DisillusionedCitizen
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2022
- Messages
- 501
For years, I’ve been been told and lectured that perseverance is a strong virtue to have, especially when one is striving something in life, insisting that one should never give up on their dreams and goals, a speech that seems like its advocates have to constantly reinforce, lest they don’t succeed at all. This is a good message that seeks to elevate listeners to push further forward and succeed, but for sometime, I’ve learned that this kind of strategy isn’t always useful; enter the Sunk-Cost Fallacy, where a person refuses to give up on an unsuccessful goal they’ve committed time, resources, effort, speeches, and energy doing, even when it’s more reasonable to quit instead. Recently, I’ve learned that this fallacy deconstructs the concept of perseverance; I’d argue that perseverance is one of the few petards motivational speakers believe will never hoist them, let alone the idea Sunk Cost Fallacy capable of turning its very principles on its head. A large number of motivational speakers won’t like it, but despite its stigma, I find quitting a useful skill in some situations. There’s a saying that implies this fallacy at play: “Quitters never win, winners never quit, but those who never win and never quit are idiots.” Perseverance has its limits and flaws, whether people acknowledge it or not. Advocates for perseverance will have a hard-time seeing the Sunk Cost fallacy coming largely because they’re focused on the benefits of perseverance and how it helped them succeed in life. Perseverance usually works, but what if someone perseveres when they have puppet strings attached to them without knowing it? A low-rank soldier in the army may believe they’re committing their time, energy, and resources for a good cause, not considering the chance that they may be a sacrificial puppet for the agendas of corrupt government superiors; this is a cruel instance of the sunk-cost fallacy at play: whether it’s out of ignorance and/or an unwillingness to abandon principles at the moment, they’ve sealed their own fates with the decision to press further. Alternatively, they could try to subtly change the course of their cause should they learn of such an ulterior agenda. What if
Then, an alternative theory exists: Learning and success are great concepts, but will people say the same if they learn it to the point it impedes them at best and dooms them at worst? The kind of success that comes at the detriment of others? This theory, or perspective, also applies to perseverance. While some can call this message discouragement, this message is merely to warn people of a certain flaw within perseverance. For all the praises sung about perseverance, I have wonder if there are examples where persevering ended badly? The question I wrote changes the perspective about perseverance, allowing people to think differently. For the past few months, I’ve come to a new realization that the Sunk-Cost Fallacy deconstructs perseverance: People refuse to abandon certain strategies and/or principles (even when this is just temporary) because of what it has established, what it helped them accomplish, and how far it took them. While the reasoning behind this concept for the SCF sounds nice on the surface, it could still end just as badly for those same advocates as it helped them if they either be too extreme on a certain stance or over-rely on it as a strategy too often. Perseverance isn’t as nice as its advocates paint it out to be.
One example I can think of is the nonviolent protest movements in the US. These activists believe that their voices matter, make a difference, and change the goverment’s minds on certain matter. Even in failure, they’re are utterly convinced that their speeches provided them a victory, when really, they pose no real direct threat to the "American" (Jewish) oligarchs. Admittedly, this is partly true: While it does succeed in bringing awareness, it hasn’t done anything to stop oppressive government, nor does it hamper their plans. Half of this kind of logic can h chalk this one up to perseverance morphing into the Sunk-Cost Fallacy. There comes a point where diligence stops being effective and instead hampers the activists, which would lead them to give up. Unfortunately, the other half, the conviction (not the criminal conviction you see in a criminal court) on the activists’ part will allow them to realize it; they want to take pride in what a peaceful protest can accomplish, and, little do they realize, they’re slowing down their own progress without even realizing it, and at worst, this could actually help the American oligarchs. Their opinions are so dogmatically shaped by their own experiences and perspectives they can’t imagine their own opinions to be wrong.
Another example are the supporters Christianity and Islam, specifically unaware of the two religions’ real purpose, which I won’t go into detail; all I can say is that it is significantly more sinister than any of its followers would like to imagine. Similarly to the nonviolent protest example, they won’t quit due to having conviction that their actions will bring about a better world. So little do the supporters (specifically the kind-hearted ones) realize, they’re just ignorant puppets in another group’s twisted endgame. They think they’re bringing about a better future when they’re really helping this certain group operate under the radar. What’s even worse is that some of these supporters will work for their destruction under pleasant guises of “salvation” and “paradise,” not realizing that their souls will be absorbed by an unpleasant entity.
It seems to me that both reasons listed also happen to have a connection to having conviction: people consider conviction important because they speak it in a way that aligns with the facts, and thus creates a scenario of certainty. This sounds like a great idea on the surface (especially those who fervently speak it out), but this brings more problems than it solves when one reads between the lines: It creates a situation of certainty and assurance within a given cause, event, or activity, and thus provides the possibility of being wrong despite one’s high confidence in a cause/event/activity. This isn’t the only danger to convictions, however; having convictions can at worst lead to half truths.
Half Truths are tricky for me to define definitively: For the standard example, it’s when one tells part of the truth. Usually, this is done by omission to leave out certain details, misleading the listeners. Alternatively, a half-truth is a kind of deception that’s built from a straightforward fact. With this included, there’s a similarity between a person telling a half-truth, and person having conviction: they both deceive. The person telling other people a half-truth still knows they’re fooling someone (more effectively at that), while a people with conviction doesn’t even realize they’re fooling themselves (and everyone they they speak to.), despite the certainty and assurance they provide to themselves and others. The peaceful protest advocates are convinced that every politician has been swayed by their words, when it’s only very few behind closed doors, and even then, the impact they have and the difference they’ll make will be one that is fleeting and minimal. As described above, they’re only telling themselves part of the truth to boost their own self esteem, all the while ignoring the falsehoods.
Where does my post have flaws on its own, or does anyone here think differently?
Then, an alternative theory exists: Learning and success are great concepts, but will people say the same if they learn it to the point it impedes them at best and dooms them at worst? The kind of success that comes at the detriment of others? This theory, or perspective, also applies to perseverance. While some can call this message discouragement, this message is merely to warn people of a certain flaw within perseverance. For all the praises sung about perseverance, I have wonder if there are examples where persevering ended badly? The question I wrote changes the perspective about perseverance, allowing people to think differently. For the past few months, I’ve come to a new realization that the Sunk-Cost Fallacy deconstructs perseverance: People refuse to abandon certain strategies and/or principles (even when this is just temporary) because of what it has established, what it helped them accomplish, and how far it took them. While the reasoning behind this concept for the SCF sounds nice on the surface, it could still end just as badly for those same advocates as it helped them if they either be too extreme on a certain stance or over-rely on it as a strategy too often. Perseverance isn’t as nice as its advocates paint it out to be.
One example I can think of is the nonviolent protest movements in the US. These activists believe that their voices matter, make a difference, and change the goverment’s minds on certain matter. Even in failure, they’re are utterly convinced that their speeches provided them a victory, when really, they pose no real direct threat to the "American" (Jewish) oligarchs. Admittedly, this is partly true: While it does succeed in bringing awareness, it hasn’t done anything to stop oppressive government, nor does it hamper their plans. Half of this kind of logic can h chalk this one up to perseverance morphing into the Sunk-Cost Fallacy. There comes a point where diligence stops being effective and instead hampers the activists, which would lead them to give up. Unfortunately, the other half, the conviction (not the criminal conviction you see in a criminal court) on the activists’ part will allow them to realize it; they want to take pride in what a peaceful protest can accomplish, and, little do they realize, they’re slowing down their own progress without even realizing it, and at worst, this could actually help the American oligarchs. Their opinions are so dogmatically shaped by their own experiences and perspectives they can’t imagine their own opinions to be wrong.
Another example are the supporters Christianity and Islam, specifically unaware of the two religions’ real purpose, which I won’t go into detail; all I can say is that it is significantly more sinister than any of its followers would like to imagine. Similarly to the nonviolent protest example, they won’t quit due to having conviction that their actions will bring about a better world. So little do the supporters (specifically the kind-hearted ones) realize, they’re just ignorant puppets in another group’s twisted endgame. They think they’re bringing about a better future when they’re really helping this certain group operate under the radar. What’s even worse is that some of these supporters will work for their destruction under pleasant guises of “salvation” and “paradise,” not realizing that their souls will be absorbed by an unpleasant entity.
It seems to me that both reasons listed also happen to have a connection to having conviction: people consider conviction important because they speak it in a way that aligns with the facts, and thus creates a scenario of certainty. This sounds like a great idea on the surface (especially those who fervently speak it out), but this brings more problems than it solves when one reads between the lines: It creates a situation of certainty and assurance within a given cause, event, or activity, and thus provides the possibility of being wrong despite one’s high confidence in a cause/event/activity. This isn’t the only danger to convictions, however; having convictions can at worst lead to half truths.
Half Truths are tricky for me to define definitively: For the standard example, it’s when one tells part of the truth. Usually, this is done by omission to leave out certain details, misleading the listeners. Alternatively, a half-truth is a kind of deception that’s built from a straightforward fact. With this included, there’s a similarity between a person telling a half-truth, and person having conviction: they both deceive. The person telling other people a half-truth still knows they’re fooling someone (more effectively at that), while a people with conviction doesn’t even realize they’re fooling themselves (and everyone they they speak to.), despite the certainty and assurance they provide to themselves and others. The peaceful protest advocates are convinced that every politician has been swayed by their words, when it’s only very few behind closed doors, and even then, the impact they have and the difference they’ll make will be one that is fleeting and minimal. As described above, they’re only telling themselves part of the truth to boost their own self esteem, all the while ignoring the falsehoods.
Where does my post have flaws on its own, or does anyone here think differently?
