From the few comments of yours I’ve read, I’ve noticed that you have a pattern of taking criticism as personal attacks.
Nobody here is trying to teach you how to live your life, but if you engage in public discussion, you can’t expect your claims to remain unchallenged, whether for good or wrong reasons.
If you are offended when you receive criticism on examples taken from your real life, then don’t use them.
As army1987 pointed out, the advice you give appears to entail the sunken cost fallacy, and your last answer doesn’t seem to refute that: you first committed to acquire the cloak because you “wanted” it, and then you decided to give it a priority that is dystonic with your true preferences (which would be to use the cloak only when it matches the rest of your outfit) in order to retroactively justify your commitment.
Assuming that your cloak is not a Veblen good (which would gain you utility directly from its price due to status signalling), then, if you wanted to be instrumentally rational, you should have based your decision to buy the cloak on the utility you expected to get from it by using it according to your true preferences, irrespective on its price, and then compare it to the expected utility of other uses of the same amount of money (including savings or donations).
I made up my mind to do what I am doing, cloakwise, before I bought the cloak
As army1987 pointed out, the advice you give appears to entail the sunken cost fallacy, and your last answer doesn’t seem to refute that
Read it again. Then keep reading it. Look up sunk cost fallacy again if necessary. You are just trivially wrong.
From the few comments of yours I’ve read, I’ve noticed that you have a pattern of taking criticism as personal attacks.
No, she called your criticisms tiresome because they were repetitive, inane and completely unresponsive to her actual words on the subject. Of course there isn’t any point in her trying to engage with them further.
From the few comments of yours I’ve read, I’ve noticed that you have a pattern of taking criticism as personal attacks.
Nobody here is trying to teach you how to live your life, but if you engage in public discussion, you can’t expect your claims to remain unchallenged, whether for good or wrong reasons. If you are offended when you receive criticism on examples taken from your real life, then don’t use them.
As army1987 pointed out, the advice you give appears to entail the sunken cost fallacy, and your last answer doesn’t seem to refute that: you first committed to acquire the cloak because you “wanted” it, and then you decided to give it a priority that is dystonic with your true preferences (which would be to use the cloak only when it matches the rest of your outfit) in order to retroactively justify your commitment.
Assuming that your cloak is not a Veblen good (which would gain you utility directly from its price due to status signalling), then, if you wanted to be instrumentally rational, you should have based your decision to buy the cloak on the utility you expected to get from it by using it according to your true preferences, irrespective on its price, and then compare it to the expected utility of other uses of the same amount of money (including savings or donations).
Read it again. Then keep reading it. Look up sunk cost fallacy again if necessary. You are just trivially wrong.
No, she called your criticisms tiresome because they were repetitive, inane and completely unresponsive to her actual words on the subject. Of course there isn’t any point in her trying to engage with them further.