I had thought that the idea that the sunk costs fallacy is really a fallcy was as close a thing as there was to a consensus amongst philosophers. But now I see that Tom Kelly has a paper forthcoming (in Noûs) saying that honouring sunk costs can be rational. Like a few other people in the New England area, whenever I think of the sunk costs fallacy I think of the Red Sox continuing to play Tony Clark long after he showed he wouldn’t justify his $5,000,000 salary, so I’m not exactly positively disposed to the fallacy. But Tom’s paper makes several interesting points, even if it doesn’t do anything to redeem the Sox management circa 2002.
Strictly speaking, Tom isn’t as much concerned to defend the rationality of honouring sunk costs as the possible rationality of actions that are usually so described. He quibbles a bit in various places throughout the paper about whether there are as many clear experimental cases of the sunk costs fallacy, but let’s assume for now these are instances of the fallacy.
The main idea (roughly stated) is that since the value of an action is partially determined by what happens in the future (just like the value of an organism) our current actions can be sometimes justified by the redemptive value they confer on past actions. It’s an interesting idea, though I’m not sure how much it should matter in practice. For one thing, I think we need a more comprehensive theory than Tom offers here about which past actions are worth honouring. (I imagine Tom has such a theory but space constraints kept it out of the Noûs paper.) It clearly isn’t worth redeeming an off-season waiver claim by running Tony Clark out there every day when it’s really unlikely he’ll hit the ball out of the infield, let alone out of the park. Tom often refers to the kind of actions that are worthy of redemption as ‘sacrifices’, and I wonder if there’s more to be said about what makes those actions redemption worthy.
Tom also notes that honouring sunk costs, or at least being perceived to do so, can have game-theoretic advantages in certain situations. I’m less impressed by this as an argument for the rationality of such actions. (And Tom doesn’t lean on it particularly.) In some games of Chicken, the best thing to do is to unbolt the steering wheel and throw it out the window. The situations where it is best to honour sunk costs remind me of those games of Chicken. When it works, it’s a neat stunt, but it doesn’t take much for circumstances to change and then it becomes a really really bad strategy.
Obviously there’s a lot more to the paper than I can indicate in a blog post, so if you’re interested in these topics, er, read the whole thing.
Why on earth did the Red Sox contract to pay Tony Clark $5 million, after he was waived by the Detroit Tigers, of all teams? Why didn’t they instead hang on to Scott Hatteburg, for example?
He wasn’t waived outright by the Tigers. His contract was offered up to anyone who was interested, and given his pre-2002 performance it looked like a good deal for $5 mill. I remember being excited by it at the time.
But wow did it turn out badly. I think it was mostly an injured back. From casual observation he still played decent D, and there was no suggestion he was giving less than 100% effort, but he just had no bat power.
I remember Bill Simmons writing about how when Clark came up to bat he’d cheer for a strikeout because the only other live alternative was grounding into a double play. It was that bad.
Brian, I would have thought there was something close to a 1-1 mapping between arguments for/against paying attention to sunk costs and arguments for/against consequentialism. Since there are lots of people opposed to consequentialism, there should be lots in favour of honouring sunk costs.
Turning to Kelly, from your summary, he really seems to be saying that in many cases, costs that appear to be sunk are not, for example, because they are in invesment in reputational capital. Economists have been all over this kind of argument, taking all possible views, for a couple of decades - the locus classicus is the chain store paradox.
Tom’s not just making the point about reputation. He notes that, and says it can explain some of the experimental data, but he really means to be defending the stronger claim that it can be OK to do X because it makes some past action Y make sense.
I was worrying when I wrote that about whethe all arguments against consequentialism (understood as a decision theoretic rather than ethical doctrine) were arguments for the non-fallaciousness of sunk costs reasoning. I wasn’t entirely convinced because I thought there was a difference between (a) choosing a course of action and sticking to it through a decision tree and (b) using sunk costs reasoning to make a decision at later stages. Many anti-consequentialists recommend (a) at various times, but few recommend (b). Few enough that there’s a consensus against sunk costs reasoning by philosophy standards. Since we all never agree on anything, these are very very low.
Wouldn’t a lot of arguments for one-boxing in the Newcomb problem translate into arguments for the sunk cost fallacy? Perhaps one-boxing is a marginal position as well.
Incidentally, I find this link a more perspicuous explanation of the chain-store paradox; go to #2. It seems a lot like a case David Gauthier discusses in “Assure and Threaten.” I’m not sure whether following through on an unsuccessful threat counts as an example of the sunk cost fallacy—the decision to make a threat isn’t the same as the decision to make a threat and follow through on it.
“His contract was offered up to anyone who was interested, and given his pre-2002 performance it looked like a good deal for $5 mill. I remember being excited by it at the time.
“But wow did it turn out badly. I think it was mostly an injured back.”
Brian, what I as a Tiger fan know (and you Red Sox guys evidently failed to note)is that he had major back problems in ‘00 and ‘01. That, of course, was why the Tigers got rid of him. The days when he was arguably worth $5 million were 3 years in the past when the Sox decided to acquire him.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review