The second is the notion of sunk costs. This is pretty much what it sounds like: the time or money
or sweat equity you’ve already spent on a project. It is tempting to believe that once you’re invested
heavily in something, it is counterproductive to quit. This is known as the sunk-cost fallacy or, as the
biologist Richard Dawkins called it, the Concorde fallacy, after the supersonic airplane. Its two
patrons, the British and French governments, suspected the Concorde was not economically viable
but had spent too many billions to stop. In simpler times, this was known as throwing good money
after bad—but money is hardly the only resource that people toss into the sunk-cost trap. Think about
all the time, brainpower, and social or political capital you continued to spend on some commitment
only because you didn’t like the idea of quitting.
The second is the notion of sunk costs. This is pretty much what it sounds like: the time or money
or sweat equity you’ve already spent on a project. It is tempting to believe that once you’re invested
heavily in something, it is counterproductive to quit. This is known as the sunk-cost fallacy or, as the
biologist Richard Dawkins called it, the Concorde fallacy, after the supersonic airplane. Its two
patrons, the British and French governments, suspected the Concorde was not economically viable
but had spent too many billions to stop. In simpler times, this was known as throwing good money
after bad—but money is hardly the only resource that people toss into the sunk-cost trap. Think about
all the time, brainpower, and social or political capital you continued to spend on some commitment
only because you didn’t like the idea of quitting.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
