I
came across a post where someone trying to explain what they called ‘the
sunk cost fallacy’ and I had mixed feelings about the topic. Let me
explain the concept first. A sunk cost, according to my business studies
teacher, is one that is irrecoverable after being incurred. Let’s say you buy
tickets to a concert; whether or not you attend, you cannot get your money
back. The sunk cost fallacy, this person argued, is the assumption that since I
have already come this far, I might as well decide to finish.
The
example they used was going to the shop. If, let's say, you leave your house to
buy something from a shop five metres away and find it closed and there is
another shop two hundred metres away you might as well decide to go to the
second one since you’re already outside. If you find yourself in a relationship
or job that has not got all the things you want, the fallacy dictates that you
just go on with it since you’re already in.
What
this person was arguing, however, was that you do not have to. My only concern
with their argument was the place of hardships in life. We live in a generation
that is so obsessed with being happy they forget that suffering and hardships
are a normal part of life. Today, many will turn back if the shop five metres
away is closed because two hundred is not what they had bargained for. I
understand their concern but my question begs, in the quest for
self-gratification, do we leave space for perseverance?
I
know there is no guarantee that the shop two hundred metres farther is open,
but if we do not take the initiative then we will never know. My personal bias
is towards the fallacy. I am not saying it is a hundred percent correct but
neither is turning back.
It is
the hope that kills they say, but like the wise men of old said, ‘ganga
ganga ya mganga humwacha mgonjwa na matumaini.’
👌
ReplyDelete