I’ve just got back home from watching the first 70 minutes of Roma versus my beloved Chelsea (as if it was going to be any other team…). Chelsea were 3-0 down, and as that third goal went in, I remembered the sunk cost fallacy, got to work on the latter half of my pint, and left the pub.
For those people reading this who are unburdened by the knowledge of this principle, here’s a definition:
Inefficient decisions which misallocate resources due to the use of information irrelevant to the decision itself.
Commonly this fallacy is given hypothetical life using investment. A contrived example might be a infrastructure project which, half way through, the planners realise will be unprofitable. Rather than cutting their losses and cancelling the project, the planners plow ahead with construction because “ we might as well, we’ve already come this far…”. The decision making made halfway through the project is going to lead to a sub-optimal allocation of resources i.e. the wrong choice.
In my example, I was invested in watching the match, but knew that I’d rather have the extra 20 minutes of life rather than risk watching the rest of it and suffer the cost (given my perceived probabilities of the final score). Hence, I left.
How does that apply to Daygame? Take ten seconds and brainstorm your answer. You should be able to think of something. The word is even used above…
“Investment” is the key here. You’ll need to get the girl to invest in you, but you can’t avoid being invested in her, at least a little; you’ve already spent hours of time building your value up and learning the skillset which put you in front of her in the first place.
Maybe you have a great set and she gives you her number. Already your mind is jumping forward to smooth and readily accepted escalation and a fast lay. Then she falls off the texting and you spend two days obsessing over just exactly what you might have done wrong. Acknowledge the sunk cost fallacy and realise that energy expended trying to get her attention back is more profitably spent elsewhere.
How about this one: you have a near miss and then immediately start scheming your next bridge date to give her a push. Let’s just see how she likes that! That’s more energy spent on a prospect which in all likelihood deserves a next. I am guilty of this like it’s going out of fashion.
Lastly, and I doubt many of you thought of this one: you do Daygame for a year and become heavily invested in it, but it’s not working out, you’re not getting the average results, and you’re not enjoying it. Rather than plowing on with Daygame, maybe it’s not for you. Maybe another type of Game is better. Perhaps Game isn’t for you at all, and your optimum SMP strategy is to be cuckolded.
At the moment, my phone wallpaper includes the word “patience”. That’s there to remind me to think before I act. Part of that is to consider whether I’m falling foul of the sunk cost fallacy, and throwing good money after bad.