Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ sunk costs

The new Jesus and Mo strip, called “sunk”, came with the email note, “It’s another fallacy strip!”

I need add no comment here:

 

11 Comments

  1. Posted November 20, 2019 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    I think this is relevant to the lives of anyone over 65 who goes to church in America.

    • Ian Clark
      Posted November 20, 2019 at 10:57 am | Permalink

      More like anyone who has had a childhood’s worth of indoctrination…

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted November 20, 2019 at 11:05 am | Permalink

        Yes, I would say more like anyone over 10.

        • Posted November 20, 2019 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

          I’ve known or heard of many teenagers who were rabid believers and had a manageable to trivial time letting go of faith.

          It’s more likely the people who put decades into it that have a much more difficult time letting go. Too much to let go.

  2. Chewy
    Posted November 20, 2019 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    … and to Republican congress-creatures in current situation.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted November 20, 2019 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

      Ouch! You nailed it!

      cr

  3. Ken Kukec
    Posted November 20, 2019 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Bet ol’ Mo never folds after the flop in a hand of Texas Hold ‘Em.

    Keeps tossing in good money after bad on The Turn and The River.

  4. Posted November 20, 2019 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    In other news, interesting day today during the impeachment hearings. Veeery interesting.

  5. aljones909
    Posted November 20, 2019 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    Off topic, but Jerry gets a mention in the Gad Saad discussion with David Sloan Wilson on Youtube. He’s talking about the critics of “group selection”. It’s at 40:00 minutes

    • aljones909
      Posted November 20, 2019 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

      Also, at around 46 minutes he talks about the adaptive value of religion

  6. Bruce E Lyon
    Posted November 21, 2019 at 7:07 am | Permalink

    This idea was applied to evolutionary biology in the form of parental care in terms of thinking about why one sex might invest in offspring rather than the other. I cannot recall the specific details but the idea suggested that the sex that has already invested in the offspring in a given reproductive bout should continue to be the sex that further invests in the offspring because it does not want to waste the investment done to that point. Dawkins and Carlisle skewered that idea—which they dubbed the Concord Fallacy—and suggested that investment decisions should be prospective, not retrospective (i.e. benefits from the decision point onward, not based on wasting what has already been invested). The name came from real life justification in developing the Concord aircraft—so much money had been spent part way through development that the argument was made that that this prior investment should not be wasted regardless of the costs going forward.


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: