The Sunk Cost “Fallacy” Is Not a Fallacy

This isn't arguing against the consideration of sunk costs as fallacious. It's just arguing that when considering reputational and psychological costs, a lot of what looks like sunk cost fallacy really isn't.

Needlessly provocative headline. It is still fallacious to explicitly consider unrecoverable past costs in future decisions. It may be reasonable nonetheless to attempt to quantify the cost of a hurt ego from admitting you were wrong and use that to make future decisions. Ideally, you'd learn to get over that, but if you can't, so be it. Maybe we need mandatory education programs to include some element where kids are forced to fail so they can learn to get over it. Play sports. Do something, anything, that humbles you.

This all seems like over-complicated BS. The how's and why's of how you arrived at a situation shouldn't be used to make a decision NOW. Chose the path going forward that maximizes gain, or minimizes loss relative to the present. Doing otherwise is the sunk cost fallacy. If you choose to include your psychology, emotions, or social appearances into that calculation, so be it, that's your value-scale, but accept that's what you're doing.

Brilliant. Fallacies are no longer fallacies when they are outweighed by the rational need to save face.

I've been calling this "The Sunk Cost Fallacy Fallacy", people don't understand it but still quote it liberally.