• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Conundrum

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Solution.

Assuming that the future costs are the same, ski in Wisconsin.

Then then find Bo Ryans house and "Write" DEAL WITH IT on his lawn.

Then sue the Michigan group for eleventy billion dollars for the ticket money and the pain and suffering from having to make such a traumatic decision. Offer to settle for a thousand plus court costs.
 
Upvote 0
First, I wouldn't buy a 2nd ticket because I know to check my calendar before I buy a ticket to something. We should discount the entire study merely because the researchers built into the premise that everyone is an idiot.

Buckeye Buh Nim;1900138; said:
Solution.

Assuming that the future costs are the same, ski in Wisconsin.

Then then find Bo Ryans house and "Write" DEAL WITH IT on his lawn.

Then sue the Michigan group for eleventy billion dollars for the ticket money and the pain and suffering from having to make such a traumatic decision. Offer to settle for a thousand plus court costs.
Click to expand...

Winner!
 
Upvote 0
MaliBuckeye;1900017; said:
"Midwestern skiing" does not exist.
Click to expand...
Patently false.

ski_small.jpg
 
Upvote 0
The idea of "sunk cost" has been shown to be a fallacy using behavioral finance/economics. People are "rational", but not necessarily in the same way as we would like them to be - i.e. we don't really understand all the algorithms that the human brain uses. So we just stamp a label of "not rational" on behavior that we can't understand or predict. Not a new thing for humanity...

Lots of literature in the field...

Jump to page 68: http://books.google.com/books?id=LDSJ54CGONMC
 
Upvote 0
shetuck;1900270; said:
The idea of "sunk cost" has been shown to be a fallacy using behavioral finance/economics. People are "rational", but not necessarily in the same way as we would like them to be - i.e. we don't really understand all the algorithms that the human brain uses. So we just stamp a label of "not rational" on behavior that we can't understand or predict. Not a new thing for humanity...

Lots of literature in the field...

Jump to page 68: http://books.google.com/books?id=LDSJ54CGONMC
Click to expand...

Eh - I work for the government, the concept of the "sunk cost" is absolutely real :lol:
 
Upvote 0
Deety;1900016; said:
Lifehacker is featuring this article about sunk cost fallacy and why people keep playing Farmville. This quote shows how some of the research in the field was framed. I am curious to see how BP's results compare to the original.

Hal Arkes and Catehrine Blumer created an experiment in 1985 which demonstrated your tendency to go fuzzy when sunk costs come along. They asked subjects to assume they had spent $100 on a ticket for a ski trip in Michigan, but soon after found a better ski trip in Wisconsin for $50 and bought a ticket for this trip too. They then asked the people in the study to imagine they learned the two trips overlapped and the tickets couldn?t be refunded or resold. Which one do you think they chose, the $100 good vacation, or the $50 great one?
Click to expand...


What would you choose? Let's do science!
Click to expand...

Ahhhh yes... Mr. Hal. What a great guy. I know him from my days at OU. He was at the National Science Foundation giving away grant money while I was in grad school in Athens so I never got to take any classes with him. I did read a lot of his work though. It was basically required reading for any JDM grad anywhere. He's a GREAT researcher and one of those who wrote the book on the Sunk Cost Effect. The only negatives I could ever state about the guy was that he did his Ph.D. at tsun and he's a Cubs fan. Strangely, my advisor in Athens was a tsun Ph.D... never held it against him.

Love seeing Hal get props in the real world!
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top