The theory of sunken costs
Greg Abbott released another ad where he regaled us with Joe Biden’s supposedly open border policy and how Abbott was protecting Texans from the big, bad Mexican cartels bringing over drugs from south of the border. These ads are littered all over sports talk radio these days.
When the show returned to its regularly scheduled content, the deejays were talking about the theory of sunken cost. In this case, it referred to whether a team should let go of a player they had invested heavily in. The organizations that do the best are the ones that realize their mistakes early on and pivot effectively.
The fallacy of sunken costs is basically our tendency to double down on a belief, strategy, or endeavor because pivoting would be an admission that we were wrong and that we’d wasted time, money, and/or energy on a bad idea. The concept is really a two-pronged concept. First, there is the reluctance to give up because of the previous time, money, and energy wasted. Second, there is a reluctance to give up because we would have to admit that we made an error in judgment.
So, let’s take a look at the ads being played on the radio as an example. The ad focuses on three belief structures that are more or less untrue. The first is that illegal immigration is on the rise. We can see when we look at the numbers that it has been in steady decline in recent years.
The second portion of that fallacy is that undocumented immigrants are somehow inherently dangerous. The ads focus on law enforcement and how Abbott is protecting us from the big, bad immigrants. Yet, when we look at numbers from the same source as above, we notice that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a much lower rate than legal immigrants and natural born citizens.
So, that obviously plays into the third fallacy of the commercial. Violent crime rates are on the rise nationwide. There is an assumption that this means that the borders have become more dangerous. Yet, they seem to be in decline on the southern border. Multiple reports and studies demonstrate that a border wall would not effectively reduce crime at the border or in the country at large.
The question is how we free a subset of the population that seems to be wrapped in fear and free them from the clutches of red herrings and misinformation? Pundits have long known that when you can sell the country on daddy issues (defense, crime, safety) then conservatives usually win. When mommy issues are the most dominant (education, health care, human rights) then the progressives usually win.
However, this goes beyond that. It goes to a group of people that have obviously backed the wrong horse. They’ve watched that horse come in last in nearly every race at the track. He talks about protecting them and he clearly doesn’t do that. He talks about how corrupt his opponents were and he is clearly the most corrupt politician in the history of the country.
It’s clearly not about stopping the steal or draining the swamp anymore. Those excuses died a long time ago. It is very simple. The longer people hold on to their love and adulation of a thoroughly evil man the harder it becomes to give up on that love and adulation. They would then have to admit that the love and adulation was misplaced. That’s admitting that they’ve wasted time, money, and brain power. That’s admitting they were duped. The greatest con anyone can pull is the con of getting you to accept being conned because it’s just too painful to admit you were conned.
Nick, when it comes to Qcumber conservatives, we’ll take “old adages” for $1000.
Name the issue or policy and there are the conservatives “cutting off their noses to spite their faces,” “throwing good money after bad,” etc. The current APA term iirc is oppositional defiance disorder (ODD).
Failed policy: the QOP natural devolution from Rayguns to TFG and now. They set out to prove government does not work by breaking it. How to get over or past that? Ask the Germans.
1As long as Trump hates the same people they do, they will follow him.
2Fascinating that you choose a childhood psychological disorder to describe their behavior. There are two sides at work here. Those within power know exactly what they are doing. They are those breaking government. They are not really an example of sunken costs because they have an end game in mind and are a good portion of the way to seeing it happen.
It’s all the other folks that either are willfully blind of mind numbingly stupid. It’s like the college thing I discussed last week. Sure, if the state contributes less then I can say my taxes were cut. Yet, I end up spending more on the other end so I really am not ahead. I’m really behind. The same will be true on any number of fronts where conservatives have promised a leaner and meaner government. That leaner and meaner government means I end up taking money out of my wallet instead of my paycheck. It’s a distinction without a difference.
3Nick, since the failed Trickle Down era of Reagan, how does one describe voters who vote against their own interests except maybe ODD? We could surmise that there’s an adult version of ODD. But why? They certainly do not act like adults. Lordy behold the Jan 6th “tourists” and the anti-vaxxer truck blockades.
And, of course racism. Dawg forbid a person of color should receive a crumb from the social pie. Qcumbers will literally shoot off their own appendages to prevent that.
4Nah, wasn’t saying you were wrong. It’s just interesting. Of course, some people would just call it being a selfish jerk.
5No worries, Nick, you didn’t say that we were “wrong” at all. You made a legitimate observation about ODD or childish behavior ascribed to adults. Then again, **if only** “selfish jerk” was all that is wrong with this phenomenon we are trying to, if not work with, at least not be dragged down with them at every level of government.
Maybe we should have expanded on racism. It’s not ‘simply’ persons of color. It’s ALL those they perceive as others. It seems the top of the QOP is a goading the Qcumbers to constantly expand those they perceive to be others in a concerted effort to divide the country. Maybe you can find some order in the historical timing. Sort of a first it was the blacks, then the women, then immigrants, then the homosexuals, then transgender. Some nightmare of rinse, repeat and expand until the last man standing is an albino frozen in an ice cap somewhere.
6.
There certainly doesn’t seem to be any shortage of drugs on the street from what I can tell. That idea ain’t working either.
7OT but maybe not. Looney tunes Sarah Palin, a Trumpf supporter with a giant mouth and small brain, loses her lawsuit against the NYT, that they damaged her reputation. I guess the judge couldn’t see where her reputation could get any worse so he threw it out. Hope that cost her a bundle she doesn’t have.
8