= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on Is Sunk Cost Fallacy a Fallacy? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (80)
Any idea whether Go beginners' tendency to "throw good stones after bad" results from sunk cost fallacy in particular, or from wishful thinking in general?
Like, is the thought "I don't want my stones to have been wasted" or "I really want to have that corner of the board"?
It may be an example of a different bias at play, specifically confirmation bias: they don't realize that the stones are being wasted and can't be retrieved. For example, chess masters commit confirmation bias less than weaker players.
(It's not that the players explicitly realize that there are better moves elsewhere but decide to keep playing the suboptimal moves anyway, because of sunk costs which would be sunk cost bias; it's that they don't think of what the opponent might do - which is closer to 'thoughtlessness'.)