in spite of Redcloak being told by both his brother and Xykon himself that this is an empty excuse. He Redcloak continues to support Xykon despite being entirely too familiar with the lich's BadBoss habits and knowing that completing the Plan with Xykon will ''not'' work out in his Redcloak's favor. In fact, Xykon tells Redcloak point-blank that he's using this flaw of Redcloak's as a way to keep him under control. But because Redcloak feels too invested to quit, in spite of knowing that he's being strung along and that his flaws are being exploited by the lich, Redcloak keeps himself trapped in villainy. This causes him to decay to the point that [[spoiler:when someone points out ''he to Redcloak that he already has what he wants'', he wants, Redcloak still refuses to change course because it would mean admitting to himself that he's made ''any'' mistakes]].a mistake, and he just can't do that]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 108 (click to see context) from:
* Anoter aversion: when HMS ''Belfast'', that warship on the Thames, was damaged by a mine during the second world war, it was deemed that the fastest repair solution would be more expensive than a new cruiser. That would have taken three years and dry dock space Britain didn't have however.
to:
* Anoter Another aversion: when HMS ''Belfast'', that warship on the Thames, was damaged by a mine during the second world war, it was deemed that the fastest repair solution would be more expensive than a new cruiser. That would have taken three years and dry dock space Britain didn't have however.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Removing pointless note.
Changed line(s) 91 (click to see context) from:
* In ''Webcomic/TheInexplicableAdventuresOfBob'', the protagonist explains to recurring villain Fructose Riboflavin[[note]]Yes, it's that kind of a strip.[[/note]] that he's [[https://bobadventures.thecomicseries.com/comics/490 chasing a sunk cost]], and that it likely feels like giving up on revenge would mean everything else was a waste. Fructose is both stricken by this realization, and ''really'' [[BerserkButton not amused.]]
to:
* In ''Webcomic/TheInexplicableAdventuresOfBob'', the protagonist explains to recurring villain Fructose Riboflavin[[note]]Yes, it's that kind of a strip.[[/note]] Riboflavin that he's [[https://bobadventures.thecomicseries.com/comics/490 chasing a sunk cost]], and that it likely feels like giving up on revenge would mean everything else was a waste. Fructose is both stricken by this realization, and ''really'' [[BerserkButton not amused.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 94 (click to see context) from:
* ''Webcomic/TheOrderOfTheStick'' has Redcloak both lampshade this and deconstruct it, as expressed in ''[[Recap/TheOrderOfTheStickStartOfDarkness Start of Darkness]]''. It's not that Redcloak believes in [[BigBad Lord Xykon's]] plan, or even likes the idea of what Xykon is trying to achieve; in fact, Redcloak hates Xykon's guts. The reason Redcloak stays around in spite of his hatred is that Redcloak believes that if he quits, it'll make all of the horrible things he's done worthless. This is in spite of Redcloak being told by both his brother and Xykon himself that this is an empty excuse. He continues to support Xykon despite being entirely too familiar with the lich's BadBoss habits and knowing that completing the Plan with Xykon will ''not'' work out in his favor. But because Redcloak feels too invested to quit, Redcloak keeps himself trapped in villainy.
to:
* ''Webcomic/TheOrderOfTheStick'' has Redcloak both lampshade this and deconstruct it, as expressed in ''[[Recap/TheOrderOfTheStickStartOfDarkness Start of Darkness]]''. It's not that Redcloak believes in [[BigBad Lord Xykon's]] plan, or even likes the idea of what Xykon is trying to achieve; in fact, Redcloak hates Xykon's guts. The reason Redcloak stays around in spite of his hatred is that Redcloak believes that if he quits, it'll make all of the horrible things he's done worthless. This is in spite of Redcloak being told by both his brother and Xykon himself that this is an empty excuse. He continues to support Xykon despite being entirely too familiar with the lich's BadBoss habits and knowing that completing the Plan with Xykon will ''not'' work out in his favor. But because Redcloak feels too invested to quit, Redcloak keeps himself trapped in villainy. This causes him to decay to the point that [[spoiler:when someone points out ''he already has what he wants'', he refuses to change course because it would mean admitting to himself that he's made ''any'' mistakes]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Lengthy page; created some Subpages and moved examples accordingly.
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
%% Quote replaced per thead: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1327331003042025100&page=262. Do not change or remove without consulting the thread.
to:
%% This page has been alphabetized. Please add new examples in the correct order. Thanks!
%%
%%%
%% Quote replaced per thead: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1327331003042025100&page=262. Do not change or remove without consulting the thread.
%%
%%
%%%
%% Quote replaced per thead: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1327331003042025100&page=262. Do not change or remove without consulting the thread.
%%
----
[[index]]
* SunkCostFallacy/FanWorks
* SunkCostFallacy/VideoGames
[[/index]]
* SunkCostFallacy/FanWorks
* SunkCostFallacy/VideoGames
[[/index]]
Deleted line(s) 38,44 (click to see context) :
[[folder:Fan Works]]
* In the sequel to ''Fanfic/TheDarkLordsOfNerima'', ''The Dark Lords Ascendant'', this is the BigBad Tanizaki Kazuo's FatalFlaw. His EvilPlan was to use a clone of Sailor Moon called Unit Zero to take control of the Silver Crystal to [[InTheirOwnImage reshape reality so he's on top of the entire world]]. Unfortunately for him, the Nerima Wrecking Crew [[SpannerInTheWorks throw a monkey wrench into this plan]], allowing Sailor Moon to survive. Tanizaki, needing to kill Sailor Moon for his plan, tries multiple times to finish her off, getting increasingly desperate as his resources dwindle. For his ultimate plan, [[spoiler:Tanizaki makes a deal with [[OmnicidalManic The]] [[EldritchAbomination Nameless]] [[SealedEvilInACan One]] that could result in it being freed, which would be TheEndOfTheWorldAsWeKnowIt. All the while, Tanizaki kept believing that if he could just get the Silver Crystal, he could fix everything the way that he wanted. Ultimately, Sailor Moon foils him by [[TakeAThirdOption splitting the Crystal so both she and Unit Zero could survive]], rendering Tanizaki's plans AllForNothing. And that isn't even the end of it, since Ranma manages to figure out that Tanizaki's using a SoulJar to gain immortality, and has Ryouga destroy it, rendering Tanizaki mortal again and allowing Ranma to kill him]]. All of which could have been avoided if Tanizaki had realized that he should have given up earlier.
* ''Fanfic/KingMHA'': In the wake of the Kamino Incident, U.A. defended Katsuki from his detractors, insisting that he would become a great hero. When Katsuki endangers this by [[spoiler:using excessive force against a villain and killing them]], the school goes to great lengths to cover up what happened -- and their methods show that they consider him to be an ''asset'' rather than a ''person''.
* In the ''Fanfic/TriptychContinuum'', this is the central reason the Cutie Mark Crusaders keep going. They become fanatics in the name of their cause, and to stop would invalidate everything which had come before -- including all the accidents, disaster relief forms, reparations, [[ArsonMurderAndJaywalking and tree sap]]. The fallacy winds up being summarized in a speech by Apple Bloom, and the voicing of it is part of what finally [[spoiler:[[Recap/TriptychContinuumUnstableSale breaks the Crusade]] and convinces Apple Bloom that they've gone way too far]].
-->'''Apple Bloom:''' [[spoiler:Gotta do it for a day because y'try. Then y'go for a week 'cause iffin y'don't, y'wasted the day. Then it's a moon, lots of moons, and then when it's a year, it's gotta be more. We keep goin' an' goin' 'cause if we ever ''stop'', then it means we wasted ''everything''. An' we could just keep goin' til we're grown up, out of school, but we won't have jobs because we don't have ''marks'' and the only thing we can do is look some more. It's nearly three years an' if Ah do it for one more day, it could turn into... It's too much, an' Ah think -- it's been too much for a while. Too ''long''. An' -- an' it ain't worth it no more.]]
[[/folder]]
* In the sequel to ''Fanfic/TheDarkLordsOfNerima'', ''The Dark Lords Ascendant'', this is the BigBad Tanizaki Kazuo's FatalFlaw. His EvilPlan was to use a clone of Sailor Moon called Unit Zero to take control of the Silver Crystal to [[InTheirOwnImage reshape reality so he's on top of the entire world]]. Unfortunately for him, the Nerima Wrecking Crew [[SpannerInTheWorks throw a monkey wrench into this plan]], allowing Sailor Moon to survive. Tanizaki, needing to kill Sailor Moon for his plan, tries multiple times to finish her off, getting increasingly desperate as his resources dwindle. For his ultimate plan, [[spoiler:Tanizaki makes a deal with [[OmnicidalManic The]] [[EldritchAbomination Nameless]] [[SealedEvilInACan One]] that could result in it being freed, which would be TheEndOfTheWorldAsWeKnowIt. All the while, Tanizaki kept believing that if he could just get the Silver Crystal, he could fix everything the way that he wanted. Ultimately, Sailor Moon foils him by [[TakeAThirdOption splitting the Crystal so both she and Unit Zero could survive]], rendering Tanizaki's plans AllForNothing. And that isn't even the end of it, since Ranma manages to figure out that Tanizaki's using a SoulJar to gain immortality, and has Ryouga destroy it, rendering Tanizaki mortal again and allowing Ranma to kill him]]. All of which could have been avoided if Tanizaki had realized that he should have given up earlier.
* ''Fanfic/KingMHA'': In the wake of the Kamino Incident, U.A. defended Katsuki from his detractors, insisting that he would become a great hero. When Katsuki endangers this by [[spoiler:using excessive force against a villain and killing them]], the school goes to great lengths to cover up what happened -- and their methods show that they consider him to be an ''asset'' rather than a ''person''.
* In the ''Fanfic/TriptychContinuum'', this is the central reason the Cutie Mark Crusaders keep going. They become fanatics in the name of their cause, and to stop would invalidate everything which had come before -- including all the accidents, disaster relief forms, reparations, [[ArsonMurderAndJaywalking and tree sap]]. The fallacy winds up being summarized in a speech by Apple Bloom, and the voicing of it is part of what finally [[spoiler:[[Recap/TriptychContinuumUnstableSale breaks the Crusade]] and convinces Apple Bloom that they've gone way too far]].
-->'''Apple Bloom:''' [[spoiler:Gotta do it for a day because y'try. Then y'go for a week 'cause iffin y'don't, y'wasted the day. Then it's a moon, lots of moons, and then when it's a year, it's gotta be more. We keep goin' an' goin' 'cause if we ever ''stop'', then it means we wasted ''everything''. An' we could just keep goin' til we're grown up, out of school, but we won't have jobs because we don't have ''marks'' and the only thing we can do is look some more. It's nearly three years an' if Ah do it for one more day, it could turn into... It's too much, an' Ah think -- it's been too much for a while. Too ''long''. An' -- an' it ain't worth it no more.]]
[[/folder]]
* Extensively discussed in ''Literature/TheDresdenFiles'' short story "[[Literature/BriefCases Bigfoot on Campus]]" in reference to the [[HornyDevils White Court of Vampires]]. Both Harry and River Shoulders reflect on how the White Court is founded on the MotivationalLie started by "some ancient bastard/bitch" stating that it's ''okay'' for them to be emotion-draining monsters. The aforementioned bastard/bitch's descendants have then been intentionally obscuring the truth from their own children until it's too late, and subsequently invoke this trope afterwards so that the new vampire will fall into line and accept all the Court's teachings as valid because the only alternative would be realizing that there's ''no'' excuse for having '''killed''' another human being. Related to this, Charles Barrowill can't accept the possibility that he might not have been a murderer if his parents had just been honest with him, and so tries to use an AppealToTradition argument (which ultimately just boils down to this trope) to make sure that his daughter grows up to be as much of a miserable and inhuman monster as he is.
Deleted line(s) 53 (click to see context) :
* Extensively discussed in ''Literature/TheDresdenFiles'' short story "[[Literature/BriefCases Bigfoot on Campus]]" in reference to the [[HornyDevils White Court of Vampires]]. Both Harry and River Shoulders reflect on how the White Court is founded on the MotivationalLie started by "some ancient bastard/bitch" stating that it's ''okay'' for them to be emotion-draining monsters. The aforementioned bastard/bitch's descendants have then been intentionally obscuring the truth from their own children until it's too late, and subsequently invoke this trope afterwards so that the new vampire will fall into line and accept all the Court's teachings as valid because the only alternative would be realizing that there's ''no'' excuse for having '''killed''' another human being. Related to this, Charles Barrowill can't accept the possibility that he might not have been a murderer if his parents had just been honest with him, and so tries to use an AppealToTradition argument (which ultimately just boils down to this trope) to make sure that his daughter grows up to be as much of a miserable and inhuman monster as he is.
Changed line(s) 74,82 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Video Games]]
* In ''VisualNovel/DanganronpaV3KillingHarmony'': This is what trips up Chapter 3's culprit. They created an elaborate deathtrap setup in three different rooms to be able to kill a victim while seemingly being uninvolved... and then got caught setting it up, resulting in them needing to kill the witness. Since you only need to kill one person to escape, the culprit could've just left it at that... but they decided to continue with their plan because they didn't want to waste the trap setup. Naturally, it's the second murder that provides the decisive evidence to get them executed, while the first murder left no real clues.
* In ''VideoGame/FireEmblemThreeHouses'', this is one of Edelgard's {{Fatal Flaw}}s. [[spoiler:She absolutely refuses to accept any outcome for the war for Fódlan other than her in complete control of the continent, even when she's cornered in her capital city, Byleth's forces are breathing right down her neck, and on Azure Moon, Dimitri is directly offering her a peaceful surrender. If she quits now, everything she sacrificed for her vision of a new Fódlan was for nothing.]]
* Aresh, the ArcVillain of Jack's loyalty mission in ''VideoGame/MassEffect2'', uses a version of this to explain why he wants to restart the [[TrainingFromHell Pragia facility]] — the people running it did such horrible things to everyone there, including him, that they ''must'' have been pursuing some greater purpose, and its near-destruction during a riot means that all the pain that happened there was for nothing. Jack, meanwhile, is understandably scornful of the idea that the suffering caused at Pragia meant anything more profound than "the people running this place need to die".
* Right before the beginning of ''VideoGame/RedDeadRedemption2'', the van der Linde gang steals $150,000 (worth a little north of $4 million in today's dollar) off of a banking ferry. In their hasty retreat, the leader Dutch has to stash the take. The heist was supposed to their OneLastJob as it was big enough for all two dozen of them to retire to normal lives. However, Dutch spends the rest of the main story of the game pouring more and more money into replacing the take which only further gets the law on their tail as well. Even though they have the money they need just sitting there, they just need to be patient. The more logical decision would have been to have the gang keep up operations as normal for a year or two and then have him go back to get the money or hire someone else to do it once the trail's gone cold, but Dutch is clearly suffering from ever increasing SanitySlippage as the game goes on.
* At the end of a "No Mercy" run (i.e. a [[spoiler:"[[KillEmAll kill everyone in the game]] including and especially major characters]]" run) of ''VideoGame/{{Undertale}}'', the FinalBoss points out that you're pressing forward with [[spoiler:your murdering spree]] not out of any sort of "good" or "evil" desire, but simply because you ''can'', and because you can, you feel like you ''have to'', even though there's no real benefit to persevering at this point. They also gladly point out that the best thing to do at this point is to seriously give up and do ''literally anything else.'' [[spoiler:Because really, [[PyrrhicVictory what do you personally have to gain from not only massacring the entire underground but then also destroying the entire world and selling your soul to reset the game at the cost of ruining all future good endings]]?]]
-->[[spoiler:i always thought the [[AddressingThePlayer anomaly]] was doing this cause they were unhappy. and when they got what they wanted, they would stop all this. and maybe all they needed was... i dunno. some good food, some bad laughs, some nice friends. but that's ridiculous, right? yeah, you're the type of person who won't EVER be happy. you'll keep [[SaveScumming consuming timelines]] over and over, until... well. hey. take it from me, kid. [[PreAsskickingOneLiner someday... you gotta learn when to QUIT. and that day's TODAY.]]]]
* This trope is what tragically amplifies the various misplaced Hero Complexes [[spoiler: -- specifically, Martin Walker and possibly John Konrad's --]] to catastrophic levels in ''VideoGame/SpecOpsTheLine''. When the Damned 33rd failed in evacuating Dubai's civilians from encroaching sandstorms, trapping all of them together in the cut-off city, they somehow decided they had the moral authority to enforce martial law at gunpoint, resulting in various atrocities they felt compelled to continue, lest they invite further chaos and admit their actions were pointless. [[spoiler:Martin Walker, when he arrives, falls into the same trap of thinking he has to "rescue everyone", is forced to kill in self defense, and by the end just winds up killing people left and right in the delusional hope that he can justify everything by killing some FinalBoss]]. The game ultimately shows how easy good intentions cause bad results, and how people will keep persisting on a course of action rather than admit they are the problem making everything worse.
-->"''None of this would have happened if you just '''stopped'''.''"
* In ''VisualNovel/DanganronpaV3KillingHarmony'': This is what trips up Chapter 3's culprit. They created an elaborate deathtrap setup in three different rooms to be able to kill a victim while seemingly being uninvolved... and then got caught setting it up, resulting in them needing to kill the witness. Since you only need to kill one person to escape, the culprit could've just left it at that... but they decided to continue with their plan because they didn't want to waste the trap setup. Naturally, it's the second murder that provides the decisive evidence to get them executed, while the first murder left no real clues.
* In ''VideoGame/FireEmblemThreeHouses'', this is one of Edelgard's {{Fatal Flaw}}s. [[spoiler:She absolutely refuses to accept any outcome for the war for Fódlan other than her in complete control of the continent, even when she's cornered in her capital city, Byleth's forces are breathing right down her neck, and on Azure Moon, Dimitri is directly offering her a peaceful surrender. If she quits now, everything she sacrificed for her vision of a new Fódlan was for nothing.]]
* Aresh, the ArcVillain of Jack's loyalty mission in ''VideoGame/MassEffect2'', uses a version of this to explain why he wants to restart the [[TrainingFromHell Pragia facility]] — the people running it did such horrible things to everyone there, including him, that they ''must'' have been pursuing some greater purpose, and its near-destruction during a riot means that all the pain that happened there was for nothing. Jack, meanwhile, is understandably scornful of the idea that the suffering caused at Pragia meant anything more profound than "the people running this place need to die".
* Right before the beginning of ''VideoGame/RedDeadRedemption2'', the van der Linde gang steals $150,000 (worth a little north of $4 million in today's dollar) off of a banking ferry. In their hasty retreat, the leader Dutch has to stash the take. The heist was supposed to their OneLastJob as it was big enough for all two dozen of them to retire to normal lives. However, Dutch spends the rest of the main story of the game pouring more and more money into replacing the take which only further gets the law on their tail as well. Even though they have the money they need just sitting there, they just need to be patient. The more logical decision would have been to have the gang keep up operations as normal for a year or two and then have him go back to get the money or hire someone else to do it once the trail's gone cold, but Dutch is clearly suffering from ever increasing SanitySlippage as the game goes on.
* At the end of a "No Mercy" run (i.e. a [[spoiler:"[[KillEmAll kill everyone in the game]] including and especially major characters]]" run) of ''VideoGame/{{Undertale}}'', the FinalBoss points out that you're pressing forward with [[spoiler:your murdering spree]] not out of any sort of "good" or "evil" desire, but simply because you ''can'', and because you can, you feel like you ''have to'', even though there's no real benefit to persevering at this point. They also gladly point out that the best thing to do at this point is to seriously give up and do ''literally anything else.'' [[spoiler:Because really, [[PyrrhicVictory what do you personally have to gain from not only massacring the entire underground but then also destroying the entire world and selling your soul to reset the game at the cost of ruining all future good endings]]?]]
-->[[spoiler:i always thought the [[AddressingThePlayer anomaly]] was doing this cause they were unhappy. and when they got what they wanted, they would stop all this. and maybe all they needed was... i dunno. some good food, some bad laughs, some nice friends. but that's ridiculous, right? yeah, you're the type of person who won't EVER be happy. you'll keep [[SaveScumming consuming timelines]] over and over, until... well. hey. take it from me, kid. [[PreAsskickingOneLiner someday... you gotta learn when to QUIT. and that day's TODAY.]]]]
* This trope is what tragically amplifies the various misplaced Hero Complexes [[spoiler: -- specifically, Martin Walker and possibly John Konrad's --]] to catastrophic levels in ''VideoGame/SpecOpsTheLine''. When the Damned 33rd failed in evacuating Dubai's civilians from encroaching sandstorms, trapping all of them together in the cut-off city, they somehow decided they had the moral authority to enforce martial law at gunpoint, resulting in various atrocities they felt compelled to continue, lest they invite further chaos and admit their actions were pointless. [[spoiler:Martin Walker, when he arrives, falls into the same trap of thinking he has to "rescue everyone", is forced to kill in self defense, and by the end just winds up killing people left and right in the delusional hope that he can justify everything by killing some FinalBoss]]. The game ultimately shows how easy good intentions cause bad results, and how people will keep persisting on a course of action rather than admit they are the problem making everything worse.
-->"''None of this would have happened if you just '''stopped'''.''"
to:
*
** This is what trips up Chapter 3's culprit. They created an elaborate deathtrap setup in three different rooms to be able to kill a victim while seemingly being uninvolved... and then got caught setting it up, resulting in them needing to kill the witness. Since you only need to kill one person to escape, the culprit could've just left it at that... but they decided to continue with their plan because they didn't want to waste the trap setup. Naturally, it's the second murder that provides the decisive evidence to get them executed, while the first murder left no real clues.
* Aresh, the ArcVillain of Jack's loyalty mission in ''VideoGame/MassEffect2'', uses a version of this to explain why he wants to restart the [[TrainingFromHell Pragia facility]] — the people running it did such horrible things to everyone there, including him, that they ''must'' have been pursuing some greater purpose, and its near-destruction during a riot means that all the pain that happened there was for nothing. Jack, meanwhile, is understandably scornful of the idea that the suffering caused at Pragia meant anything more profound than "the people running this place need to die".
* Right before the beginning of ''VideoGame/RedDeadRedemption2'', the van der Linde gang steals $150,000 (worth a little north of $4 million in today's dollar) off of a banking ferry. In their hasty retreat, the leader Dutch has to stash the take. The heist was supposed to their OneLastJob as it was big enough for all two dozen of them to retire to normal lives. However, Dutch spends the rest of the main story of the game pouring more and more money into replacing the take which only further gets the law on their tail as well. Even though they have the money they need just sitting there, they just need to be patient. The more logical decision would have been to have the gang keep up operations as normal for a year or two and then have him go back to get the money or hire someone else to do it once the trail's gone cold, but Dutch is clearly suffering from ever increasing SanitySlippage as the game goes on.
* At the end of a "No Mercy" run (i.e. a [[spoiler:"[[KillEmAll kill everyone in the game]] including and especially major characters]]" run) of ''VideoGame/{{Undertale}}'', the FinalBoss points out that you're pressing forward with [[spoiler:your murdering spree]] not out of any sort of "good" or "evil" desire, but simply because you ''can'', and because you can, you feel like you ''have to'', even though there's no real benefit to persevering at this point. They
-->[[spoiler:i always thought the [[AddressingThePlayer anomaly]] was doing this cause they were unhappy. and when they got what they wanted, they would stop all this. and maybe all they needed was... i dunno. some good food, some bad laughs, some nice friends. but that's ridiculous, right? yeah, you're the type of person who won't EVER be happy. you'll keep [[SaveScumming consuming timelines]] over and over, until... well. hey. take it from me, kid. [[PreAsskickingOneLiner someday... you gotta learn when to QUIT. and that day's TODAY.]]]]
* This trope is what tragically amplifies the various misplaced Hero Complexes [[spoiler: -- specifically, Martin Walker and possibly John Konrad's --]] to catastrophic levels in ''VideoGame/SpecOpsTheLine''. When the Damned 33rd failed in evacuating Dubai's civilians from encroaching sandstorms, trapping all of them together in the cut-off city, they somehow decided they had the moral authority to enforce martial law at gunpoint, resulting in various atrocities they felt compelled to continue, lest they invite further chaos and admit their actions were pointless. [[spoiler:Martin Walker, when he arrives, falls
-->"''None of this would have happened if you just '''stopped'''.''"
Deleted line(s) 86,87 (click to see context) :
* ''WebAnimation/EpithetErased:'' [[spoiler: When Molly questions why Mera, whose epithet leaves her in constant pain, doesn't just have somebody use the amulet to take it away, Mera remarks that if she does that, the past decade of training she put herself through in order to reach her current level of power would be AllForNothing.]]
* [[spoiler: Locus]] from ''Machinima/RedVsBlue''. In his mind he has to keep [[JustFollowingOrders following orders]] because admitting he has a choice now would mean admitting he had a choice in all his previous actions, and he can't face that.
* [[spoiler: Locus]] from ''Machinima/RedVsBlue''. In his mind he has to keep [[JustFollowingOrders following orders]] because admitting he has a choice now would mean admitting he had a choice in all his previous actions, and he can't face that.
* ''WebAnimation/EpithetErased:'' When Molly questions why [[spoiler:Mera, whose epithet leaves her in constant pain, doesn't just have somebody use the amulet to take it away]], they respond that if they do that, the past decade of training they put themselves through in order to reach their current level of power would be AllForNothing.
* [[spoiler:Locus]] from ''Machinima/RedVsBlue''. In his mind he has to keep [[JustFollowingOrders following orders]] because admitting he has a choice now would mean admitting he had a choice in all his previous actions, and he can't face that.
* [[spoiler:Locus]] from ''Machinima/RedVsBlue''. In his mind he has to keep [[JustFollowingOrders following orders]] because admitting he has a choice now would mean admitting he had a choice in all his previous actions, and he can't face that.
* In ''Webcomic/TheInexplicableAdventuresOfBob'', the protagonist explains to recurring villain Fructose Riboflavin[[note]]Yes, it's that kind of a strip.[[/note]] that he's [[https://bobadventures.thecomicseries.com/comics/490 chasing a sunk cost]], and that it likely feels like giving up on revenge would mean everything else was a waste. Fructose is both stricken by this realization, and ''really'' [[BerserkButton not amused.]]
Deleted line(s) 95 (click to see context) :
* In ''Webcomic/TheInexplicableAdventuresOfBob'', the protagonist explains to recurring villain Fructose Riboflavin[[note]]Yes, it's that kind of a strip.[[/note]] that he's [[https://bobadventures.thecomicseries.com/comics/490 chasing a sunk cost]], and that it likely feels like giving up on revenge would mean everything else was a waste. Fructose is both stricken by this realization, and ''really'' [[BerserkButton not amused.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* A known way for gangs to initiate new members is to have them commit progressively greater crimes, then invoke this fallacy if the newbie tries to back out. Stealing a case of beer or selling a small amount of drugs isn't that big of a deal, in the long run. But committing murder certainly is a big deal, and now you're up to your neck in it. Since you're screwed either way, the gang rationalizes, you may as well stick with people who are going to have your back when the proverbial rubber meets the road. The trouble is that, when said proverbial rubber meets said proverbial road, [[NoHonorAmongThieves the now-invested newbie is likely going to be left on their own for the gang to save their own hide]]. This gets brought up in shows like ''Series/BeyondScaredStraight'' and other real-life crime shows, where former gang members talk about how they were slowly sucked into a world of crime because they agreed to one small thing.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 35 (click to see context) from:
* In the ''ComicBook/DisneyDucksComicUniverse'', this is ultimately why Magica is after Scrooge's NumberOneDime: as explained when her backstory was revealed, originally the Witches Council, as part of the RiteOfPassage any witch has to go through to reach adulthood, gave her the Midas Touch quest that requires a coin touched and owned for any length of time by the world's billionaires, but the task had been so hard and infuriating that by the time she went to collect the last coin from Scrooge, that was willing to just ''sell'' her a dime for a dollar, the reveal he had that coin for his entire life caused her to focus on it exclusively because it would make the Midas Touch charm much better than a random coin, and while the Witches Council has realized facing Scrooge is an impossible task and is willing to let her take a different quest, she refuses because she put too much effort into taking Scrooge's coin to even consider anything else unless it would give her the ability to take the Dime in the process.
to:
* In the ''ComicBook/DisneyDucksComicUniverse'', this is ultimately why Magica [=DeSpell=] is after Scrooge's NumberOneDime: as explained when her backstory was revealed, originally the Witches NumberOneDime. The Witches' Council, as part of the RiteOfPassage any witch has to go through to reach adulthood, gave her Magica the Midas Touch quest that requires a coin touched and owned for any length of time by the world's billionaires, but billionaires. But the task had been so hard and infuriating that by the time she went to collect the last coin from Scrooge, that Scrooge -- who was willing to just ''sell'' her Magica a dime for a dollar, dollar -- the reveal he had that coin Scrooge had his #1 Dime for his entire life caused her to focus on that coin exclusively. Magica rationalized it exclusively because by believing it would make the Midas Touch charm much better than a random coin, and while coin that Scrooge just sold her. While the Witches Council has realized facing Scrooge is an impossible task and is willing to let her take a different quest, she Magica refuses because she she's put too much effort into taking Scrooge's coin #1 Dime to even consider anything else unless else. As such, Magica continues to fail in her efforts because her pride won't let her accept defeat, and because it would give her mean all the ability to take effort in taking the Dime in the process.dime would have been for nothing.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 75 (click to see context) from:
* In ''VisualNovel/DanganronpaV3KillingHarmony'': This is what trips up Chapter 3's culprit. They created an elaborate deathtrap setup in three different rooms to be able to kill a victim while seemingly being uninvolved... and then got caught setting it up, resulting in them needing to kill the witness. Since you only need to kill one person to escape, the culprit could've just left it at that... but they decided to continue with their plan because they didn't want to waste the trap setup. Naturally, it's the second murder that provides the decisive evidence to get them executed.
to:
* In ''VisualNovel/DanganronpaV3KillingHarmony'': This is what trips up Chapter 3's culprit. They created an elaborate deathtrap setup in three different rooms to be able to kill a victim while seemingly being uninvolved... and then got caught setting it up, resulting in them needing to kill the witness. Since you only need to kill one person to escape, the culprit could've just left it at that... but they decided to continue with their plan because they didn't want to waste the trap setup. Naturally, it's the second murder that provides the decisive evidence to get them executed.executed, while the first murder left no real clues.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* In ''VisualNovel/DanganronpaV3KillingHarmony'': This is what trips up Chapter 3's culprit. They created an elaborate deathtrap setup in three different rooms to be able to kill a victim while seemingly being uninvolved... and then got caught setting it up, resulting in them needing to kill the witness. Since you only need to kill one person to escape, the culprit could've just left it at that... but they decided to continue with their plan because they didn't want to waste the trap setup. Naturally, it's the second murder that provides the decisive evidence to get them executed.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 103 (click to see context) from:
* Nintendo's UsefulNotes/VirtualBoy is another example, or possibly an aversion depending on how you look at it. Halfway through development they learned two things, the first was that playing video games on a red-on-black screen that could make your eyeballs sore was a miserable experience and the public would hate it, the second was that a color display would have pushed the price far above what the average consumer could afford. They decided to cut their losses and release it in an essentially unfinished state know full well it would flop just to make ''some'' revenue out of it and mitigate the losses. Project chief Creator/GunpeiYokoi, who also created the UsefulNotes/GameBoy (and Metroid), [[Main/ResignedInDisgrace fell on his sword]] and left for Bandai.
to:
* Nintendo's UsefulNotes/VirtualBoy is another example, or possibly an aversion depending on how you look at it. Halfway through development they learned two things, the first was that playing video games on a red-on-black screen that could make your eyeballs sore was a miserable experience and the public would hate it, the second was that a color display would have pushed the price far above what the average consumer could afford. They decided to cut their losses and release it in an essentially unfinished state know knowing full well it would flop just to make ''some'' revenue out of it and mitigate the losses. Project chief Creator/GunpeiYokoi, who also created the UsefulNotes/GameBoy (and Metroid), [[Main/ResignedInDisgrace fell on his sword]] and left for Bandai.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Nintendo's UsefulNotes/VirtualBoy is another example, or possibly an aversion depending on how you look at it. Halfway through development they learned two things, the first was that playing video games on a red-on-black screen that could make your eyeballs sore was a miserable experience and the public would hate it, the second was that a color display would have pushed the price far above what the average consumer could afford. They decided to cut their losses and release it in an essentially unfinished state know full well it would flop just to make ''some'' revenue out of it and mitigate the losses. Project chief Creator/GunpeiYokoi, who also created the UsefulNotes/GameBoy (and Metroid), [[Main/ResignedInDisgrace fell on his sword]] and left for Bandai.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 45 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Film]]
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
No general examples site policy
Changed line(s) 19,20 (click to see context) from:
It is also important to note that this fallacy is entwined with economic theory and thus will discount other valid reasons Bob might wish to continue, for example if he was trying to win the contest to impress his peers. Likewise, if Bob calculates that he could sell the prize for more than the 15 dollars total he expects to spend, then it would not be a Sunk Cost Fallacy either (though it would still be illogical, since Bob should instead buy the prize for $5 and sell that for greater profit instead).
to:
It is also important to note that this fallacy is entwined with economic theory and thus will discount other valid reasons Bob might wish to continue, for example if he was trying to win the contest to impress his peers.peers, or that the shop might be closed so it becomes a matter of "spend 15 dollars now vs spend 5 dollars tomorrow" (this concept is known as ''[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility Utility]]''). Likewise, if Bob calculates that he could sell the prize for more than the 15 dollars total he expects to spend, then it would not be a Sunk Cost Fallacy either (though it would still be illogical, since Bob should instead buy the prize for $5 and sell that for greater profit instead).
Deleted line(s) 75,77 (click to see context) :
* This logic is exploited by some publishers to sell what have been known as "microtransactions" which come in many forms, the most despised term being "loot box" or "time saver", essentially a random grab bag of items from ingame that are often awarded to a player very slowly. A player may have to perform an elongated task (such as leveling up their profile) or play for a certain time in order to be given one reward, but the company offers the player a way to obtain these rewards quicker by simply purchasing them for money. These are different than a "DLC" (Downloadable Content) purchase in that the idea of a DLC purchase is you do it once to get a specific thing you cannot get at all without purchasing (maybe a character, item, or possibly new campaign) and you now simply own that purchase and can play it any time desired. In contrast, with microtransactions, you can continue purchasing them over and over to help obtain otherwise free content you often have to wait for or cannot easily find without these purchases.
** When it comes to loot box type rewards, the boxes often contain totally random items. Much like a real-life gambling philosophy, the player may become invested in dropping tens or hundreds of dollars to obtain the item that they particularly want, and having dropped so much money, they feel it is financially irresponsible to stop. The justification of finding the item is often the reason given to excuse their expenditure.
** With Timer Savers, they often grant something such as a mobile game that requires a waiting period to do something, but you can purchase an item that removes the time period once. This allows you to play the game more frequently and earn the rewards from the game on a more consistent basis. Once a player has invested money into their experience, whatever it may be, the publisher hopes that they'll see this money as a true "investment", and they cannot let their "investment" fail, because they put money into it. Thus, they continue playing the game and spending money to justify the money they've already spent rather than playing literally anything else.
** When it comes to loot box type rewards, the boxes often contain totally random items. Much like a real-life gambling philosophy, the player may become invested in dropping tens or hundreds of dollars to obtain the item that they particularly want, and having dropped so much money, they feel it is financially irresponsible to stop. The justification of finding the item is often the reason given to excuse their expenditure.
** With Timer Savers, they often grant something such as a mobile game that requires a waiting period to do something, but you can purchase an item that removes the time period once. This allows you to play the game more frequently and earn the rewards from the game on a more consistent basis. Once a player has invested money into their experience, whatever it may be, the publisher hopes that they'll see this money as a true "investment", and they cannot let their "investment" fail, because they put money into it. Thus, they continue playing the game and spending money to justify the money they've already spent rather than playing literally anything else.
Changed line(s) 103,104 (click to see context) from:
* When done badly, the policy doctrine of "too big to fail" can become this. One such example was the car maker British Leyland, which was bailed out by the British Government in 1968, but still failed to reverse its long-term decline. In spite of the British government trying to save Leyland, it was a lost cause.
* The concept of [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_stair the missing stair]] works like this in social psychology. The term refers to how people in a social group who engage in bad behavior -- abuse, lying, backstabbing, self-destruction, or other behavior that has to be "managed" somehow -- are allowed to continue to act that way because everyone else would rather work around the missing stair's behavior than eject them from the group. The sunk cost comes in when the others in the group continue to allow this long after they should have removed the missing stair, because that would be admitting that they wasted time trying to deal with someone who was just making things worse. [[ElephantInTheLivingRoom So they allow it to go on unaddressed,]] because to address it would be to admit failure or negligence.
* The concept of [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_stair the missing stair]] works like this in social psychology. The term refers to how people in a social group who engage in bad behavior -- abuse, lying, backstabbing, self-destruction, or other behavior that has to be "managed" somehow -- are allowed to continue to act that way because everyone else would rather work around the missing stair's behavior than eject them from the group. The sunk cost comes in when the others in the group continue to allow this long after they should have removed the missing stair, because that would be admitting that they wasted time trying to deal with someone who was just making things worse. [[ElephantInTheLivingRoom So they allow it to go on unaddressed,]] because to address it would be to admit failure or negligence.
to:
%% * When done badly, the policy doctrine of "too big to fail" can become this. One such example was the car maker British Leyland, which was bailed out by the British Government in 1968, but still failed to reverse its long-term decline. In spite of the British government trying to save Leyland, it was a lost cause.
* The concept of [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_stair the missing stair]] works like this in social psychology. The term refers to how people in a social group who engage in bad behavior -- abuse, lying, backstabbing, self-destruction, or other behavior that has to be "managed" somehow -- are allowed to continue to act that way because everyone else would rather work around the missing stair's behavior than eject them from the group. The sunk cost comes in when the others in the group continue to allow this long after they should have removed the missing stair, because that would be admitting that they wasted time trying to deal with someone who was just making things worse. [[ElephantInTheLivingRoom So they allow it to go on unaddressed,]] because to address it would be to admit failure or negligence.cause.
* The concept of [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_stair the missing stair]] works like this in social psychology. The term refers to how people in a social group who engage in bad behavior -- abuse, lying, backstabbing, self-destruction, or other behavior that has to be "managed" somehow -- are allowed to continue to act that way because everyone else would rather work around the missing stair's behavior than eject them from the group. The sunk cost comes in when the others in the group continue to allow this long after they should have removed the missing stair, because that would be admitting that they wasted time trying to deal with someone who was just making things worse. [[ElephantInTheLivingRoom So they allow it to go on unaddressed,]] because to address it would be to admit failure or negligence.
Deleted line(s) 106 (click to see context) :
* Many people in unfulfilling relationships stay with their partner because of this fallacy. They have spent several years of their lives with this person, it can't all have been for ''nothing'', can it?
* This was long argued to be the main reason why Russia lost the UsefulNotes/RussoJapaneseWar. By the end of the war Japan was winning militarily, but its economy was stretched to the breaking point, and their mobilization resources were completely depleted, as they had started drafting kids and geezers into the army, with the predictable outcome for troops quality and morale. Some analysts say that had Russia pushed just for a couple of months more, even in the wake of the horrific losses like Tsushima and Mukden, Japan would've sued for peace. On the other hand the Tsar's government had really lousy intelligence (as well as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution unrest on the home front that needed attention]]) and ''[[DidntSeeThatComing didn't know that]]'', so they decided to [[KnowWhenToFoldEm cut their losses]] and sued first.
* The Hubble Space Telescope is a good example of why additional costs after the fact aren't necessarily this trope. When the Telescope was first deployed, there was a major flaw in the primary optical mirror; it has been ground to the wrong curve, making the images it sent back very blurry, and rendering the primary purpose of the telescope (clearer images outside Earth's atmosphere) mostly pointless. Some people quickly wrote off Hubble as a failure at that point, so when a mission to send up a new module to correct for the bad optics was announced, these people slammed NASA for throwing more money into a telescope they thought would never work properly. The fact was, NASA knew ''exactly'' what was needed to correct for the issue, thanks to documentation of the process used to grind the mirror, which was ground ''very precisely'' to the wrong shape. Long story short, the corrective module was sent up to (and installed in) the telescope, and afterwards, new images from Hubble were incredibly clear, as had been envisioned at the start of the project. The money spent to correct the optical issues (a relatively small amount compared to the overall cost of the telescope) proved to be money well-spent...and more to the point, the repair cost a fraction of the money that building a completely new telescope would have, for most of the same benefit (one of the telescope's original modules had to be removed for the corrective module to be installed).
* Anoter aversion: when HMS ''Belfast'', that warship on the Thames, was damaged by a mine during the second world war, it was deemed that the fastest repair solution would be more expensive than a new cruiser. That would have taken three years and dry dock space Britain didn't have however.
* The Hubble Space Telescope is a good example of why additional costs after the fact aren't necessarily this trope. When the Telescope was first deployed, there was a major flaw in the primary optical mirror; it has been ground to the wrong curve, making the images it sent back very blurry, and rendering the primary purpose of the telescope (clearer images outside Earth's atmosphere) mostly pointless. Some people quickly wrote off Hubble as a failure at that point, so when a mission to send up a new module to correct for the bad optics was announced, these people slammed NASA for throwing more money into a telescope they thought would never work properly. The fact was, NASA knew ''exactly'' what was needed to correct for the issue, thanks to documentation of the process used to grind the mirror, which was ground ''very precisely'' to the wrong shape. Long story short, the corrective module was sent up to (and installed in) the telescope, and afterwards, new images from Hubble were incredibly clear, as had been envisioned at the start of the project. The money spent to correct the optical issues (a relatively small amount compared to the overall cost of the telescope) proved to be money well-spent...and more to the point, the repair cost a fraction of the money that building a completely new telescope would have, for most of the same benefit (one of the telescope's original modules had to be removed for the corrective module to be installed).
* Anoter aversion: when HMS ''Belfast'', that warship on the Thames, was damaged by a mine during the second world war, it was deemed that the fastest repair solution would be more expensive than a new cruiser. That would have taken three years and dry dock space Britain didn't have however.
Deleted line(s) 111,140 (click to see context) :
!!! Looks like this fallacy but is not:
* Any situation in which the choice to go with option A over option B is based purely on how much getting to the desired result through either option is expected to cost from now on, regardless of how much money, time or other resources have already been spent on option A.
** Remember, falling for the reverse is just as bad. If option B only costs $5, and option A costs $15, of which $14 has already been spent, option A is the better choice, no matter how cheated you feel over the difference. The choice here is still made based on how much both options will cost from where you are right now.
* When abandoning the current plan has costs that outweigh the benefit of switching to a better plan; for example, a penalty clause for cancellation of a contract that is higher than simply paying the contracted price until the contract runs out. Cell phones and cable/satellite services, health clubs, and auto leases often have these. For example, a cell phone contract is 2 years at $20.00 a month, and has a $250.00 cancellation penalty. If 12 months or fewer remain on the contract, it costs ''more'' to cancel than it does to simply continue paying the contracted amount until the contract expires. Another example would be, if in the contest above, the person had spent $11 rather than $8. '''Assuming victory was certain at $15''', continuing to play would be a reasonable decision. Continuing to play costs $4 more, making $15 total. Stopping after spending $11 and simply buying the prize elsewhere for $5 costs $16 total -- so why stop?
** Or if the contest itself is something fun enough to be worth at least $2 in its own right. This is how things like carnival prizes work.
** Or the contest is for charity, so even if you lose the money you spend is going to a good cause.
** The above examples simply point out that the Sunk Cost fallacy should account ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility utility]]'', not merely monetary value. Utility is an abstract and impossible to objectively measure concept, but it is usually converted to currency - as in, how much money would you trade something away for? Utility is also different from person to person. Let's return to the carnival game example, where the player had sunk $8 into the game, victory was sure at $15, and the prize was available for purchase for $5 at the store ''tomorrow''. Would the carnival goer rather get the prize now, at the carnival, and give it to their child/sweetheart in this context? Is that difference worth the two additional dollars in cost? Is the warm-and-fuzzy feeling from the charitable donation worth it, especially when the carnival goer has the option to buy the doll for five dollars tomorrow and coldly cut the charity a check for two dollars at the same time? Is your entertainment worth two dollars to you? These questions have subjective answers, but the sunk cost fallacy hinges on their answers. As long as dollars are replaced with utility, the Sunk Cost fallacy is inescapable. Gain/loss of reputation, happiness at acquiring a good in a particular context, secondary effects (such as the charity example), and so on would all roll up into utility.
** It should be noted that in all these cases the sunk costs are still ignored, the utility of the prize is weighed against the $7 that still must be paid, not against the $8 that has already been sunk, etc.
** Utility also explains why sometimes our "irrational" choices are not always irrational at all. For example, suppose that in a small American town, a local drug dealer is taken by a customer for about $200 USD, so he goes to the customer's house and assaults him viciously. The possible consequences of the assault could send the dealer to jail for years - so it seems so foolhardy. An armchair economist would look at it and say, "Cut your losses; it's a sunk $200, and risking serious charges over it is stupid." But the drug dealer is part of the black market. He can't go to law enforcement to enforce his property rights over his stuff. A reputation for being easy to con or being unwilling to punish theft could make him easy prey for another criminal. Thus, when weighing the risks against $200 USD and his ''reputation'', and when using the ''dealer's'' value system, the choice is no longer irrational. When accounting utility, always look at it from the decision-maker's values and preferences.
*** Consider utility in the case where you have sunk $11 dollars out of $15 into something with a $5 prize which you could buy for $5 tomorrow. If you would look like a sucker if you let someone rip you off that badly, it may be entirely rational to break off the deal, buy the item from someone else, and burn the bridge to protect your reputation. Utility includes all things you value, not just the dollar amounts.
* The relationship between military situations and this fallacy is rarely clear-cut. If you are close to a valuable objective then continued effort may be justified. If this decision was based on one's ''own'' sunk costs, it was at best RightForTheWrongReasons.
** The fundamental issue is that unlike gambling, in attrition warfare one has to pay the cost regardless of victory or defeat. This then leads to the above problem of committing more troops even when it doesn't help.
** This was long argued to be the main reason why Russia lost the UsefulNotes/RussoJapaneseWar. By the end of the war Japan was winning militarily, but its economy was stretched to the breaking point, and their mobilization resources were completely depleted, as they had started drafting kids and geezers into the army, with the predictable outcome for troops quality and morale. Some analysts say that had Russia pushed just for a couple of months more, even in the wake of the horrific losses like Tsushima and Mukden, Japan would've sued for peace. On the other hand the Tsar's government had really lousy intelligence (as well as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution unrest on the home front that needed attention]]) and ''[[DidntSeeThatComing didn't know that]]'', so they decided to [[KnowWhenToFoldEm cut their losses]] and sued first.
** In game theory, a war of attrition is more akin to a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction Dollar Auction]] than a Sunk Cost, though Sunk Cost is at the back of Dollar Auction. The Dollar Auction is a game where any number of bidders may bid for a dollar. However, the top two bidders must both pay. Suppose you've bid 90 cents and someone has just upped it to 91 cents. Now, it is rational for you to bid 92 cents; you are going to be down 90 cents if the other guy wins, and up eight cents if you win. Of course, it's then rational for him to bid 93 cents, and so on. Of course, in attrition warfare, ''all'' parties must pay.
*** The game theory game most like a war of attrition is...[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_attrition_(game) war of attrition]].
* When the possible return is so great compared to the possible loss that it is deemed a reasonable risk to take. That's gambling, not fallacious. This works better with non-cumulative risks (like Lotto); otherwise, see pot committed above.
* Many people often believe that cost overruns on defense projects are an example of this, but usually they are not. For example, while it is true that a new generation of stealth fighters or other extremely expensive stuff can drag on for decades and have cost overruns of 500% or more, it is usually because defense planners want the new system at almost any price. The other reason for cost overruns is what is sometimes called the oversight paradox: If a project costs too much, policy makers may kill the project, meaning that the defense contractor will lose everything they've spent on the project. To protect themselves from this, defense contractors will often rush through the R&D phase as quickly as possible, because a weapons system becomes much harder to cancel once it is in production--too many workers will get laid off, making it politically unpalatable. That means that bugs in the system have to be fixed only after the system is already in production, which is much more expensive, leading to cost overruns. When a weapons system is secret, the lack of oversight often means that the designers can take their time, avoiding problems once the system goes into production; the U-2 spy plane, to give a famous example, came in on time and under budget, thanks in no small part to the lack of Congressional oversight.
** In addition, even a new project would have similar cost overruns and problems that would arise. It's better the devil you know than the one you don't, and this is another reason why sometimes what seems like throwing good money after bad is really the best option.
** The Hubble Space Telescope is a good example of why additional costs after the fact aren't necessarily this trope. When the telescope was first deployed, there was a major flaw in the primary optical mirror; it has been ground to the wrong curve, making the images it sent back very blurry, and rendering the primary purpose of the telescope (clearer images outside Earth's atmosphere) mostly pointless. Some people quickly wrote off Hubble as a failure at that point, so when a mission to send up a new module to correct for the bad optics was announced, these people slammed NASA for throwing more money into a telescope they thought would never work properly. The fact was, NASA knew ''exactly'' what was needed to correct for the issue, thanks to documentation of the process used to grind the mirror, which was ground ''very precisely'' to the wrong shape. Long story short, the corrective module was sent up to (and installed in) the telescope, and afterwards, new images from Hubble were incredibly clear, as had been envisioned at the start of the project. The money spent to correct the optical issues (a relatively small amount compared to the overall cost of the telescope) proved to be money well-spent...and more to the point, the repair cost a fraction of the money that building a completely new telescope would have, for most of the same benefit (one of the telescope's original modules had to be removed for the corrective module to be installed). Hubble is still in service--and providing great imagery--as of 2016.
** Another common misuse of Sunk Cost Fallacy is when a company throws a lot of money at a failed or failing project. Sometimes, a failure is mitigated enough to make the decision rational. This can lead to a company throwing money after a project that is failing - the amateur economists will decry sunk costs, while the company realizes they can at least mitigate their losses by releasing a mediocre product (or rarely, as with the Hubble, an actual ''good'' product, even if not what was orignally hoped for) instead of a true turd.
*** And yet more thought about utility; the company should put a price on damage to their brand and consumer backlash as well. If the consumer and fans of that product are pissed, it can kill a profitable brand.
*** An extreme form of this is to consider the possibility of a FranchiseKiller, where the product is so bad that trashes a once profitable brand so savagely, that brand gets shelved for decades or even for good. Sure, releasing the theatrical dud might recover some of the money spent making it, but if it kills the franchise, it might have been better just to suck up the losses. For notable examples, see the FranchiseKiller page.
*** Let's put numbers on an example. Suppose a company expects to ship five million units of a video game making a $20 USD revenue per unit, for a nice $100 M in revenue from sales. That sounds pretty sweet. Now they've run their dev cycle, spent $80 M, and have a real piece of junk on their hands. Sales projections are 1 million units sold and losing the good will of enough fans to cost them 500k sales from their next game. Ouch. Release the game now, and they bring in $20 million in revenue, have spent $80 million in development, and will lose $10 million from their next game. That's a loss of $70 million, net; they'd be lucky to survive that. So they sink another $20 million polishing their game. It's now SoOkayItsAverage, sells 3 million copies, and their fans write it off as an uninspired sequel but don't actively hate it. They haul in $60 million as revenues, lose $100 million in costs, and don't wreck their brand, for a net loss of $40 million. It might sink the company, but that's still $30 million better than before they threw more money at a failing project.
* If a course of action has a large, unavoidable startup cost, but slowly pays for itself over time, then continuing along that same course is ''not'' this fallacy, ''if'' one can be reasonably certain that it will continue to pay out at least long enough to pay off the startup costs. A good example is the airliner business; designing a new airliner, putting together an assembly line for it, trying to sell it to people when the first deliveries are still years in the future, etc., is extremely expensive, but, if you can sell enough of them, it's still worth it. When it ''does'' become this fallacy is if it enters DevelopmentHell and the development costs start spiraling out of control and/or the market suddenly dries up before development has finished (on the other hand, losing millions on a project because the market dries up while it's in production or because its reputation is tainted by something that could not realistically have been predicted while it was still under development - both of which have happened to numerous airliner models - isn't the sunk cost fallacy; it's merely bad luck).
* Being statistically "pot-committed" in poker is not this fallacy: sometimes, the pot is so big relative to the cost of calling that the strategically correct choice is to call even when your odds are slim (but non-zero). [[note]]For example: Texas Hold'em, family pot, you're holding an Ace and another suited card with a flush draw on the turn, and the board shows no pair nor any chance of a straight flush. Your chances of making the nut flush on the river are slightly worse than 1 in 5, but as long as you can see the river by contributing less than 1/5th of the pot, it's a mathematically sound play to call.[[/note]] This is more likely to happen in limit games; in non-limit games, players that already have a strong hand are likely to size their bets such that it no longer makes mathematical sense for players on long-shot draws to call. It is part of the strategy of tournament poker to recognize situations where one's stack is low enough with respect to the size the pot is likely to reach that it is easy to become pot-committed. At that point, one is advised to either give up before becoming pot-committed, or shove all-in early so as to increase one's odds of winning by making it more likely that the other player(s) will fold. It is a ''further'' part of the strategy to [[IKnowYouKnowIKnow recognize when other players are in that situation]] and not enter pots with them if unprepared to play for all their chips.
* An "ideal" option that is not economically viable in your particular situation is just that: not viable, and, therefore, should not factor into the equation. Going back to the car example, stringing by on ad-hoc repairs may ''be'' the only viable alternative if the owner ''just doesn't have'' the money to buy a new car or the credit to get a loan that would cost less than the repair costs for the period of that loan (or if other means of getting around, e.g. public transportation, biking, or walking, are also not on the table). Previous repair costs ''are'' sunk, but it's also no use in bemoaning what you ''[[WhatCouldHaveBeen could have]]'' afforded if you hadn't paid for those; all that matters is what you can afford ''now''.
** This is why the insurance business exists; sure, the total cost of all those monthly premiums is, on average, greater than the total payout you get from the insurance company (this is why insurance companies are able to make a profit), but it's better than having to suddenly pay a large amount of money all at once due to something unexpected (like a tree through the roof, car crash, heart attack, [[http://egscomics.com/comic/2011-01-14 rampaging]] [[Webcomic/ElGoonishShive fire monster]], etc.).
* Repairing something when buying new would cost less can be a conscious decision to save resources and avoid waste.
* Repairing something when either time or limited industrial capability make retaining the object more necessary over saving money. A great example is when HMS ''Belfast'', that warship on the Thames, was damaged by a mine during the second world war, it was deemed that the fastest repair solution would be more expensive than a new cruiser. That would have taken three years and dry dock space Britain didn't have however.
* Any situation in which the choice to go with option A over option B is based purely on how much getting to the desired result through either option is expected to cost from now on, regardless of how much money, time or other resources have already been spent on option A.
** Remember, falling for the reverse is just as bad. If option B only costs $5, and option A costs $15, of which $14 has already been spent, option A is the better choice, no matter how cheated you feel over the difference. The choice here is still made based on how much both options will cost from where you are right now.
* When abandoning the current plan has costs that outweigh the benefit of switching to a better plan; for example, a penalty clause for cancellation of a contract that is higher than simply paying the contracted price until the contract runs out. Cell phones and cable/satellite services, health clubs, and auto leases often have these. For example, a cell phone contract is 2 years at $20.00 a month, and has a $250.00 cancellation penalty. If 12 months or fewer remain on the contract, it costs ''more'' to cancel than it does to simply continue paying the contracted amount until the contract expires. Another example would be, if in the contest above, the person had spent $11 rather than $8. '''Assuming victory was certain at $15''', continuing to play would be a reasonable decision. Continuing to play costs $4 more, making $15 total. Stopping after spending $11 and simply buying the prize elsewhere for $5 costs $16 total -- so why stop?
** Or if the contest itself is something fun enough to be worth at least $2 in its own right. This is how things like carnival prizes work.
** Or the contest is for charity, so even if you lose the money you spend is going to a good cause.
** The above examples simply point out that the Sunk Cost fallacy should account ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility utility]]'', not merely monetary value. Utility is an abstract and impossible to objectively measure concept, but it is usually converted to currency - as in, how much money would you trade something away for? Utility is also different from person to person. Let's return to the carnival game example, where the player had sunk $8 into the game, victory was sure at $15, and the prize was available for purchase for $5 at the store ''tomorrow''. Would the carnival goer rather get the prize now, at the carnival, and give it to their child/sweetheart in this context? Is that difference worth the two additional dollars in cost? Is the warm-and-fuzzy feeling from the charitable donation worth it, especially when the carnival goer has the option to buy the doll for five dollars tomorrow and coldly cut the charity a check for two dollars at the same time? Is your entertainment worth two dollars to you? These questions have subjective answers, but the sunk cost fallacy hinges on their answers. As long as dollars are replaced with utility, the Sunk Cost fallacy is inescapable. Gain/loss of reputation, happiness at acquiring a good in a particular context, secondary effects (such as the charity example), and so on would all roll up into utility.
** It should be noted that in all these cases the sunk costs are still ignored, the utility of the prize is weighed against the $7 that still must be paid, not against the $8 that has already been sunk, etc.
** Utility also explains why sometimes our "irrational" choices are not always irrational at all. For example, suppose that in a small American town, a local drug dealer is taken by a customer for about $200 USD, so he goes to the customer's house and assaults him viciously. The possible consequences of the assault could send the dealer to jail for years - so it seems so foolhardy. An armchair economist would look at it and say, "Cut your losses; it's a sunk $200, and risking serious charges over it is stupid." But the drug dealer is part of the black market. He can't go to law enforcement to enforce his property rights over his stuff. A reputation for being easy to con or being unwilling to punish theft could make him easy prey for another criminal. Thus, when weighing the risks against $200 USD and his ''reputation'', and when using the ''dealer's'' value system, the choice is no longer irrational. When accounting utility, always look at it from the decision-maker's values and preferences.
*** Consider utility in the case where you have sunk $11 dollars out of $15 into something with a $5 prize which you could buy for $5 tomorrow. If you would look like a sucker if you let someone rip you off that badly, it may be entirely rational to break off the deal, buy the item from someone else, and burn the bridge to protect your reputation. Utility includes all things you value, not just the dollar amounts.
* The relationship between military situations and this fallacy is rarely clear-cut. If you are close to a valuable objective then continued effort may be justified. If this decision was based on one's ''own'' sunk costs, it was at best RightForTheWrongReasons.
** The fundamental issue is that unlike gambling, in attrition warfare one has to pay the cost regardless of victory or defeat. This then leads to the above problem of committing more troops even when it doesn't help.
** This was long argued to be the main reason why Russia lost the UsefulNotes/RussoJapaneseWar. By the end of the war Japan was winning militarily, but its economy was stretched to the breaking point, and their mobilization resources were completely depleted, as they had started drafting kids and geezers into the army, with the predictable outcome for troops quality and morale. Some analysts say that had Russia pushed just for a couple of months more, even in the wake of the horrific losses like Tsushima and Mukden, Japan would've sued for peace. On the other hand the Tsar's government had really lousy intelligence (as well as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution unrest on the home front that needed attention]]) and ''[[DidntSeeThatComing didn't know that]]'', so they decided to [[KnowWhenToFoldEm cut their losses]] and sued first.
** In game theory, a war of attrition is more akin to a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction Dollar Auction]] than a Sunk Cost, though Sunk Cost is at the back of Dollar Auction. The Dollar Auction is a game where any number of bidders may bid for a dollar. However, the top two bidders must both pay. Suppose you've bid 90 cents and someone has just upped it to 91 cents. Now, it is rational for you to bid 92 cents; you are going to be down 90 cents if the other guy wins, and up eight cents if you win. Of course, it's then rational for him to bid 93 cents, and so on. Of course, in attrition warfare, ''all'' parties must pay.
*** The game theory game most like a war of attrition is...[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_attrition_(game) war of attrition]].
* When the possible return is so great compared to the possible loss that it is deemed a reasonable risk to take. That's gambling, not fallacious. This works better with non-cumulative risks (like Lotto); otherwise, see pot committed above.
* Many people often believe that cost overruns on defense projects are an example of this, but usually they are not. For example, while it is true that a new generation of stealth fighters or other extremely expensive stuff can drag on for decades and have cost overruns of 500% or more, it is usually because defense planners want the new system at almost any price. The other reason for cost overruns is what is sometimes called the oversight paradox: If a project costs too much, policy makers may kill the project, meaning that the defense contractor will lose everything they've spent on the project. To protect themselves from this, defense contractors will often rush through the R&D phase as quickly as possible, because a weapons system becomes much harder to cancel once it is in production--too many workers will get laid off, making it politically unpalatable. That means that bugs in the system have to be fixed only after the system is already in production, which is much more expensive, leading to cost overruns. When a weapons system is secret, the lack of oversight often means that the designers can take their time, avoiding problems once the system goes into production; the U-2 spy plane, to give a famous example, came in on time and under budget, thanks in no small part to the lack of Congressional oversight.
** In addition, even a new project would have similar cost overruns and problems that would arise. It's better the devil you know than the one you don't, and this is another reason why sometimes what seems like throwing good money after bad is really the best option.
** The Hubble Space Telescope is a good example of why additional costs after the fact aren't necessarily this trope. When the telescope was first deployed, there was a major flaw in the primary optical mirror; it has been ground to the wrong curve, making the images it sent back very blurry, and rendering the primary purpose of the telescope (clearer images outside Earth's atmosphere) mostly pointless. Some people quickly wrote off Hubble as a failure at that point, so when a mission to send up a new module to correct for the bad optics was announced, these people slammed NASA for throwing more money into a telescope they thought would never work properly. The fact was, NASA knew ''exactly'' what was needed to correct for the issue, thanks to documentation of the process used to grind the mirror, which was ground ''very precisely'' to the wrong shape. Long story short, the corrective module was sent up to (and installed in) the telescope, and afterwards, new images from Hubble were incredibly clear, as had been envisioned at the start of the project. The money spent to correct the optical issues (a relatively small amount compared to the overall cost of the telescope) proved to be money well-spent...and more to the point, the repair cost a fraction of the money that building a completely new telescope would have, for most of the same benefit (one of the telescope's original modules had to be removed for the corrective module to be installed). Hubble is still in service--and providing great imagery--as of 2016.
** Another common misuse of Sunk Cost Fallacy is when a company throws a lot of money at a failed or failing project. Sometimes, a failure is mitigated enough to make the decision rational. This can lead to a company throwing money after a project that is failing - the amateur economists will decry sunk costs, while the company realizes they can at least mitigate their losses by releasing a mediocre product (or rarely, as with the Hubble, an actual ''good'' product, even if not what was orignally hoped for) instead of a true turd.
*** And yet more thought about utility; the company should put a price on damage to their brand and consumer backlash as well. If the consumer and fans of that product are pissed, it can kill a profitable brand.
*** An extreme form of this is to consider the possibility of a FranchiseKiller, where the product is so bad that trashes a once profitable brand so savagely, that brand gets shelved for decades or even for good. Sure, releasing the theatrical dud might recover some of the money spent making it, but if it kills the franchise, it might have been better just to suck up the losses. For notable examples, see the FranchiseKiller page.
*** Let's put numbers on an example. Suppose a company expects to ship five million units of a video game making a $20 USD revenue per unit, for a nice $100 M in revenue from sales. That sounds pretty sweet. Now they've run their dev cycle, spent $80 M, and have a real piece of junk on their hands. Sales projections are 1 million units sold and losing the good will of enough fans to cost them 500k sales from their next game. Ouch. Release the game now, and they bring in $20 million in revenue, have spent $80 million in development, and will lose $10 million from their next game. That's a loss of $70 million, net; they'd be lucky to survive that. So they sink another $20 million polishing their game. It's now SoOkayItsAverage, sells 3 million copies, and their fans write it off as an uninspired sequel but don't actively hate it. They haul in $60 million as revenues, lose $100 million in costs, and don't wreck their brand, for a net loss of $40 million. It might sink the company, but that's still $30 million better than before they threw more money at a failing project.
* If a course of action has a large, unavoidable startup cost, but slowly pays for itself over time, then continuing along that same course is ''not'' this fallacy, ''if'' one can be reasonably certain that it will continue to pay out at least long enough to pay off the startup costs. A good example is the airliner business; designing a new airliner, putting together an assembly line for it, trying to sell it to people when the first deliveries are still years in the future, etc., is extremely expensive, but, if you can sell enough of them, it's still worth it. When it ''does'' become this fallacy is if it enters DevelopmentHell and the development costs start spiraling out of control and/or the market suddenly dries up before development has finished (on the other hand, losing millions on a project because the market dries up while it's in production or because its reputation is tainted by something that could not realistically have been predicted while it was still under development - both of which have happened to numerous airliner models - isn't the sunk cost fallacy; it's merely bad luck).
* Being statistically "pot-committed" in poker is not this fallacy: sometimes, the pot is so big relative to the cost of calling that the strategically correct choice is to call even when your odds are slim (but non-zero). [[note]]For example: Texas Hold'em, family pot, you're holding an Ace and another suited card with a flush draw on the turn, and the board shows no pair nor any chance of a straight flush. Your chances of making the nut flush on the river are slightly worse than 1 in 5, but as long as you can see the river by contributing less than 1/5th of the pot, it's a mathematically sound play to call.[[/note]] This is more likely to happen in limit games; in non-limit games, players that already have a strong hand are likely to size their bets such that it no longer makes mathematical sense for players on long-shot draws to call. It is part of the strategy of tournament poker to recognize situations where one's stack is low enough with respect to the size the pot is likely to reach that it is easy to become pot-committed. At that point, one is advised to either give up before becoming pot-committed, or shove all-in early so as to increase one's odds of winning by making it more likely that the other player(s) will fold. It is a ''further'' part of the strategy to [[IKnowYouKnowIKnow recognize when other players are in that situation]] and not enter pots with them if unprepared to play for all their chips.
* An "ideal" option that is not economically viable in your particular situation is just that: not viable, and, therefore, should not factor into the equation. Going back to the car example, stringing by on ad-hoc repairs may ''be'' the only viable alternative if the owner ''just doesn't have'' the money to buy a new car or the credit to get a loan that would cost less than the repair costs for the period of that loan (or if other means of getting around, e.g. public transportation, biking, or walking, are also not on the table). Previous repair costs ''are'' sunk, but it's also no use in bemoaning what you ''[[WhatCouldHaveBeen could have]]'' afforded if you hadn't paid for those; all that matters is what you can afford ''now''.
** This is why the insurance business exists; sure, the total cost of all those monthly premiums is, on average, greater than the total payout you get from the insurance company (this is why insurance companies are able to make a profit), but it's better than having to suddenly pay a large amount of money all at once due to something unexpected (like a tree through the roof, car crash, heart attack, [[http://egscomics.com/comic/2011-01-14 rampaging]] [[Webcomic/ElGoonishShive fire monster]], etc.).
* Repairing something when buying new would cost less can be a conscious decision to save resources and avoid waste.
* Repairing something when either time or limited industrial capability make retaining the object more necessary over saving money. A great example is when HMS ''Belfast'', that warship on the Thames, was damaged by a mine during the second world war, it was deemed that the fastest repair solution would be more expensive than a new cruiser. That would have taken three years and dry dock space Britain didn't have however.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 14 (click to see context) from:
This trope is not merely for any commitment to a course of action; the above is only a fallacy since Bob will be spending seven dollars instead of spending five. In order for a situation to be the Sunk Cost Fallacy, '''all''' of the following must be true:
to:
This trope is not merely for any commitment to a course of action; the above is only a fallacy since Bob will be spending seven dollars instead of spending five. If Bob expects to only spend two dollars more on the contest, for example, as opposed to five, it would be valid to continue even if the total spent ends up being more than just buying the prize ($10 vs $5). In order for a situation to be the Sunk Cost Fallacy, '''all''' of the following must be true:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 14 (click to see context) from:
This trope is not merely Bob's commitment to a course of action because he's invested too much to turn back. If Bob has already made the down payment on a house, for example, he is likely to continue in the purchase of that house if he thinks the house is worth the future payments he has to make. In order for a situation to be the Sunk Cost Fallacy, '''all''' of the following must be true:
to:
This trope is not merely Bob's for any commitment to a course of action because he's invested too much to turn back. If action; the above is only a fallacy since Bob has already made the down payment on a house, for example, he is likely to continue in the purchase will be spending seven dollars instead of that house if he thinks the house is worth the future payments he has to make.spending five. In order for a situation to be the Sunk Cost Fallacy, '''all''' of the following must be true:
Changed line(s) 16,20 (click to see context) from:
## Bob is justifying staying with this course by citing the time and/or resources he has already spent.
## It's obvious to any rational person that the cost of staying the course now will exceed the cost of Bob stopping, taking on the loss, and moving on.
This forms a particularly powerful combination with the GamblersFallacy, since Bob will not only continue because he does not want to have wasted his money, but also because ''the very fact he has made losses'' is evidence he is "due" for a win. These two false forms of reasoning drive ruinous gambling problems.
## It's obvious to any rational person that the cost of staying the course now will exceed the cost of Bob stopping, taking on the loss, and moving on.
This forms a particularly powerful combination with the GamblersFallacy, since Bob will not only continue because he does not want to have wasted his money, but also because ''the very fact he has made losses'' is evidence he is "due" for a win. These two false forms of reasoning drive ruinous gambling problems.
to:
## Bob is justifying staying with this course continuing by citing the time and/or resources he has already spent.
##It's obvious to any rational person that the The cost of staying the course now continuing will exceed the cost of Bob stopping, taking on the loss, and moving on.
It is also important to note that this fallacy is entwined with economic theory and thus will discount other valid reasons Bob might wish to continue, for example if he was trying to win the contest to impress his peers. Likewise, if Bob calculates that he could sell the prize for more than the 15 dollars total he expects to spend, then it would not be a Sunk Cost Fallacy either (though it would still be illogical, since Bob should instead buy the prize for $5 and sell that for greater profit instead).
This forms a particularly powerful combination with the GamblersFallacy,since as Bob will might not only continue because he does not want to have wasted his money, but also because ''the very fact he has made losses'' is evidence he is "due" for a win. These two false forms of reasoning drive ruinous gambling problems.
##
It is also important to note that this fallacy is entwined with economic theory and thus will discount other valid reasons Bob might wish to continue, for example if he was trying to win the contest to impress his peers. Likewise, if Bob calculates that he could sell the prize for more than the 15 dollars total he expects to spend, then it would not be a Sunk Cost Fallacy either (though it would still be illogical, since Bob should instead buy the prize for $5 and sell that for greater profit instead).
This forms a particularly powerful combination with the GamblersFallacy,
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[folder:Film]]
* Alluded to in ''Film/FirstMan'' when Neil Armstrong is nearly killed in the LLRV accident. His seniors tell him it's too risky for him to fly such a dangerous machine again. Neil points out that it's the best training they have for how to fly the real lunar module, and that it's a "little late" to talk about not risking the lives of the astronauts. It's clear that Neil commits to the Apollo program because he thinks that backing out would make the sacrifices of the earlier astronauts, and other pilots who died during test flights, count for nothing.
[[/folder]]
* Alluded to in ''Film/FirstMan'' when Neil Armstrong is nearly killed in the LLRV accident. His seniors tell him it's too risky for him to fly such a dangerous machine again. Neil points out that it's the best training they have for how to fly the real lunar module, and that it's a "little late" to talk about not risking the lives of the astronauts. It's clear that Neil commits to the Apollo program because he thinks that backing out would make the sacrifices of the earlier astronauts, and other pilots who died during test flights, count for nothing.
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
"since he would lose money for no gain if he stops" was literally the sunk cost fallacy given as an example of how something might not be the fallacy. The down payment is sunk, so the money is lost either way, thinking the sunk money is only lost once you switch course is a common way the fallacy happens; rationally speaking, it's only future costs and benefits that matter
Changed line(s) 14 (click to see context) from:
This trope is not merely Bob's commitment to a course of action because he's invested too much to turn back. If Bob has already made the down payment on a house, for example, he is likely to continue in the purchase of that house since he would lose money for no gain if he stops. In order for a situation to be the Sunk Cost Fallacy, '''all''' of the following must be true:
to:
This trope is not merely Bob's commitment to a course of action because he's invested too much to turn back. If Bob has already made the down payment on a house, for example, he is likely to continue in the purchase of that house since he would lose money for no gain if he stops.thinks the house is worth the future payments he has to make. In order for a situation to be the Sunk Cost Fallacy, '''all''' of the following must be true:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 59 (click to see context) from:
* In "Ringtone" by Music/WeirdAlYankovic, the protagonist explains that he absolutely despised his ringtone, that it’s caused him nothing but trouble, and he can’t even remember why he bought it in the first place... but he refuses to just delete it because he doesn’t want to waste the $1.99 he spent on it.
to:
* In "Ringtone" by Music/WeirdAlYankovic, the protagonist explains that he absolutely despised his ringtone, [[EmbarrassingRingtone ringtone]], that it’s caused him nothing but trouble, and he can’t even remember why he bought it in the first place... but he refuses to just delete it because he doesn’t want to waste the $1.99 he spent on it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* In UsefulNotes/{{World War 2}}, following Japan's annexation of French Indochina, America passed an embargo on oil and other resources crucial to the Japanese war effort in order to force Japan to negotiate a peace with the Republic of China. Without that oil, Japan's war machine would literally run out of fuel in a manner of months. Japan's high command had two options. First, they could concede to America's demands and enter peace negotiations with China, but in doing so would likely give up most of Japan's gains and would dishonor Japan in the eyes of the Japanese public. Second, they could launch "Attack Plan South" by which the IJN would preemptively strike America's Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor to open the way for an invasion of Britain and the Netherlands' oil-rich holdings in Southeast Asia and Oceania and just hope that the shock of a decisive, overwhelming victory would force America to back down. Naturally, Japan chose the second option, and by doing so not only lost Japan the war in China, but the rest of her empire and a large portion of her population as well.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 45 (click to see context) from:
* Reacher Gilt's scam in ''Literature/GoingPostal'' relies heavily on this. Even as the service on the Grand Trunk semaphore line gets worse and worse, he sweet-talks investors and board-members into "throwing good money after bad" while pocketing most of it and covering it up with tricky accounting and corporate buzzwords like "embracing diversity" and "synergistically". [[BoxedCrook Not-quite-reformed con artist]] Moist von Lipwig is equal parts impressed and [[EveryoneHasStandards disgusted]] when he realizes what Gilt is up to.
to:
* Reacher Gilt's scam in the ''Literature/{{Discworld}}'' novel ''Literature/GoingPostal'' relies heavily on this. Even as the service on the Grand Trunk semaphore line gets worse and worse, he sweet-talks investors and board-members into "throwing good money after bad" while pocketing most of it and covering it up with tricky accounting and corporate buzzwords like "embracing diversity" and "synergistically". [[BoxedCrook Not-quite-reformed con artist]] Moist von Lipwig is equal parts impressed and [[EveryoneHasStandards disgusted]] when he realizes what Gilt is up to.
* Extensively discussed in ''Literature/TheDresdenFiles'' short story "[[Literature/BriefCases Bigfoot on Campus]]" in reference to the [[HornyDevils White Court of Vampires]]. Both Harry and River Shoulders reflect on how the White Court is founded on the MotivationalLie started by "some ancient bastard/bitch" stating that it's ''okay'' for them to be emotion-draining monsters. The aforementioned bastard/bitch's descendants have then been intentionally obscuring the truth from their own children until it's too late, and subsequently invoke this trope afterwards so that the new vampire will fall into line and accept all the Court's teachings as valid because the only alternative would be realizing that there's ''no'' excuse for having '''killed''' another human being. Related to this, Charles Barrowill can't accept the possibility that he might not have been a murderer if his parents had just been honest with him, and so tries to use an AppealToTradition argument (which ultimately just boils down to this trope) to make sure that his daughter grows up to be as much of a miserable and inhuman monster as he is.
Changed line(s) 58 (click to see context) from:
* In “Ringtone” by Music/WeirdAlYankovic, the protagonist explains that he absolutely despised his ringtone, that it’s caused him nothing but trouble, and he can’t even remember why he bought it in the first place... but he refuses to just delete it because he doesn’t want to waste the $1.99 he spent on it.
to:
* In “Ringtone” "Ringtone" by Music/WeirdAlYankovic, the protagonist explains that he absolutely despised his ringtone, that it’s caused him nothing but trouble, and he can’t even remember why he bought it in the first place... but he refuses to just delete it because he doesn’t want to waste the $1.99 he spent on it.
Changed line(s) 74,75 (click to see context) from:
* At the end of a "No Mercy" run (i.e. a [[spoiler:"[[KillEmAll kill everyone in the game]] including and especially major characters"]] run) of ''VideoGame/{{Undertale}}'', the FinalBoss points out that you're pressing forward with [[spoiler:your murdering spree]] not out of any sort of "good" or "evil" desire, but simply because you ''can'', and because you can, you feel like you ''have to'', even though there's no real benefit to persevering at this point. They also gladly point out that the best thing to do at this point is to seriously give up and do ''literally anything else.'' [[spoiler:Because really, [[PyrrhicVictory what do you personally have to gain from not only massacring the entire underground but then also destroying the entire world and selling your soul to reset the game at the cost of ruining all future good endings]]?]]
--> [[spoiler:i always thought the [[AddressingThePlayer anomaly]] was doing this cause they were unhappy. and when they got what they wanted, they would stop all this. and maybe all they needed was... i dunno. some good food, some bad laughs, some nice friends. but that's ridiculous, right? yeah, you're the type of person who won't EVER be happy. you'll keep [[SaveScumming consuming timelines]] over and over, until... well. hey. take it from me, kid. someday... you gotta learn when to QUIT. and that day's TODAY.]]
--> [[spoiler:i always thought the [[AddressingThePlayer anomaly]] was doing this cause they were unhappy. and when they got what they wanted, they would stop all this. and maybe all they needed was... i dunno. some good food, some bad laughs, some nice friends. but that's ridiculous, right? yeah, you're the type of person who won't EVER be happy. you'll keep [[SaveScumming consuming timelines]] over and over, until... well. hey. take it from me, kid. someday... you gotta learn when to QUIT. and that day's TODAY.]]
to:
* At the end of a "No Mercy" run (i.e. a [[spoiler:"[[KillEmAll kill everyone in the game]] including and especially major characters"]] characters]]" run) of ''VideoGame/{{Undertale}}'', the FinalBoss points out that you're pressing forward with [[spoiler:your murdering spree]] not out of any sort of "good" or "evil" desire, but simply because you ''can'', and because you can, you feel like you ''have to'', even though there's no real benefit to persevering at this point. They also gladly point out that the best thing to do at this point is to seriously give up and do ''literally anything else.'' [[spoiler:Because really, [[PyrrhicVictory what do you personally have to gain from not only massacring the entire underground but then also destroying the entire world and selling your soul to reset the game at the cost of ruining all future good endings]]?]]
--> [[spoiler:i -->[[spoiler:i always thought the [[AddressingThePlayer anomaly]] was doing this cause they were unhappy. and when they got what they wanted, they would stop all this. and maybe all they needed was... i dunno. some good food, some bad laughs, some nice friends. but that's ridiculous, right? yeah, you're the type of person who won't EVER be happy. you'll keep [[SaveScumming consuming timelines]] over and over, until... well. hey. take it from me, kid. [[PreAsskickingOneLiner someday... you gotta learn when to QUIT. and that day's TODAY.]]]]]]
Changed line(s) 77 (click to see context) from:
--> "''None of this would have happened if you just '''stopped'''.''"
to:
Changed line(s) 89 (click to see context) from:
* ''Webcomic/TheOrderOfTheStick'' has Redcloak both lampshade this and deconstruct it, as expressed in ''Recap/StartOfDarkness''. It's not that Redcloak believes in BigBad Xykon's plan, or even likes the idea of what Xykon is trying to achieve; in fact, Redcloak hates Xykon's guts. The reason Redcloak stays around in spite of his hatred is that Redcloak believes that if he quits, it'll make all of the horrible things he's done worthless. This is in spite of Redcloak being told by both his brother and Xykon himself that this is an empty excuse. He continues to support Xykon despite being entirely too familiar with the lich's BadBoss habits and knowing that completing the Plan with Xykon will ''not'' work out in his favor. But because Redcloak feels too invested to quit, Redcloak keeps himself trapped in villainy.
to:
* ''Webcomic/TheOrderOfTheStick'' has Redcloak both lampshade this and deconstruct it, as expressed in ''Recap/StartOfDarkness''. ''[[Recap/TheOrderOfTheStickStartOfDarkness Start of Darkness]]''. It's not that Redcloak believes in BigBad Xykon's [[BigBad Lord Xykon's]] plan, or even likes the idea of what Xykon is trying to achieve; in fact, Redcloak hates Xykon's guts. The reason Redcloak stays around in spite of his hatred is that Redcloak believes that if he quits, it'll make all of the horrible things he's done worthless. This is in spite of Redcloak being told by both his brother and Xykon himself that this is an empty excuse. He continues to support Xykon despite being entirely too familiar with the lich's BadBoss habits and knowing that completing the Plan with Xykon will ''not'' work out in his favor. But because Redcloak feels too invested to quit, Redcloak keeps himself trapped in villainy.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 100 (click to see context) from:
* This was one of the factors I'm why the UsefulNotes/{{CED}} videodisc format never did well -- it had been stuck in DevelopmentHell since the 1960s and RCA was determined to see it through, despite the obvious shortfalls of the format in comparison to UsefulNotes/{{VHS}} and UsefulNotes/LaserDisc, because they'd blown tons of money on it and it would be a severe blow to their corporate pride if they opted to scrap it. (This, along with Creator/{{NBC}}'s issues at the time, wound up being RCA's CreatorKiller; GE would purchase the company in 1986, largely for NBC, and discard the rest; the last CED titles were released that year, player production having ceased two years prior.)
to:
* This was one of the factors I'm in why the UsefulNotes/{{CED}} videodisc format never did well -- it had been stuck in DevelopmentHell since the 1960s and RCA was determined to see it through, despite the obvious shortfalls of the format in comparison to UsefulNotes/{{VHS}} and UsefulNotes/LaserDisc, because UsefulNotes/LaserDisc; they'd blown tons of money on it and it would be a severe blow to their corporate pride if they opted to scrap it. (This, along with Creator/{{NBC}}'s issues at the time, wound up being RCA's CreatorKiller; GE would purchase the company in 1986, largely for NBC, and discard the rest; the last CED titles were released that year, player production having ceased two years prior.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* This was one of the factors I'm why the UsefulNotes/{{CED}} videodisc format never did well -- it had been stuck in DevelopmentHell since the 1960s and RCA was determined to see it through, despite the obvious shortfalls of the format in comparison to UsefulNotes/{{VHS}} and UsefulNotes/LaserDisc, because they'd blown tons of money on it and it would be a severe blow to their corporate pride if they opted to scrap it. (This, along with Creator/{{NBC}}'s issues at the time, wound up being RCA's CreatorKiller; GE would purchase the company in 1986, largely for NBC, and discard the rest; the last CED titles were released that year, player production having ceased two years prior.)
