[PeterisP]

Because in the world I live in, there's a strong correlation between a previous price and a future one. While it's not always the case and all kinds of factors apply, previous price is a quite relevant signal. In the absence of any additional specific information, if I know that ticket to city A was cheaper than a ticket to city B, then it's reasonable to assume that a future ticket to city A is a bit more likely to be cheaper than a future ticket to city B.

[seba_dos1]

That doesn't answer my question at all - the statement was that it's "easier", not "cheaper" to go to that city at later time. Price is just one single factor that may influence how easy it will be later compared to now.

Maybe a significant chunk of your motivation to visit city A was to see it covered in snow and do some winter sports, so if you cancel it now you'll likely have to wait a whole year to do it again?

Or maybe you booked these trips to see some bands playing life? What if the band playing in the cheaper city is less likely to play again within your reachable area in foreseeable future?

There's a huge amount of reasons why canceling the cheaper trip may not be the best option, and I believe noticing that is what the article was actually talking about.

[PeterisP]

All of your examples apply equally to both A and B (since we don't have any other information about the differences between A and B) and thus have no impact at all on the expectation about the difference between future cost or easiness or benefit/utility of the travel to A versus B, so these arguments can and should be ignored.

On the other hand, the previous price is a signal that does provide some information about the differences between travel to A and travel to B and allows to make a better-than-chance decision than treating both options as equal.

[seba_dos1]

The example from the article explicitly mentions that there are some (unspecified) differences in motivation other than the price that are often overlooked by non-autistic people in such cases, so these arguments can not be ignored without misinterpreting the article's example.

[jjk166]

The two options are the cheap and the expensive one. If we're making the determination of which one to drop based on price, and are given no information about the options besides price, presumably price is the determining factor. All else being equal, cheaper means easier.

[seba_dos1]

From the article:

> In this case, many people will cancel the cheaper trip regardless of which one they would prefer to go on

"All else" is explicitly not equal, there's a difference in preference for some reason other than price. This is not a puzzle with a correct answer, this is an example of specific behavior in specific cases observed in specific people who have all needed information available to them.

[jjk166]

That's in reference to the desirability, not the availability. When I say "all else being equal" that is in reference to the future version of the same comparison. If one option is cheaper now, it will most likely be cheaper in the future too, and if it is cheaper then that means it is less demanding in terms of resources to acquire, and if it is less demanding in resources it is "easier". You might have a special case where the less expensive option will suddenly become much more difficult than the expensive option to acquire, but there is no reason to assume in any particular instance that's true.

For a more concrete example - if you have bought a $10 and a $100 ticket, buying a second $10 ticket is, all else being equal, preferable to buying a second $100 ticket, regardless of how desirable either option is.

[seba_dos1]

> if you have bought a $10 and a $100 ticket, buying a second $10 ticket is, all else being equal, preferable to buying a second $100 ticket, regardless of how desirable either option is

Not if you won't desire it anymore (or desire less) at later date. Or if you won't be able to take it at a later date at all (which influences desirability at present). Or when the price doesn't really matter, you'll be able to afford it anyway. Or in multitude of other circumstances that may be relevant to the given example that you may think about once you decide to not miss the point of that example anymore, since it's very far from implying that "all else is being equal" ;)

[jjk166]

Again, when I say "all else being equal" that is the explicit assumption that the circumstances in the future are essentially the same (ie equal) as they are now. We are assuming all else is equal because we are given no reason to believe otherwise. If something were, for example, a once in a lifetime opportunity, we'd refer to it as the once in a lifetime option, not as the less expensive option. The fact that we are talking about this decision in terms of price implies these are normal, purchasable commodities whose relative prices are reasonably stable, and that monetary expense is a significant concern.

Of course there are situations where you can't or wouldn't want to buy the same thing at a later point in time, but in general you can. Starting with the assumption that you purchased both a $10 and a $100 ticket to two different events because you wish to experience both and further assuming that you can still experience both by purchasing a duplicate of one ticket which is available at the same price, as is generally the case, keeping the expensive ticket and buying a duplicate of the less expensive ticket is the rational choice. Without an explicit good reason to do otherwise, it is not an example of the sunk cost fallacy to reduce your future expenses by keeping the more expensive ticket.