I already paid when it was cheap. I’ll stay and get my full dollars worth and then some. I paid for it, I’ll use it. When it is unusable I’ll bail. Anything else is stupid.
That’s not a sunk cost fallacy at all. I’m not playing catch up, I’m already ahead.
I am thinking about it logically. Plex is the superior experience, and considering I’ve already gotten my money’s worth out of it, they are both free. So why would I use the service that works less well for my use case?
If the user experience continues to degrade, when it finally gets to jellyfin level, I’ll switch.
The part I quoted is the fallacy. You wrote you will stop using it when it is unusable, not when it is inferior to Jellyfin. Maybe you were thinking something different, but we can’t read your mind. We can only read what you wrote and what you wrote is a sunk cost fallacy.
The sunk cost fallacy is when you keep sinking more money into something because of how much you have already sunk into it. It doesn’t apply when you simply make a one-off purchase and then don’t ever spend another cent.
no. What you describe is just one form of the fallacy. Sunk cost fallacy in general is when you include a sunk cost in your decision making process at all, instead of just considering the costs and benefits that are affected by the decision at present.
You’re right, but I don’t care if they switch honestly. I used that wording because of the “anything else is stupid” statement, which just irked me when paired with the obvious fallacy.
I already paid when it was cheap. I’ll stay and get my full dollars worth and then some. I paid for it, I’ll use it. When it is unusable I’ll bail. Anything else is stupid.
What you are saying is called sunk cost fallacy. A notoriously common stupid way of thinking.
The logical way to think of this is: You already paid for Plex so both are free for you. Since both are free, just pick the better one.
That’s not a sunk cost fallacy at all. I’m not playing catch up, I’m already ahead.
I am thinking about it logically. Plex is the superior experience, and considering I’ve already gotten my money’s worth out of it, they are both free. So why would I use the service that works less well for my use case?
If the user experience continues to degrade, when it finally gets to jellyfin level, I’ll switch.
Perfectly logical, no fallacies here.
The part I quoted is the fallacy. You wrote you will stop using it when it is unusable, not when it is inferior to Jellyfin. Maybe you were thinking something different, but we can’t read your mind. We can only read what you wrote and what you wrote is a sunk cost fallacy.
No, it’s not the sunk cost fallacy lol
Not sure if you’re trolling or you just had a brain-fart 🤔 Happens sometimes. Maybe think about it a little more.
The sunk cost fallacy is when you keep sinking more money into something because of how much you have already sunk into it. It doesn’t apply when you simply make a one-off purchase and then don’t ever spend another cent.
no. What you describe is just one form of the fallacy. Sunk cost fallacy in general is when you include a sunk cost in your decision making process at all, instead of just considering the costs and benefits that are affected by the decision at present.
No, what I described is the sunk cost fallacy. You misunderstood it.
No I didn’t.
Why are you being rude to somebody you’re trying to convince to put in extra effort to switch services?
You’re right, but I don’t care if they switch honestly. I used that wording because of the “anything else is stupid” statement, which just irked me when paired with the obvious fallacy.
You thinking it’s an “obvious fallacy” is what should be irking you, cause you’re wrong lol
I wouldn’t call it “stupid way of thinking”. That sounds almost offensive, while it’s just a common fallacy that affects most humans.
It was just a reaction to the “anything else is stupid” statement paired with the fallacy. I wouldn’t use that phrasing otherwise.