|
|
|
|
|
|
by svachalek
917 days ago
|
|
|
The answer to the last question is what the sunk cost fallacy is all about, the answer is it doesn't matter what you've already done, it only matters what is the optimal solution going forward. And "this person" is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Beck btw. |
|
|
If you're asked to take over the completion of a project it matters whether it's 20% done or 80% done.
The sunk cost fallacy isn't about it not mattering what has been done.
Sunk cost reasoning typically applies to a situation where some cost has been spent or effort made which was largely or entirely a waste. We continue to be emotionally attached to the effort or cost even though most of it was wasted. The cost or effort are irrecoverable and have not resulted in any benefit so which means we're emotionally it has to nothing real at all, only a memory of the past.
In order to go forward you have to look at what's been done. But that means looking at the actual effect or result, the state of it, and not the effort or cost.
If you're thinking about throwing away some result but you actually need it then the effort to recover that result is relevant and should factor into your reasoning. That's a future effort, not necessarily the same as the past one, but the password could be a good estimate for it.
If you've been refactoring all day and one test is broken, should you scrap it? Don't look at the "all day" sunk costs, but a realistic estimate. Having done the refactoring once already, maybe you could re-do a very similar refactoring in two hours. So that's what it is.
In a word, don't confuse replacement cost with sunk cost.