You’re strongly provoking category confusion in this subthread.
There are about a dozen ways of interpreting this statement. I’ll assume I’m causing you category confusion? The post is designed to confuse.
In game-theoretic scenarios where the other party can change your payoffs (or the rules of the game) notions like the Sunk Cost Fallacy are not operational, it’s the wrong approach to a introduce them into the analysis. Of course it can be gamed, that’s a pretty obvious observation. It’s like trying to run regressions in the Milton Friedman’s thermostat situation.
Then the Sunk Cost Fallacy is never operational in the real world, because there are always parties which can change the payoffs.
It’s entertaining “mugging” the people who keep insisting the issue is with the calculations, rather than the game they’re inadvertently playing. Okay, that’s another round of mugging for you.
There are about a dozen ways of interpreting this statement. I’ll assume I’m causing you category confusion? The post is designed to confuse.
Then the Sunk Cost Fallacy is never operational in the real world, because there are always parties which can change the payoffs.
Yes, but :-P
It’s entertaining “mugging” the people who keep insisting the issue is with the calculations, rather than the game they’re inadvertently playing. Okay, that’s another round of mugging for you.