Page 1 of 4

The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:40 pm
by Preezy
Just been reading some interesting stuff about behavioral economics, in particular the sunk cost fallacy and how easy it can be to fall into this irrational trap. I've been guilty of it myself on many occasions, and I've only just realised it :lol: :fp:

The below is a simple test - I'm sure some of you may already be aware of the fallacy, but I figured it'd be an interesting little experiment all the same. Just a bit of banta m8

Scenario:

You purchase some expensive tickets for a concert that is 6 months away. As the concert date approaches, you realise that you don't want to go anymore, and you try to sell the tickets on to recover some of the money you've spent. No luck. Seems no one else likes Drake either :(

The day of the concert arrives. These tickets cost you half a month's wages, but you can't shift them.

What do you do? :capnscotty:

edit: As some of you seem to struggle with hypotheticals (honestly, it's like working with Karl Pilkington :lol: ), for the sake of the scenario, you can't give them away. No one wants them, not even the window lickers on Facebook. If you don't go, the tickets won't be used.

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:43 pm
by Octoroc
I don't know why I bought the tickets in the first place.

I wouldn't go.

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:44 pm
by 7256930752
I wouldn't go and would give them away to someone who wanted to go.

Obviously I'd steal something from them at a later date.

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:46 pm
by Blue Eyes
Nah. I'd only spend even more money on booze at the gig.

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:47 pm
by satriales
I'd give them to someone else.

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:48 pm
by Blue Eyes
satriales wrote:I'd give them to someone else.

Thing is, did you try to sell that same person the ticket first? If they refuse to pay and you end up giving it to them for free you've lost out even more.

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:50 pm
by Dual
Tout outside to try and make something back

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:50 pm
by satriales
Blue Eyes wrote:
satriales wrote:I'd give them to someone else.

Thing is, did you try to sell that same person the ticket first? If they refuse to pay and you end up giving it to them for free you've lost out even more.

If I can't sell them then the money is gone either way. Better to give them to someone that wants to go.

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:53 pm
by Mafro
There's always tons of folk on Facebook events for gigs looking for tickets at the last minute so I'd probably just look there.

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:58 pm
by Moggy
It depends on who the concert was for. I assume I don’t hate the act (or why else would I have spent half a months wages on the tickets?), so I would probably go and try and have a good time.

If I didn’t like the act, then I would cut my losses and stay home.

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:07 pm
by Hexx
Who was I going to the concert with, and is there a chance of pulling?

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:17 pm
by Knoyleo
Preezy wrote:Seems no one else likes Drake either :(

:slol:

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:17 pm
by more heat than light
Mafro wrote:There's always tons of folk on Facebook events for gigs looking for tickets at the last minute so I'd probably just look there.


Yeah or just stick them on Twickets. It's a pretty crappy theoretical question really. Anyone with half a brain would recoup at least the majority of the money.

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:20 pm
by Death's Head
Are you saying no one wants them at face value or no one wants them at any price? If not at face value I'd just sell them for 50% to guarantee I got something back.

If no one wants them at all I'd open a Drake museum where these tickets would be the main (and only) attraction.

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:23 pm
by OrangeRKN
The sunk cost fallacy is kind of interesting, but what's the name of the fallacy where people try to argue around a hypothetical question to avoid its point? I like that one

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:24 pm
by Lex-Man
I think the logical thing would be not to go. If your spending your time doing something you don't enjoy then it's a negative cost so you'd be down the price of the tickets and the time you wasted going to the gig.

I'd probably go though.

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:38 pm
by Hexx
OrangeRakoon wrote:The sunk cost fallacy is kind of interesting, but what's the name of the fallacy where people try to argue around a hypothetical question to avoid its point? I like that one


Preezy's Folly.

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:45 pm
by Moggy
Hexx wrote:
OrangeRakoon wrote:The sunk cost fallacy is kind of interesting, but what's the name of the fallacy where people try to argue around a hypothetical question to avoid its point? I like that one


Preezy's Folly.


:lol:

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:46 pm
by Irene Demova
my brother seems to like drake, I'd sell them to him

Re: The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:49 pm
by Jenuall
I would find a Drake fan to sell them to and using my immense powers of persuasion would get them to part with way more money than I had paid for the tickets in the first place.

I would call my earnings my "Drake's Fortune".