And that's called a sunk cost, when you've already spent the money. So ideally, it shouldn't factor into your decision-making.
"IDEALLY," it shouldn't, but as a PRACTICAL MATTER it happens all the time. People not only DEFEND the original decision by continuing with it, they often DOUBLE DOWN as well.
In fact, the inability to write off or walk away from a decision that has or is in the process of producing what looks like a NEGATIVE OUTCOME leads to something called the
SUNK COST FALLACY.
From Project Management firm ASANA:
"The sunk cost fallacy is our tendency to continue with something we’ve invested money, effort, or time into—even if the current costs outweigh the benefits. When we fall prey to the sunk cost fallacy, we make irrational decisions that are against our best interest—essentially digging ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole."
And THIS:
"When we let the sunk cost fallacy influence our decisions, we often make bad choices that hurt us. Instead of using logic, we fall prey to a vicious cycle that often includes an escalation of our commitments—we continue to invest time, money, and energy into something, even if it’s not in our best interest. The more we invest, the more committed we are—and the more resources we funnel into that initial bad decision."
To me, someone INEXPERIENCED like Freeman, operating in the glare of one of sport's MOST UNFORGIVING SPOTLIGHTS, is just the kind of guy who'd be MOST SUSCEPTIBLE -- make that VULNERABLE -- to the SUNK COST FALLACY.
At least, that's my view from 30,000 feet.
notredame.rivals.com
