Sunk Costs and Loss: a different perspective.

[Dutch Uncle]

Today I stumbled upon this great article on what's one of my favorite subjects regarding human behavior/psychology: "the Concorde Fallacy" a.k.a. "Sunk Cost Fallacy".

I think this belongs here on the board, as I think that realizing this very basic human trait affects us all, cPTSD and non-PTSD alike, may be of aid in our recovery. (well, at least it helps mine)

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/03/25/the-sunk-cost-fallacy/

The not so sunny ending of the article:

As an adult human being, you have the gift of reflection and regret. You can predict a future place where you must admit your efforts were in vain, your losses permanent, and when you accept the truth it is going to hurt.

[Butterfly]

Great article Dutch and it surely makes lots of sense. We need to face the cost benefit analysis and cut losses regardless of past investment.

[Dutch Uncle]

This makes some vague sense to me but confuses me at the same time.

It also makes vague sense to me, so I relate. 

As Butterfly said:

cut losses regardless of past investment.

is key here.

The article explores (through the scientific research done on this) that we as a species* are hardwired to find this very difficult.
And it's not just about 'economics'/money , but it extends as well to 'emotional' investments. That is my take on it.

NB: *) quite possibly many, if not all species have the same hardwiring. Two examples come to mind: the 'foster'-parents of the cuckoo-chick, and the squirrel with its ridiculously large/numerous  winter-stack(s). (though perhaps that's an example of not caring at all about 'sunk costs'.    But I do think it's an example of keeping on investing in something that will not 'pay off' in relation to the effort put in.)

[woodsgnome]

While I agree with the premise of acceptance as described in the linked article, the last sentence hit my emotions lever with a jolt. Nothing wrong/right, not a specific disagreement; but I'd just like to share a reaction to the words the author concluded with. Let me explain.

Quote from article posted by Dutch Uncle: ..."you must admit your efforts were in vain, your losses permanent, and when you accept the truth it is going to hurt."

I know, I'm quibbling over words, taking them out of context even, but they still triggered an intense reaction on my part. Reading between the lines I can understand  that 'going to hurt' phrase within the article's context. I'm just hyper-sensitive to the strangle-hold those simple words have on my fragile psyche.

Once I might have wholeheartedly nodded at the "it has to hurt" part; not so sure if it belongs in my 'truth' anymore. Maybe this only reflects my gut reaction to how words like that were used to justify those who abused me...e.g. "this hurts us more than it hurts you".

Just an example, I guess, of how pervasive even well-intended words can jolt one's vulnerable emotions. Or how one's inner child still cringes on hearing certain phrases, no matter who utters them and no matter the context.

Again, no judgement call—the article reflects a lot of my thinking; but I was stunned when the 'has to hurt' phrase echoed what still gives me chills. Or hyper-vigilant blues...or...I accept whatever it is. Whew. 

[Dutch Uncle]

Maybe this only reflects my gut reaction to how words like that were used to justify those who abused me...e.g. "this hurts us more than it hurts you".

That's just horrible. 
"Then stop hurting us both, you doofus!" Is the only proper reply that can be given to such an abuse remark. Not that we as kids had the option to say that, let alone act on it.
There is no clearer phrase than that to summarize the abusive behavior called "blaming the victim".
Horrible people. 

I know, I'm quibbling over words, taking them out of context even, but they still triggered an intense reaction on my part.

IMHO talking about the meaning/effect of words on us is one of the most productive things in a conversation, especially when things are not getting clear. If I have learned anything in my life than it's the fact that the same word can mean a completely different thing for me than for somebody else. So by all means 'quibble' with over words as much as you want, whenever you want. 

I can relate to your hurt, I wince when I read the article as well. And still when I reread it.
It does hurt, even just the thought of having to 'cut my losses and run', so to say.
I guess that's why I'm still in limbo regarding 'cutting me out of the enmeshed FOO', as I speak so often about here. And why I progress by baby steps, I suppose.

Reading between the lines I can understand  that 'going to hurt' phrase within the article's context.
[and]
Once I might have wholeheartedly nodded at the "it has to hurt" part; not so sure if it belongs in my 'truth' anymore.

I think there's a subtle yet significant difference between the two.
It doesn't have to (had to) hurt, the 'investment' could have 'payed off', it's the other  -people who have made it a hurtful experience.
'Cutting ones losses' is "going to" hurt some more, but more in the realm of experiencing the hurt already done without hope for it all "going to be alright in the end."
So I guess, and this is what I read in the article (consciously, my feelings/emotions try to shout harder "this is not the case!"), it's not a new hurt, an additional hurt, but the 'original' hurt that will be felt. The hurt I've tried to sedate by whatever means I could think of, but that I felt regardless of my efforts.




PS: today I saw this quote on my favorite 'daily quotes'-site:
"Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it."
which is in the same vein I think.
The trouble/art is to figure out when something is turning out to be a mistake. (Even harder to do when it's a 'mistake' through no fault of your own.)

edit: language

[Butterfly]

Actually my experience with the concept of sunk cost is related to corporate business environment. It was a concept under discussion often because they were projects  that clearly should have been stopped but because so much money had already been invested the thinking was it had to be finished. This made no sense because costs kept escalating and investment kept increasing but because so much had already been invested no one was willing to shut off the spigot. 

Sometimes we need to choose to let something go because it is not good for us regardless of the time and money we invested in the relationship or to acquire the object. Sometimes it's a  difficult reality this facing that it is was waste of time and money. But to continue a relationship or trying to acquire an object because of what we already invested does not mean the future cost of time and money is worth the effort.

That's at least how I understand the concept of sunk cost, that at some point we have to say this is a lost cause and to continue on the same course makes no sense.