6 Logical Fallacies That Cost You Money Every Day
Today, man sits atop the food chain, picking steak from his teeth with toothpicks made out of more steak. But instead of spraying champagne into one another's eyes while chanting "We're #1!" at zoo animals, we've taken up a new pursuit: getting rich.
The good news is that, despite what 50 Cent may tell you, we generally don't die if we lose. The bad news is, evolution hasn't exactly helped us adapt to this new lifestyle, and as a result your brain continually tells you to do some things that will keep you poor forever.
For instance, your brain...

Back when natural selection stopped picking us off for things like "thought that grizzly bear just wanted a hug," the future was far less reliable. Back then, when you had to choose between eating a rat now or holding out for deer a week from now, your brain told you to make with the rat stew. And it was right! Being able to imagine how good a deer would taste in 100 days had no evolutionary advantage, and so we just never got around to being good at it.

Today, the future is about as predictable as it's ever been. If the government guarantees to pay you $200 when you turn 65, there are laws in place that say they have to do it. But our brains don't know that. So when a guy in a white lab coat walks up and offers to pay us $100 in a year, or $50 right now, our brains still tell us to go for the rat stew.

This is what's called hyperbolic discounting, a scientific term that means your brain is about as far from rational as it can get before they're legally required to keep you in a zoo enclosure. We're only half kidding. Hyperbolic discounting puts us on the level of pigeons and rats in the realms of fiscal responsibility.
It's not just a lab experiment. There are entire industries that rely on your inability to think rationally about the future. Our whole economic crisis was kicked off by borrowers taking on loans they couldn't afford, after lenders offered them lower payments (or no payments at all) for the first year. Credit card companies still rely on your brain to make purchases now that you won't be able to pay for at the end of the month. Top Gun drill sergeants rely on your ego to write checks that your body can't cash.

The real pioneers in the art of hyperbolic discounting are the cigarette companies and drug dealers, who do a pretty swift business delivering a momentary and fleeting fix in exchange for a little cash, and the right to bankrupt or murder you at some point down the line. We're pretty sure not even the pigeons would go for that deal.

But hey, we're nothing if not resourceful, right? Back when your genetic line was sailing around in the man pouch of a hunter gatherer, you only made it through a long winter by making every last deer testicle count. How can that be a bad thing?
Well, that's left us with a brain that's really worried about making sure we don't waste money we've already spent, or as it's known in the field of economics, "money that's not fucking yours anymore."

For instance, let's say you're in the market for a replacement computer, and the best thing for what you want is a $500 PC. However, you've always been a Mac user and recently dropped $600 on a wireless Apple keyboard (yeah, you went with the cheap one). Now, even though you like everything better about the Dell (it comes with its own wireless keyboard that wasn't built for someone with tiny, elf-hands), and it's twice as cheap as the nearest Mac equivalent, your brain will tell you not to waste the money you spent on the keyboard.
So, in the name of not letting the keyboard go to waste, you buy the Mac.

This is what's known as the sunk cost fallacy: a mechanism in your brain that tells you to spend money on something, simply because you've already spent money on it. In the above scenario, if you were a perfectly rational being, you'd realize that the ship has sailed on that $600, and it had every cent of every purchase you've ever made on board. The only thing that should figure into any economic decision is the money and possessions you have in the present tense, and how they can be best used to make your life better in the future.
But thanks to the way your brain is wired, you're likely to go about this exactly backwards: screwing over your future self in order to stay loyal to decisions you made in the past.

But wait a second: Why not just buy the Dell, then go on eBay and sell the useless Mac keyboard? Nothing wrong with that in theory, right? Fits perfectly with the "making your current possessions work for you." But something in you resists the idea. As a result, you're about to get screwed again thanks to the disposition effect.
This is the brain mechanism that tells you to wait for a better price on something that, in reality, will never go up in value. Investors suffer from this all the time; when a stock is losing value, instead of selling it and taking what they can get, they hold onto it. It's not optimism that it's going to go up (they'll do it even if all evidence says it won't) but rather being too pissed off at the idea of selling it for less than they paid.
Of course, this means your brain is much more likely to sell off a good investment, like say that comic book some chump is willing to pay $20 for.

It's the same impulse that makes people hoard useless stuff, unable to grasp the fact that it'll never be useful again. How many of you have cardboard boxes in the garage or basement full of dusty old hard drives and video cards, as if that shit is going to come back in style one day?
Here's another industry profiting off our malfunction: self storage companies. Yep, your brain is apparently perfectly willing to pay $200 a month to store a bunch of useless crap you no longer want or need, instead of just selling it or doing something REALLY tacky, like donating it to charity.

That can is probably dirty anyway
On a similar note, your brain...








The argument against leaving Iraq was that a whole lot of innocent people would die and they'd go straight back to a bloody-handed dicatorship.
ReplyI thought they were out of the woods, but nope, it turns out that setting an unconditional date was the Muy Bad Idea people said it was after all. At least it's merely MEANDERING toward bloody-handed dictatorship.
Sounds like the Iraqis should probably do something about that. The flaw in that war was the fact that Iraq has no bearing upon the United States in any way shape or form.
Regardless of which direction that government goes, it'll have exactly zero impact in the United States.
They didn't pull out too soon. They pulled out because it wasn't going to work, it only wasted civilian and military lives, bankrupted the US, and shattered any sense of stability in Iraq (yes horrible dictator, but there were many dictators afoot, and many in even less stable countries. Freedom wasn't the goal, oil and money was). Not to mention makes foreign relations extremely difficult, was based on an untrue premise (they knew the weapons weren't there).
Not to mention the whole operation was an attack on the country itself instead, levelling buildings and gunning down their civilians. How in any universe the first step to helping someone form a better country? After you do that, who in their right mind would trust you?
Overall the operation was a clusterfuck of disaster that is near impossible to defend.
who else saw a picture of a gorilla in #1 paint splatter picture? Anyone? Anyone at all?
Replyi did. It has a weird puffy thing around its neck.
My mom is definitely a hoarder. "I paid $300 for when I bought it; it's not worthless". Cool story, mom, but you bought it 30 years ago and it's worth exactly zero today.
ReplyAnyone else feel they forgot what the title of the article was? Not in terms of content, but in the titling of the various sections "Sucks at figuring the oddds", who sucks at figuring the odds?
Reply Hide All See All 3 Repliesmy guess is that the original title had something about your brain in it and for some reason the editors changed it. Because all of the sections are referring to your brain.
No, I felt the same way to. The first two titles confused the crap out of me because they had nothing to do with what was written, and then I got to number 3, which was what I thought number 5 was about, and figured "Ok, this is ridiculous" and just stopped reading the titles altogether.
The introductory paragraph said, "For instance, your brain..." where the "..." leads to each section heading.
Mila Kunis is hot.
Replythe two biggest things i've learned from cracked are that my intelligence is an illusion and my stupidity is real.
Replyi'm beginning to believe that the zombie "i like turtles" kid is, in fact, a zen master. it all comes down to those three words for that kid...i should be so lucky.
I stopped at a local convenience store a few days back and had to wait behind a man cashing in $27 worth of winning scratch off tickets. It probably cost him about $60 to buy enough tickets to win that $27, but he was celebrating his "winnings" by using that money to get a pack of cigarettes and $24 in various scratchers. These, in turn will likely produce roughly $10-12 in "winnings" and those will be cashed in for more tickets until he has no winners. Either that or got paid and was able to supplement the winning tickets with a little more cash.
ReplyHe'd save time by just giving the money directly to the retailer and skipping the part that involves scratching off the tickets.
But hey, it supports the schools, so it's a good thing, right? All that lottery money that goes to the schools improves our kids educations, and it's earmarked, so it can't go into the general fund to be wasted. It's not like the legislators, can compensate for the earmarked lottery money by reducing the contribution from other sources by the same amount with the net effect being that lottery money ends up in the general fund anyway.
Oh, wait, they can? Well, I'm sure that, being ethical, honest citizens, they wouldn't resort to such a devious bait and switch on the poor, honest, working class folks who spend significant amounts of their income, often not even disposable income, on state-sponsored gambling with a less than 50% payout.
It really pisses me of when im at a gas station and the person in front of me- who looks like he can barely afford to put food in his stomach, will spend $100 on f*****g lotto tickets. Its really really sad.....
I never understood the point of gambling - as in Casino, "we're the only winners - the players don't stand a chance". Then one day I realized it's more of an entertainment expense for most people, not really a form of income. That entertainment merely comes in lots of forms. Not that it makes me any more interested (and holding up the line when I'm trying to buy a Slurpee kinda pisses me off), but at least I finally get why people will blow their grocery money for the momentary thrill of scratching off those lotto tickets that give back some of their money once in a while.
For an extra $50, I think horizoning comes into play.
Reply
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesI would agree that good health and love is all you need but... It's a lot easier to stay healthy when you can afford to eat fresh food, have a gym membership and SEE A FREAKING DOCTOR WHEN YOU GET SICK!
Or how about not having to struggle to pay bills while working 1 or more jobs? How lovey dovey do most of you feel after working 10 to 12 hours, 6 days a week to get by and still not either have enough free time or money to go out with your significant other?
MONEY WOULD MAKE ME VERY HAPPY!
Yes, but there's a difference between having A LOT of money and ENOUGH money.
Well there certainly are many variables, the two heavyweight ones can be directly influenced by you. It includes
1) Eating healthy (read nutrition labels people, some of the healthiest foods are the cheapest)
2) Exercising (jog for half a freaking hour a day, it will help you sleep better too)
It costs way less to make a homecooked meal than to buy a meal at McDonalds.
People's concept of probability in a roulette game used to amuse me so much when I worked as a croupier. Even some of my supervisors held to the idea of "4 blacks in a row... a red must come now." They also claimed that after getting a few large numbers a small number would be next. Bullshit! :D
Reply#6 is just an excuse to make dumbass Americans feel better -_- seriously how hard can it be to think ahead?
ReplyThe funniest part to me about 6 is that I think the government certainly helps out in the "I can't think about the future." dilemma. When you constantly change laws, make bad decisions, and go back on your word, how can a person actually expect anything from you?
If not believing that social security will be there when I'm old enough to collect makes me foolish, then I guess I'm foolish.
I don't think we take the $50 now because we can't differ gratitude, I take the $50 now because $100 may be $0 in a year. If there's some real credible assurance I can wait forever.
Remember that part about being bad at probability? It would take about 650,000,000 million losers in a typical state lottery to produce that on $300 million dollar winner, based on approx 45% payout to the top prize. It's much worse than stated.
ReplyThe probability one is flawed about the example of the roulette ball. If it lands on red 3x in a row, it actually is more likely that black will appear next. The first time, the odds are 1/2. The odds of it happening 2x is 1/4. And it decreases every sequential time. It is much more likely that the 4th one will be black than another red
Reply Hide All See All 7 RepliesThanks for proving the point of the article
You're still measuring from the before the wheel has spun. In roulette, Past results have no influence on future results. So while the odds of spinning 10 reds in a row are fairly unlikely, once the first 9 reds have come up, the odds of the next one coming up red is exactly the same as the first spin.
The roulette one actually *is* flawed - but not for the reason you claim. In fact, the odds aren't 50/50 because there's the 0 & 00 slots, so there is a small possibility that result won't be black *or* red. And yeah, nice job of demonstrating the point of the article. Roulette wheels don't have a memory, dumbass.
Look, I'll be the polite one here and explain why you're wrong. Statistics as applied to gambling are basically a method of mathematically guessing better. It's still *just* guessing, though. In order for statistics to work the way you're suggesting, you have to decide how you feel about fate.
If you don't believe in fate, all statistics are bullshit. You would have to know all of the factors in existence relating to each event -- in advance -- to calculate the chain reaction that would produce the result correctly. You can't do that, in part, because you aren't in physically control of the gambling device and, in part, because calculating the chain reaction would also have to take your reaction to the calculation into account.
Alternately, if you believe fate does exist, all statistics are bullshit. One thing has a 100% chance of happening and everything else has a 0% chance of happening. Whether or not your statistics show red coming up next, you were already going to decide whether or not to bet, and the win/lose result was already going to happen. Whether or not statistics claimed it was likely is irrelevant because it was always going to happen. The fraction you were looking at was just there to make you feel good about the illusion of free will you entertain when you were already supposed to.
Blandy that's a lot of talking to explain a simple concept. Let's take it down to a coinflip and eliminate the 0 and 00. (I'm also assuming it will never land on its side.) No matter what the previous results are the probability that it will come up heads is 1 out of 2. There are 2 choices, and it will be 1 of them. Expressed in a percentage 50% or 50/100 or 1/2.
It's that simple. No matter what came before.
Thanks for explaining the 7th logical fallacy the author failed to mention.
Alternatly if it hits red ten times in a row, maybe it's not actually perfectly random. They're rigging the game!! *Gasp*
I get the disposition thing all the time, especially in online games with rudimentary markets (I don't like saying "world of warcraft" out loud, it embarrasses me). I buy into stuff that is no longer useful and refuse to sell it for less than I paid for, thinking (against logic and evidence) that it's going to become more valuable eventually.
ReplyTechnically, in the Mac/PC scenario, it's also about the OS, and what you're looking for in a computer, not just the price.
ReplyYou must have skipped the part that said that the pc has everything you want, yadda yadda yadda....
And that had any relevance to the argument he was making how...?
#5 applies to completists who have to have all of something like video game DLC and all the issues of a comic book story even though they might have liked it that much. Just yesterday I bought DLC for a video game I've never even played!
ReplyNumber one thanks to Science (also mathematics, philosophy and maybe some other disciplines)
Reply"...when we've got a gangster [role] of Washington's in our fist a..."
ReplyI think the writer means "roll". Caveman Ack just say.
so many of these are me...i kept a twenty dollar bill in my wallet because it made me feel rich, where i know i swiped my debit card for stupid things three dollars at a time...
ReplyThat's why I like large bills. I don't want to use them
I have done pretty well for myself then as I don't have credit cards, don't gamble and avoid hoarding useless shit.
ReplyI tend to hoard crap then one day, I get bored then decide to start stuffing clothes, toys and books into bags and writing "GIVE TO CHARITY" on them. I got about 10 bags full of stuff last time. I don't have credit cards either but that's because I don't like them. Too young to gamble and I don't really see how fun it is to sit at a pokie machine all day
Only problem about not having a single line of credit, life becomes more difficult today. Can't order from many places online (paypal not offered) without one, can't get a house, can't use certain services, etc. It's a sad truth, because I don't actually want one.