Why do I have a feeling you’re playing a “Yes, but...” game with a predetermined conclusion that you want us to reach?
And, by the way, if your workload is “getting adjusted” you’re not dealing with updating probabilities about uncaring Nature, but you’re in a game-theoretic situation which requires an entirely different line of analysis.
Why do I have a feeling you’re playing a “Yes, but...” game with a predetermined conclusion that you want us to reach?
Because I’m playing a “Yes, but...” game with you.
And, by the way, if your workload is “getting adjusted” you’re not dealing with updating probabilities about uncaring Nature, but you’re in a game-theoretic situation which requires an entirely different line of analysis.
From the summary: “There are game-theoretic ways of extracting value from those who follow a strict policy of avoiding engaging in the Sunk Cost Fallacy which happen all the time in IT”.
That’s exactly what this post is about—the introduction was intended to illustrate what that situation -feels like-. Seeing the Planning Fallacy in that situation makes you -more- vulnerable to this kind of mugging; you keep doing what you were doing, and keep getting mugged, and each time assume you’re the one at fault. I have seen people try to gaslight coworkers (no exaggeration—a phrase that gets bandied around in my company now comes from one of those attempts: “The requirements haven’t changed, your understand of the requirements changed”, after a database we were depositing data in had columns removed, added, and renamed, for the umpteenth time) to try to get them to keep coming for another round of mugging.
Would it clarify things if I changed the second part of the title to “Sunk Cost Mugging”?
You’re strongly provoking category confusion in this subthread.
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.
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.
Assume it is. You continue, and your situation continues to get worse. Now what?
Why do I have a feeling you’re playing a “Yes, but...” game with a predetermined conclusion that you want us to reach?
And, by the way, if your workload is “getting adjusted” you’re not dealing with updating probabilities about uncaring Nature, but you’re in a game-theoretic situation which requires an entirely different line of analysis.
Because I’m playing a “Yes, but...” game with you.
From the summary: “There are game-theoretic ways of extracting value from those who follow a strict policy of avoiding engaging in the Sunk Cost Fallacy which happen all the time in IT”.
That’s exactly what this post is about—the introduction was intended to illustrate what that situation -feels like-. Seeing the Planning Fallacy in that situation makes you -more- vulnerable to this kind of mugging; you keep doing what you were doing, and keep getting mugged, and each time assume you’re the one at fault. I have seen people try to gaslight coworkers (no exaggeration—a phrase that gets bandied around in my company now comes from one of those attempts: “The requirements haven’t changed, your understand of the requirements changed”, after a database we were depositing data in had columns removed, added, and renamed, for the umpteenth time) to try to get them to keep coming for another round of mugging.
Would it clarify things if I changed the second part of the title to “Sunk Cost Mugging”?
You’re strongly provoking category confusion in this subthread.
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.
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.