Here is an interesting post by John Holbo at Crooked Timber that captures something I have been thinking about for quite awhile. The basic idea of the sunk cost fallacy is that if you invest in a project that turns out to be a loser many people will, nevertheless, throw good money after bad in an attempt to recover their losses. He suggests that an "epistemic" sunk cost phenomena is occurring now with Trump supporters.He illustrates with Trump's attack on Trudeau.
I have been inclined to think that the abandonment of principles is proof that such principles never held much sway. But that hypothesis implicitly assumes that people are rational. The sunk cost model, in contrast, ends up with people incurring large losses they later really regret. That model seems quite persuasive too...maybe a better model actually.
In the Trudeau case there are two options as to things you might believe.
1) Justin Trudeau is a weak, nefarious dairy extortionist.
2) 1 is just ****ing ridiculous.
If 2 is true, Trump voters ought to be ashamed of themselves. Anyone can make mistakes. But the President of the United States should not be ridiculous.
If you have to choose between being being ashamed of yourself or thinking Justin Trudeau is going to hell for dairy-related reasons, the latter option is far superior on grounds of psychic comfort. (Exception: you yourself are Justin Trudeau.)
But it adds up. I don’t just mean: you get wronger and wronger. It gets harder and harder to doubt the next ridiculous thing – since admitting Trump said or did one thing that was not just wrong but ridiculous would make it highly credible that he has done or said other ridiculous things. But that would raise the likelihood that you, a Trump supporter, have already believed or praised not just mistaken but flat-out ridiculous things, which would be an annoying thing to have to admit. So the comfortable option is to buy it all – the more so, the more ridiculous it threatens to be.
Holbo also observes the rapidity with which previous ideological commitments have been abandoned. Many people who identify as Republicans and Conservatives can see all this happening but everyone is largely powerless to stop it. 1) Justin Trudeau is a weak, nefarious dairy extortionist.
2) 1 is just ****ing ridiculous.
If 2 is true, Trump voters ought to be ashamed of themselves. Anyone can make mistakes. But the President of the United States should not be ridiculous.
If you have to choose between being being ashamed of yourself or thinking Justin Trudeau is going to hell for dairy-related reasons, the latter option is far superior on grounds of psychic comfort. (Exception: you yourself are Justin Trudeau.)
But it adds up. I don’t just mean: you get wronger and wronger. It gets harder and harder to doubt the next ridiculous thing – since admitting Trump said or did one thing that was not just wrong but ridiculous would make it highly credible that he has done or said other ridiculous things. But that would raise the likelihood that you, a Trump supporter, have already believed or praised not just mistaken but flat-out ridiculous things, which would be an annoying thing to have to admit. So the comfortable option is to buy it all – the more so, the more ridiculous it threatens to be.
I have been inclined to think that the abandonment of principles is proof that such principles never held much sway. But that hypothesis implicitly assumes that people are rational. The sunk cost model, in contrast, ends up with people incurring large losses they later really regret. That model seems quite persuasive too...maybe a better model actually.
