Trump, Covid and the sunk cost fallacy

[Cow Poke]

This is about me, isn't it?

Why couldn't you just have the guts to say so!

[rogue06]

bacon

As per Jed's Law

[NorrinRadd]

So what are your 'sunk cost fallacies'?

What positions do you (or did you defend) just a bit beyond reasonableness?

Inerrancy was one for me (now I'm more of an 'infallibilist'), and I've come to realise that Trump was a real mixture as President. Some successes and some failures, some things he didn't go far enough. Although I think we don't always realise the limits that practicalities, inertia, bureaucracy etc etc put on leaders.

I ponder the "inerrancy" thing from time to time. Generally speaking, fundygelicals are way too committed to the idea, IMO.

[CivilDiscourse]

I would add to that: "convenient silence." I am guilty of this at times - more so when I frequented on another discussion board.

What happens is that there is a whackjob who you might agree with on several hot topics, but has shown himself/herself to be nutty, or even horrible, on other subjects. Example: There have been people I agreed with in regard to many political topics, but will suddenly spout off something like "all homosexuals should be arrested." Instead of challenging the person, I will go silent, because to attack the person on the subject would cause a rift on other topics. But admittedly, sometimes I don't notice such crazy comments from such people because I don't often read those I am aligned with, being more focused on those I am arguing with.

I think there's two things that go along with this:
The first is commonly seen and recognized. "Selective Outrage". This is where something that would otherwise be overlooked is seen as completely outrageous because "the other side" did it.

What's less commonly called out (but just as common) is "Selective Apathy" Not only is something that normally outrages someone ignored when "their side" does it, it becomes actively downplayed and handwaved.

[Sparko]

I try and make a deliberate effort to overcome my commitment bias. If I see that I am wrong on something I will bite the bullet and admit it (most of the time anyway). I find that people will respect you more if you can admit when you are wrong, rather than stubbornly keep fighting a battle you have already lost even in your own mind.

Also about what Ronson said about "convenient silence" - I have done that too, but I try not to. An example, I like Mike Whitney and we agree on a lot of politics. But I think he is wrong about most of his anti-COVID vaccines stances. And I will tell him so. I am sorry if it makes him mad but I will say what I think. I did the same with SeanD recently and he got really irked with me about it. Even compared me to Oxmixmudd. All I did was state what I believed that he didn't agree with. We agree on lots of other things.

[Ronson]

I try and make a deliberate effort to overcome my commitment bias. If I see that I am wrong on something I will bite the bullet and admit it (most of the time anyway). I find that people will respect you more if you can admit when you are wrong, rather than stubbornly keep fighting a battle you have already lost even in your own mind.

Also about what Ronson said about "convenient silence" - I have done that too, but I try not to. An example, I like Mike Whitney and we agree on a lot of politics. But I think he is wrong about most of his anti-COVID vaccines stances. And I will tell him so. I am sorry if it makes him mad but I will say what I think. I did the same with SeanD recently and he got really irked with me about it. Even compared me to Oxmixmudd. All I did was state what I believed that he didn't agree with. We agree on lots of other things.

In my case, the person(s) I was politically aligned with would post something so far out there that ... I was simply too embarrassed to say anything at all. And if I had said something, I probably would have lost control and laid into them. I decided it was best to pick my battles carefully.

And this pours over into real life. My brother subscribes to a lot of the QAnon stuff that I think is whacko. When he starts on one of those topics, I either go silent or change the subject.

[tabibito]

I ponder the "inerrancy" thing from time to time. Generally speaking, fundygelicals are way too committed to the idea, IMO.

It looks a lot like a gambling addict chasing his losses.

[Sparko]

In my case, the person(s) I was politically aligned with would post something so far out there that ... I was simply too embarrassed to say anything at all. And if I had said something, I probably would have lost control and laid into them. I decided it was best to pick my battles carefully.

And this pours over into real life. My brother subscribes to a lot of the QAnon stuff that I think is whacko. When he starts on one of those topics, I either go silent or change the subject.

Yeah I have a friend like that. And in real life I will just ignore him rather than ruin our friendship. Not Q-anon, but other off the wall conspiracy crap.

[KingsGambit]

Inerrancy is a good one. Its staunch defense is understandable given how many have skin in the game. They may belong to churches with statements of faith requiring it, or may pastor a church with bylaws or denominational rules requiring it, or teach at an institute that requires it. With the latter two, changing your mind can remove your livelihood. We also saw what happened to Mike Licona for adopting a different view of inerrancy while still affirming it.

I prefer "infallibility" myself. I do not claim there are any errors in the Bible, but don't find the concept of inerrancy as generally framed to be helpful in understanding the Bible.

[NorrinRadd]

Inerrancy is a good one. Its staunch defense is understandable given how many have skin in the game. They may belong to churches with statements of faith requiring it, or may pastor a church with bylaws or denominational rules requiring it, or teach at an institute that requires it. With the latter two, changing your mind can remove your livelihood. We also saw what happened to Mike Licona for adopting a different view of inerrancy while still affirming it.

I prefer "infallibility" myself. I do not claim there are any errors in the Bible, but don't find the concept of inerrancy as generally framed to be helpful in understanding the Bible.

The major "official" inerrancy statements (e.g. the "Chicago" statement) all stipulate that it applies only to the original manuscripts. In that case, what's the point? Those are long gone. Even if they were "inerrant" in the limited and nuanced sense presented in the official statements, there is no claim that inerrancy also applied / applies to transmission and translation.

[Esther]

Apologies for the click bait title. There is something substantial here, though.


Recently I noticed that some of the kinds of 'discussion' around a number of things seem to me to exhibit similar kinds of behaviours. A lot of name-calling, factionalism, and labelling, rather than people actually taking on board evidence or reasoning that runs counter to their preferred beliefs. Instead of listening to contrary views, people seem to prefer to find arational 'reasons' to reject them out of hand. Some topics where this happens a lot are:

• Everything COVID-related
• Trump (is he/was he really that bad?)
• Climate change
• Systemic racism / BLM
• January 6th

On to some of the arational 'reasons':

An obvious one is name-calling and labelling - the fallacy of ad hominem. Some examples:

'far-right' (notice how everyone who doesn't lean significantly left is now called this?)

'anti-vaxxer' often used to lump people who have reasonable concerns over aspects of the current push for mandatory vaccinations into the same category as those (few) people who reject all vaccinations altogether. Sloppy thinking that ignores the real concerns some people have.

'racist' gets some mileage in this category as well


Another is an irrelevant appeal to emotion: 'Do you want my grandma to die?' - in response to people who express concerns that lock-downs may not be cost-effective in responding to Covid infections, or people who question the need to wear facemasks. 'How dare you!' as an 'argument' for supporting all proposed responses to climate change

'Trumpster' 'Q Anon' 'conspiracy addict' from one side of American politics, 'OMB' 'woke' 'libtard' from the other


One more is the constant factionalism - if you're 'progressive' then you have to support a whole bunch of positions on these things, if you're 'right' you have to support the opposite positions. Along with the associated 'you're only anti-vaccine because you love Trump' stupidity.



So why do we do this illogical stuff that hinders our ability to think clearly about these important issues?

My theory is that it's because (a) people are nasty, and lazy in their thinking, and (b) the sunk cost fallacy

Once we have invested significant time, money and emotional energy in one side of a topic, we tend to keep going with that side even when there are reasons to change or modify our previous position. So, for example, posters here who have spent the last few years hating on everything Trump said or did find it very hard to modify their position and accept that some of the reasons they think he was so bad are spurious ('everyone inject bleach into your veins!') at best. I think there's at least an element of the same thing with many discussions around Covid. No-one wants to think that maybe the vaccines are dangerous, or perhaps not the best response to the pandemic.

It's easy (?) to spot this fallacy at work in others but not so much in ourselves... but I think we all should be aware of it. Especially as we invest time and emotion in discussion here, maybe that tends to make us less amenable to different viewpoints, even when there are good reasons for them.

This is such a good summary of the mad world we live in. May I use your post if I have the inclination? I will give the necessary credits or not?