New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 228
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Oct 2021

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    I'll play devil's advocate and argue that Redcloak isn't engaged in the sunk cost fallacy at all. In order to be fallacious the expected value of proceeding has to be less than the the expected value of changing your course. Moreover it's the expected value as Redcloak values it.

    If the Plan succeeds he gets goblin equality as enforced by divine mandate. Even if he didn't have a pathological need to be right (which he totally does) he'd value that extremely highly. He'd also get all the things Durkon is offering anyway, so it's not like he's giving up much more than he already has in that scenario. He also considers the failure case, the current world is destroyed and The Dark One gets a seat at the table for next time, to be better than the status quo. Given all that the expected value of the Plan is actually really high. It's not clear that there's anything he values enough to be worth abandoning all that for. At least from his perspective.

    The Plan can't work of course and the Dark One likely won't survive to the next world. But the only source on that Redcloak has is Durkon and Minrah who Redcloak has rational reasons to distrust. They're long term enemies with no evidence and a vested stake in stopping him. Their stated reason for negotiating at all (stopping the Snarl forever) is something Redcloak thinks is impossible. He has only their word that it is possible.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Kish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    In complete isolation, a goblin could argue that Durkon and Minrah are not to be trusted and keeping Xykon as a beatstick for just a little longer is worth the friendly fire casualties he isn't really inflicting at the moment.

    I do not think Redcloak is that goblin. I think his conclusion that Durkon and Minrah were lying about everything that would point to "you should actually cooperate with them" is way more than 50% informed by "I want this to be the case."

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Troll in the Playground
     
    HalflingPirate

    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    I kind of agree with the logic as presented. Redcloak has been shown to be a competent strategist, and strategists tend to, in the absence of better intelligence, base what they do on what they think they would do in their enemy's place.

    In this case, if he was the enemy and Team Evil was winning, he would lie, cheat, or whatever it took to manipulate Team Evil away from the goal. Therefore he assumes the enemy is lying to him.

    However, a moment of reflection will show that this is the enemy that has denied him 3 of the 4 gates he has tried to access. He knows they can do it again. His plan? Find the gate faster. Presumably to, what? Lure the enemy to attempt to destroy it so he can eliminate them? What if they do destroy it? How does he know they are not already there holding a magic hammer over it, ready to take it out before he has a chance to fight for it?

    The flaw in the plan was baked in from the beginning. 'Beat the gate guardians, then spend a few weeks doing a ritual. Nobody is going to show up with the ability, or intent, to stop you.' Investing in that plan was the fallacy.
    Continuing to invest because so much has already been invested makes it a sunk cost fallacy. It was never going to work. Putting more into a plan that was never going to work, and which has been demonstrated to be unworkable in the 4 of 5 possible tries, makes it a really bad idea.

    But, hey, let's go for the plan anyway and hope the untested, (really the unplanned,) Plan B works when if, Plan A fails.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2022

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    To be fair to Redcloak though, isn't that why he has Xykon with him in the first place? Anyone who shows up to stop them, get's blasted into pudding by Xykon, and they continue the ritual. It's not a terrible idea, even if from a trope perspective, it is just begging for some last minute heroics to come and stop them.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    To be fair to Redcloak though, isn't that why he has Xykon with him in the first place? Anyone who shows up to stop them, get's blasted into pudding by Xykon, and they continue the ritual. It's not a terrible idea, even if from a trope perspective, it is just begging for some last minute heroics to come and stop them.
    In the OOTS-verse, tropes can be quite potent. That's, like, 5/6ths of what makes Tarquin effective.

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2021

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by BaronOfHell View Post
    The Red Cloak suffers from sunk cost fallacy, meaning it cannot disregard previously invested resources when taking future actions into consideration.

    In the case of the goblin puppet master, it means anything that is not the plan, is not an option.. at least not if it goes against the plan. I suppose mentally, his conscience just wouldn't be able to bear it.

    I believe the story truly does portray a fallacy, because there seems to have been many better options RC could have chosen than to follow the plan.
    Like... until the secret mercenaries of Shojo (no not the boys in blue, except one of those did so too) began blowing up Gates like there is no tomorrow, RC's time did seem pretty unlimited. Xykon didn't have to be the be all end all, but I suppose now he can't ditch the lich anymore, or he might as well give up his life and the plan altogether.

    Anyway what I wonder is if sunk cost doesn't have a value if you do have limited time? A scenario where you invest resources for some gain, and based on what you get, you make your next decision. The alternative of ignoring whatever you got seems unlikely to be better?

    Here is an example. In a game of chess you have 2.5 hours to finish a game, so does your opponent, so in total of 5 hours. The game may be 50 moves long, that means each player makes 50 moves for a total of 100 moves... 5 hours for a 100 moves may sound like a lot, but you actually only have 3 minutes per move in average.
    With sound time investment, a large part of the moves does not require 3 minutes, but even if we eliminate half the moves it still leaves out 6 minutes per move.
    Now I won't go into chess terminology, but imagine you have a position that requires you to think a lot.. So far you have invested your time well, so you can afford at least 30 minutes to consider your options, but then you get absorbed in a specific line of moves for the majority of the duration and now you really cannot spend any more time considering the position. Yet all you have for the time spend is a very deep understanding of one move and the variations which follows, and a very shallow understanding of perhaps two other moves.
    You have realized that the move you spend the most time on will give you a position from which you have to fight for a draw if your opponent plays correctly, and you also know there are many ways your opponent can go wrong (perhaps the very reason you were lured to spend so much time on this particular move). However, presently, you see nothing wrong with one of the other moves you considered, and the third you decided to disregard completely, as it doesn't seem to be any good. Also you just discovered a fourth move that you haven't really looked at, but at first glance it does look like a forced win for you, or close to at least.

    So what do you do? Please have in mind all moves are supposed to be very complicated, so you cannot be very confident in any other move than the one move you don't think is very good if your opponent plays well against it.

    In my opinion the resources spend, is what should determine the outcome. In the chess example, if you know little to almost nothing of other candidate moves than the one you spend so much time on, isn't it a much larger risk to go for any other move then?
    Sometimes people play dubious openings in chess knowing they can be punished, but have so much preparation in hand, that it is unlikely to happen based on their current opponent. If this is a valid strategy, is it not also better to go for where your resources went, than to invest in avenues you haven't explored properly, even though at first sight they look so much more promising?
    The problem here is that the fallacy is based on a grain of truth, but with a potentially untrue assumptions.
    The potentially wrong assumptions are that all other options have upfront costs higher than the still remaining costs and that none of the previously made investments can be reused.
    If the assumptions are true switching options always requires around as much as you already invested plus the stream costs making every option that isn't "the plan" needlessly expensive.
    Our example chess player can't reuse a lot of his previous thought process, because it contained a lot of forward thinking on this one specific move.
    The closest I get to clear and consise:
    Quote Originally Posted by Justanotherhero View Post
    Interesting read! Thanks for the post!

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    ElfRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2022

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    [QUOTE=BaronOfHell;25597287]
    I believe the story truly does portray a fallacy, because there seems to have been many better options RC could have chosen than to follow the plan.

    I don't think Red Cloak represents a philosophical concept, or at least not is a pure sense. He is a cleric of the Dark One, and is behaving like such a character should. He is distrustful of the other player's motives, as the DO is distrustful of the other gods, and neither feel any compunction to play nicely.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Fyraltari's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aodha View Post
    I don't think Red Cloak represents a philosophical concept, or at least not is a pure sense. He is a cleric of the Dark One, and is behaving like such a character should. He is distrustful of the other player's motives, as the DO is distrustful of the other gods, and neither feel any compunction to play nicely.
    We're told a few times, once by Redcloak's own brother, that the reason Redcloak sticks with Xykon is because he can't rationalize all the deaths he caused otherwise.
    Last edited by Fyraltari; 2022-10-24 at 03:47 PM.
    Forum Wisdom

    Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Oct 2021

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari View Post
    We're told a few times, once by Redcloak's own brother, that the reason Redcloak sticks with Xykon is because he can't rationalize all the deaths he caused otherwise.
    In Redcloak's defense if he tried to leave now Xykon would kill him, the bugbear village, and every goblin in Gobbotopia (and probably any others he happened to find) just to spite him. I'm not saying you're wrong, but abandoning Xykon comes with some pretty hefty risks and not just for himself right at the moment.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Fyraltari's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oromin View Post
    In Redcloak's defense if he tried to leave now Xykon would kill him, the bugbear village, and every goblin in Gobbotopia (and probably any others he happened to find) just to spite him. I'm not saying you're wrong, but abandoning Xykon comes with some pretty hefty risks and not just for himself right at the moment.
    Hmm, I wonder how well Xykon would have fared if Redcloak had denied him healing at a critical moment during one of the dungeon crawls.
    Forum Wisdom

    Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Troll in the Playground
     
    HalflingPirate

    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    I wonder how well he'd fare if Redcloak set out to destroy him. Redcloak has serious advantages versus undead, and intimate knowledge of Xykon.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Earth and/or not-Earth
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by brian 333 View Post
    I wonder how well he'd fare if Redcloak set out to destroy him. Redcloak has serious advantages versus undead, and intimate knowledge of Xykon.
    On the other hand, Xykon has had years to prepare for such a betrayal, spends a good amount of time making magic items, and isn't nearly as stupid as he seems to be. I think that if Redcloak were to try and betray Xykon he'd find it to be more of a fight than he'd expect.
    I made a webcomic, featuring absurdity, terrible art, and alleged morals.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Oct 2021

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by brian 333 View Post
    I wonder how well he'd fare if Redcloak set out to destroy him. Redcloak has serious advantages versus undead, and intimate knowledge of Xykon.
    I feel like it's fair to assume that Redcloak does have a plan to kill Xykon. He didn't go through the trouble of making a fake phylactery for nothing and he knows very well that it's not useful until Xykon's body is destroyed.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    The sunk cost fallacy is always a fallacy simply because of its definition, but a given person taking into account their sunk costs in a given situation isn't necessarily always engaged in the sunk cost fallacy. "Sunk cost fallacy" doesn't mean "taking into account your sunk costs is always wrong". It means "taking into account your sunk costs is sometimes wrong". OOTS is trying to showcase one of those times with Redcloak.

    In order for the fallacy to happen, there must be a better option that you are refusing to consider because of your sunk costs. When no better option actually exists, there is no fallacy.

    For example, consider a gambler who absolutely needs to win big today or else something terrible will happen, and he has already invested a lot of money in a game which he has a low chance of winning. It was a mistake to invest so much money in that game, but now that he has - now that he's got that sunk cost - the best option is to continue playing, because he doesn't have enough money left to be able to afford to quit this game and start over with another game. His chances of winning may be low, but if he's in a situation where "you win or you die", it is rational to keep playing.

    That's an example of taking into account your sunk cost in a way that isn't fallacious. When you've already invested all available resources into one thing and aren't able to start over with something else, it is rational to stick to your original plan no matter how bad it was. Because you don't have another option.

    The argument is that Redcloak does have another option(s), and that's why his behaviour is based on a fallacy.

    I'm not actually sure if that's true. Obviously The Giant intends it to be true, but it's not clear that Redcloak is legitimately aware of the existence of alternatives to The Plan that are clearly better. All the alternatives he has been presented with so far require him to essentially trust that the Humans/Elves/Dwarves won't just stomp the goblins into the ground as soon as they are able to. Would it really be more rational for him to trust his enemies than to continue with a Plan that his god assures him will work? Has Redcloak really been presented with convincing evidence that The Plan is an inferior option to some other alternative?
    Last edited by Edric O; 2022-11-15 at 01:46 AM.
    Proud White Cloak Acolyte of the Fan Club.

    Neither murderous paladins nor psychotic liches shall ever extinguish the dream of Goblin Liberation. The Plan must continue.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oromin View Post
    I'll play devil's advocate and argue that Redcloak isn't engaged in the sunk cost fallacy at all. In order to be fallacious the expected value of proceeding has to be less than the the expected value of changing your course. Moreover it's the expected value as Redcloak values it.

    If the Plan succeeds he gets goblin equality as enforced by divine mandate. Even if he didn't have a pathological need to be right (which he totally does) he'd value that extremely highly. He'd also get all the things Durkon is offering anyway, so it's not like he's giving up much more than he already has in that scenario. He also considers the failure case, the current world is destroyed and The Dark One gets a seat at the table for next time, to be better than the status quo. Given all that the expected value of the Plan is actually really high. It's not clear that there's anything he values enough to be worth abandoning all that for. At least from his perspective.

    The Plan can't work of course and the Dark One likely won't survive to the next world. But the only source on that Redcloak has is Durkon and Minrah who Redcloak has rational reasons to distrust. They're long term enemies with no evidence and a vested stake in stopping him. Their stated reason for negotiating at all (stopping the Snarl forever) is something Redcloak thinks is impossible. He has only their word that it is possible.
    I basically agree with you. Redcloak has deep-seated psychological issues that make him stick to The Plan, but, even if he didn't, The Plan still would be the rational best choice as far as he knows. He has no reason to trust a single word that comes from Durkon or Minrah, and other than (a) The Plan or (b) trusting Durkon and Minrah, what other options does he have?

    Well, the only other option would be to say that Gobbotopia is enough, the goblins already have their own independent nation in this world and he's going to go back and help with that instead of The Plan.

    That would be his option (c). But that would require a showdown with Xykon, which he has no guarantee of winning, and he knows that if he loses then Xykon will immediately massacre all of Gobbotopia out of spite.

    So, given that option (b) is an offer from his enemies, and option (c) is ludicrously risky on top of being just a consolation prize, I really think it is rational for Redcloak to choose option (a), continuing with The Plan.
    Proud White Cloak Acolyte of the Fan Club.

    Neither murderous paladins nor psychotic liches shall ever extinguish the dream of Goblin Liberation. The Plan must continue.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Troll in the Playground
     
    HalflingPirate

    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Edric O View Post
    I basically agree with you. Redcloak has deep-seated psychological issues that make him stick to The Plan, but, even if he didn't, The Plan still would be the rational best choice as far as he knows. He has no reason to trust a single word that comes from Durkon or Minrah, and other than (a) The Plan or (b) trusting Durkon and Minrah, what other options does he have?

    Well, the only other option would be to say that Gobbotopia is enough, the goblins already have their own independent nation in this world and he's going to go back and help with that instead of The Plan.

    That would be his option (c). But that would require a showdown with Xykon, which he has no guarantee of winning, and he knows that if he loses then Xykon will immediately massacre all of Gobbotopia out of spite.

    So, given that option (b) is an offer from his enemies, and option (c) is ludicrously risky on top of being just a consolation prize, I really think it is rational for Redcloak to choose option (a), continuing with The Plan.
    I agree with this. Redcloak's reasoning is based on what he knows, and he is not aware of many things.

    But that's not what makes it a sunk cost fallacy.

    Let's reason things through from Redcloak's perspective.
    Goblins were created as canon fodder. The gods prevent them from becoming more than that by denying them access to the things they give freely to other races. The plan is to threaten the release of a god-destroying entity to blackmail them into granting... what? Better land? Wealth? The acceptance of other races into larger society?

    Right-eye was doing all those things already. Right-eye was accomplishing what Redcloak says he wants. Redcloak killed Right-eye because Right-eye's success would ruin all his dreams of being the one to 'save goblinkind.'

    The fallacy is that Redcloak had evidence of a better way to achieve the results he claimed to want, and rejected it in order to pursue The Plan. Killing his brother was the sunk cost that he can never recover, and stopping now after having paid that cost is no longer possible. No matter what it costs, now there is only one way forward. Even if it costs the whole world and every goblin in it.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2022

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Edric O View Post
    I basically agree with you. Redcloak has deep-seated psychological issues that make him stick to The Plan, but, even if he didn't, The Plan still would be the rational best choice as far as he knows. He has no reason to trust a single word that comes from Durkon or Minrah, and other than (a) The Plan or (b) trusting Durkon and Minrah, what other options does he have?

    Well, the only other option would be to say that Gobbotopia is enough, the goblins already have their own independent nation in this world and he's going to go back and help with that instead of The Plan.

    That would be his option (c). But that would require a showdown with Xykon, which he has no guarantee of winning, and he knows that if he loses then Xykon will immediately massacre all of Gobbotopia out of spite.

    So, given that option (b) is an offer from his enemies, and option (c) is ludicrously risky on top of being just a consolation prize, I really think it is rational for Redcloak to choose option (a), continuing with The Plan.

    Here's a thought for (d):

    Check to see if they're being honest. You don't have to trust them to check to see if they're lying. Kinda the opposite.


    He's demonstrably mired in a sunk cost fallacy because not only didn't he "trust them", he went straight to "can't possibly be true, so I will try to murder them and will definitely, absolutely not even spend a single second trying to work out if the offer was truly being made in good faith and has a better chance of success than my current plan".


    Because, well, he might not have the preponderance of evidence to trust Durkon and Minrah - he only has their word - but he didn't try to get any evidence. Having been alerted to the possibility that he might be wrong in an unexpected avenue, he refused to check.

    And once they got away... he doubled down. The Modron is being kept in the dark, when he could have used the spell to summon something he could have trusted (say, a powerful servant of the Dark One) and could have directed some questions at. He could have pulled Oona aside and filled her (even partially) in on the conversation and asked her to take a message to the Dark One if she gets killed, since her death (and subsequent resurrection by himself) could plausibly happen in the dangerous dungeons they're planning on blitzing through. He could make a plan to, next time he gets spells, spam every information-gathering spell he has access to (instead, they're escalating to "maximum speed dungeon crawling", which means spells spent checking things could get him killed).

    He could have done a lot of things... but he rejected the possibility that he was wrong out of hand, because he truly lives in the Village of I Was Right All Along.


    tl;dr: Yes, based on the facts he has, his plan is still correct. But he's deliberately avoiding seeking out new facts after being given a hypothesis that competes with his own model of events.


    And it's a very human reaction. But not one conducive to good outcomes.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    FireJustice's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Don't know if people put light on the issue why it's a fallacy.


    Sunk Cost fallacy involves justifying changing a strategy using it's already sunken cost as "argument" for why its hence a fallacy.
    when said sunken cost don't factually matter at all

    "Too many people already died,if we change paths their deaths are in vain"
    Classic, but you are keeping an strategy and putting meaning on deaths as an objective too.
    The deaths in vain don't change the future outcome, just his own guilt

    "I sacrificed too much already"
    All sacrifices, can be "reverted" in some way.
    Body parts can be regenerated. Relationships can be mended. Villains can seek rendemption.
    Again, sacrificed in vain or not. Does this make a strategy more (in)viable?

    "We come this far already, we already paid too much"
    Same thing. If you don't know if your direction is the right path.
    Stopping to find a landmark isn't bad.
    Getting directions from someone isn't a bad strategy either.
    Keep going blind just because you already walked many days in that direction, that's a sunken cost fallacy (and dumb behavior)

    "Stick to the plan"
    Yeah, your plan is full of holes. It's kept by spit and strings...
    One curve ball and it all fall apart.

    Sure, Gods can't be trusted you say.
    But sure enough, you are counting them to act exactly the the way you want after you put the fear of existence in their hearts...
    using something like a god killer that you really hope you can control
    allying yourself with a creature far stronger and with mood swings
    So you can leverage something you don't even know yet if everythings goes according to the plan
    instead of NOW.
    good plan.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by brian 333 View Post
    I agree with this. Redcloak's reasoning is based on what he knows, and he is not aware of many things.

    But that's not what makes it a sunk cost fallacy.

    Let's reason things through from Redcloak's perspective.
    Goblins were created as canon fodder. The gods prevent them from becoming more than that by denying them access to the things they give freely to other races. The plan is to threaten the release of a god-destroying entity to blackmail them into granting... what? Better land? Wealth? The acceptance of other races into larger society?

    Right-eye was doing all those things already. Right-eye was accomplishing what Redcloak says he wants. Redcloak killed Right-eye because Right-eye's success would ruin all his dreams of being the one to 'save goblinkind.'

    The fallacy is that Redcloak had evidence of a better way to achieve the results he claimed to want, and rejected it in order to pursue The Plan. Killing his brother was the sunk cost that he can never recover, and stopping now after having paid that cost is no longer possible. No matter what it costs, now there is only one way forward. Even if it costs the whole world and every goblin in it.
    Wait... You've got a sunk cost there, but no fallacy.

    For Redcloak's actions to be a fallacy, he would need to have an option to return to what Right-eye was doing, yet choose to ignore that option because he doesn't want to admit he was wrong. In other words, Redcloak is only engaged in a fallacy if he can freely choose to stop doing what he's currently doing, yet does not choose this because of psychological reasons.

    But my point is that Redcloak cannot, in fact, freely choose to stop doing what he's currently doing. It's not just his own mind that's keeping him stuck on his current path, there's also an Epic Lich in the way. Redcloak can't just quit, even if he wanted to.
    Proud White Cloak Acolyte of the Fan Club.

    Neither murderous paladins nor psychotic liches shall ever extinguish the dream of Goblin Liberation. The Plan must continue.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zalam View Post
    Here's a thought for (d):

    Check to see if they're being honest. You don't have to trust them to check to see if they're lying. Kinda the opposite.

    [...]

    tl;dr: Yes, based on the facts he has, his plan is still correct. But he's deliberately avoiding seeking out new facts after being given a hypothesis that competes with his own model of events.

    And it's a very human reaction. But not one conducive to good outcomes.
    I agree. He is obviously making a mistake.

    But his mistake isn't the sunk cost fallacy. It's a different kind of mistake. The sunk cost fallacy would be if he knew a better course of action existed but chose not to pursue it because "I've invested too much in my current plan to give up on it now." As far as he knows, however, no better course of action exists.

    Stubbornly refusing to consider that you might have the wrong facts isn't the sunk cost fallacy. It's... well I don't know if there's a specific name for it, but in any case it's a different error.

    Hubris, perhaps?
    Proud White Cloak Acolyte of the Fan Club.

    Neither murderous paladins nor psychotic liches shall ever extinguish the dream of Goblin Liberation. The Plan must continue.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    hroþila's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Edric O View Post
    Wait... You've got a sunk cost there, but no fallacy.

    For Redcloak's actions to be a fallacy, he would need to have an option to return to what Right-eye was doing, yet choose to ignore that option because he doesn't want to admit he was wrong. In other words, Redcloak is only engaged in a fallacy if he can freely choose to stop doing what he's currently doing, yet does not choose this because of psychological reasons.

    But my point is that Redcloak cannot, in fact, freely choose to stop doing what he's currently doing. It's not just his own mind that's keeping him stuck on his current path, there's also an Epic Lich in the way. Redcloak can't just quit, even if he wanted to.
    But the point is, he doesn't want to. He didn't quit when the Epic lich was at his mercy, he didn't quit when Right-Eye presented him with a seemingly viable alternative, he made no attempt to win Tsukiko over to replace Xykon, he made no attempt to nurse a browncloak as a potential replacement, he did nothing to let his enemies do the job for him. Redcloak is still engaged in a fallacy even if he can't act at this precise instant, because his thought process and his feelings are independent from and precede his actions, and they are deeply rooted in the sunk cost fallacy and in his need to prove to himself that his decisions were the right ones and that he's not to blame.
    Last edited by hroþila; 2022-11-26 at 05:24 AM.
    ungelic is us

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    England. Ish.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by hroþila View Post
    But the point is, he doesn't want to. He didn't quit when the Epic lich was at his mercy, he didn't quit when Right-Eye presented him with a seemingly viable alternative, he made no attempt to win Tsukiko over to replace Xykon, he made no attempt to nurse a browncloak as a potential replacement, he did nothing to let his enemies do the job for him. Redcloak is still engaged in a fallacy even if he can't act at this precise instant, because his thought process and his feelings are independent from and precede his actions, and they are deeply rooted in the sunk cost fallacy and in his need to prove to himself that his decisions were the right ones and that he's not to blame.
    Epic lich at his mercy? Well, sort of, except he still needs the high-level sorcerer, and Xykon was still the only one available.

    Right-Eye? Redcloak was on the verge of accepting that until Xykon turned up with a "join me or everyone dies" offer. (If you mean the assasination attempt, well that was in the middle of a combat which would have been good for the assasination attempt, but with a really bad outlook if it failed, and not a very good one if it succeeded)

    Tsukiko? No point in even trying - she was a delusional teenager fixated on Xykon as a romantic ideal.

    Grooming a replacement? He doesn't seem to be doing much for that, I agree - but He might simply be reluctant to dump someone else with the mess.

    Need to prove himself/shift blame? Yes, there is a large element of self-justification in Redcloak's narrative, but I don't think it's really sunk cost when there's very little in the way of alternatives. Recruiting Xykon wasn't a bad decision, Lychifying him was a bad one, but taken when he had little alternative.

    Gobbotopia is really the only alternative Redcloak has, but it is not yet proven to be stable and even that is threatened if Xykon decides to go even further off the deep end and obliterate it in revenge.

    Redcloak's situation is less sunk cost fallacy and more tiger by the tail with a side order of tunnel vision. He may have a way of obliterating Xykon, but he can only use that once, at the cost of losing the epic-level sorcerer he needs and at the cost of losing everything if he fails. So he'd better be pretty certian that he wants to use it.
    Last edited by Manga Shoggoth; 2022-11-26 at 06:42 AM.
    Warning: This posting may contain wit, wisdom, pathos, irony, satire, sarcasm and puns. And traces of nut.

    "The main skill of a good ruler seems to be not preventing the conflagrations but rather keeping them contained enough they rate more as campfires." Rogar Demonblud

    "Hold on just a d*** second. UK has spam callers that try to get you to buy conservatories?!? Even y'alls spammers are higher class than ours!" Peelee

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Fyraltari's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Manga Shoggoth View Post
    Epic lich at his mercy? Well, sort of, except he still needs the high-level sorcerer, and Xykon was still the only one available.
    Please. No arcane caster would be an improvement over Xykon after Dorukan's Dungeon. Xykon actively murders goblins for fun. There are other arcane casters in the world. Yes, it'd take time to find one suitable, but Redcloak literally doesn't age. He is in no hurry.

    Gobbotopia is really the only alternative Redcloak has, but it is not yet proven to be stable and even that is threatened if Xykon decides to go even further off the deep end and obliterate it in revenge.
    Wow, it's almost as if the biggest threat to the cause right now is the Bone-Lord himself.
    Redcloak's situation is less sunk cost fallacy and more tiger by the tail with a side order of tunnel vision. He may have a way of obliterating Xykon, but he can only use that once, at the cost of losing the epic-level sorcerer he needs and at the cost of losing everything if he fails. So he'd better be pretty certian that he wants to use it.
    Redcloak does not need an epic sorcerer, just a moderately high-level arcane mage. Team Evil routinely surrounds themselves with troops that are loyal to Redcloak, not Xykon and Redcloak knows Xykon's abilities exactly. The simple fact that he hasn't made a single assassination attempt is proof enough that he just doesn't want to get rid of Xykon despite all the harm he's doing to the goblins Redcloak professes to care about.
    Forum Wisdom

    Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Edric O View Post
    Wait... You've got a sunk cost there, but no fallacy.

    For Redcloak's actions to be a fallacy, he would need to have an option to return to what Right-eye was doing, yet choose to ignore that option because he doesn't want to admit he was wrong. In other words, Redcloak is only engaged in a fallacy if he can freely choose to stop doing what he's currently doing, yet does not choose this because of psychological reasons.

    But my point is that Redcloak cannot, in fact, freely choose to stop doing what he's currently doing. It's not just his own mind that's keeping him stuck on his current path, there's also an Epic Lich in the way. Redcloak can't just quit, even if he wanted to.
    I largely stay out of this thread, but no. Redcloak is very explicitly given this choice in Start of Darkness.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Troll in the Playground
     
    HalflingPirate

    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Edric O View Post
    Wait... You've got a sunk cost there, but no fallacy.

    For Redcloak's actions to be a fallacy, he would need to have an option to return to what Right-eye was doing, yet choose to ignore that option because he doesn't want to admit he was wrong. In other words, Redcloak is only engaged in a fallacy if he can freely choose to stop doing what he's currently doing, yet does not choose this because of psychological reasons.

    But my point is that Redcloak cannot, in fact, freely choose to stop doing what he's currently doing. It's not just his own mind that's keeping him stuck on his current path, there's also an Epic Lich in the way. Redcloak can't just quit, even if he wanted to.
    Redcloak seems to be confident that he can deal with Xykon at his convenience. Holding a lich's phylactery is one heck of an advantage.

    He could have used his brother's attack to take out Xykon.
    He could have used the duel with Dorukan to initiate an attack on Xykon.
    He could have used Roy's destruction of Xykon to eliminate Xykon with no risk at all.
    He could have helped the ghost martyrs kill Xykon, or he could have simply stopped Miko from destroying the gate so the GMs could finish the job.

    By these skipped opportunities I conclude that Redcloak chooses to work with Xykon. He does not want any option but the one he chose before he ever innitiated the attack on Lyrian's Gate.

    A plan unchanged, that he refuses to modify after multiple failures: fallacy.

    A set of goals the plan is supposed to achieve, which have been demonstrated to be achievable by other means, still being pursued by a plan which has failed four times. Fallacy.

    A key person, required to fulfill the plan, whose actions to date indicate that he is actually opposed to the goals of the plan, being retained after multiple opportunities to remove and replace him with someone more malleable: big fallacy.

    Both the Sunk Cost and the Fallacy are in play here, and both are repeatedly and obviously made known to Redcloak and rejected because The Plan Must Succeed To Prove I Was Right.

    (Not for the betterment of goblinkind, his stated goal.)

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    I largely stay out of this thread, but no. Redcloak is very explicitly given this choice in Start of Darkness.
    In Start of Darkness, yes. But how many decades ago was that? My point was about present-day Redcloak. Even if he changed his mind at some point during these years and wanted to undo his mistakes from SoD, it's too late now. He can't. The options he had back then, no longer exist.
    Proud White Cloak Acolyte of the Fan Club.

    Neither murderous paladins nor psychotic liches shall ever extinguish the dream of Goblin Liberation. The Plan must continue.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by brian 333 View Post
    Redcloak seems to be confident that he can deal with Xykon at his convenience. Holding a lich's phylactery is one heck of an advantage.
    What makes you think he's confident he can deal with Xykon at his convenience? He has contingency measures in place (like holding the phylactery) just in case he needs them, but he seems to be more confident that he won't need them (because he imagines himself to be a master manipulator), than confident that they will work.

    Quote Originally Posted by brian 333 View Post
    He could have used his brother's attack to take out Xykon.
    He could have used the duel with Dorukan to initiate an attack on Xykon.
    He could have used Roy's destruction of Xykon to eliminate Xykon with no risk at all.
    He could have helped the ghost martyrs kill Xykon, or he could have simply stopped Miko from destroying the gate so the GMs could finish the job.
    All of those opportunities happened before Gobbotopia was established.

    With the exception of the first one, they happened during times when no viable alternative to The Plan - or even a meager substitute for The Plan - was available to Redcloak.
    Proud White Cloak Acolyte of the Fan Club.

    Neither murderous paladins nor psychotic liches shall ever extinguish the dream of Goblin Liberation. The Plan must continue.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Earth and/or not-Earth
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Edric O View Post
    In Start of Darkness, yes. But how many decades ago was that?
    Right-Eye's assassination attempt on Xykon was six months before the start of the comic, about a year and half before the current comic.
    I made a webcomic, featuring absurdity, terrible art, and alleged morals.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Troll in the Playground
     
    HalflingPirate

    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Edric O View Post
    All of those opportunities happened before Gobbotopia was established.

    With the exception of the first one, they happened during times when no viable alternative to The Plan - or even a meager substitute for The Plan - was available to Redcloak.
    They happened after Right-eye was accomplishing what Redcloak claimed The Plan was supposed to accomplish.

    He killed the bird in his hand and went chasing the five in the bush.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    England. Ish.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is the sunk cost fallacy always a fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by brian 333 View Post
    A key person, required to fulfill the plan, whose actions to date indicate that he is actually opposed to the goals of the plan, being retained after multiple opportunities to remove and replace him with someone more malleable: big fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari View Post
    Please. No arcane caster would be an improvement over Xykon after Dorukan's Dungeon. Xykon actively murders goblins for fun. There are other arcane casters in the world. Yes, it'd take time to find one suitable, but Redcloak literally doesn't age. He is in no hurry.
    ...
    Redcloak does not need an epic sorcerer, just a moderately high-level arcane mage. Team Evil routinely surrounds themselves with troops that are loyal to Redcloak, not Xykon and Redcloak knows Xykon's abilities exactly. The simple fact that he hasn't made a single assassination attempt is proof enough that he just doesn't want to get rid of Xykon despite all the harm he's doing to the goblins Redcloak professes to care about.
    You mean the high level magic user they had already been looking for without success for Redcloak's entire tenure, and (presumably) the tenure of all his predecessors? They need (a) a high level magic user (sorcerer in this case) who is (b) willing to work with them rather than obliterate them.

    High-level magic users are rare, ones prepared to work with goblins are apparantly even rarer.

    Pre-lichification Xykon was literally the only one they found, and then largely because he was already in advanced age and wanted to achieve something before he died. They already knew he was somewhat kill-happy - but it only really became a major issue after lychification.

    Incidentally it was Right-eye who was in favour of recruiting him - Readcloak was still prepared to keep looking for a goblinoid magic user despite the complete lack of success in that area.

    Oh, and please remember: While Gobbotopia is good thing (from Redcloak's point of view, at least), it is a red herring in the "sunk cost" arguement. Redcloak is still a priest of The Dark One, following a divinely ordaned plan. The plan is about The Dark One forcing serious consessions out of the other Gods, not about founding a major goblinoid settlement.

    The new options for doing this (the Four Colour Theorem) have literally only been brought to Redcloak's attention very recently. He's barely had a chance to think about them. That he rejected them out-of-hand the first time is not surprising - in fact from his viewpoint he's still in with a good chance if they can get hold of a gate. Yes, he's been told of the dangers, by one of his enemies who could simply be lying. Yes, we know that Durkon was telling the truth, but Redcloak doesn't.
    Warning: This posting may contain wit, wisdom, pathos, irony, satire, sarcasm and puns. And traces of nut.

    "The main skill of a good ruler seems to be not preventing the conflagrations but rather keeping them contained enough they rate more as campfires." Rogar Demonblud

    "Hold on just a d*** second. UK has spam callers that try to get you to buy conservatories?!? Even y'alls spammers are higher class than ours!" Peelee

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •