Trying to find a fallacy on Google search but the only hits I get are the false-moderation fallacy or middle-ground fallacy, which isn’t what I am looking for:
The fallacy goes something like this: * “It is risky to bring a parachute with you when you go skydiving, because it is possible that the parachute might malfunction.”* (The problem being, of course, that the alternative - to *not *pack a parachute while jumping out of an airplane, guarantees certain death.)
Somewhat related (but not quite the same) spinoff would be: “The buyer offered us $500,000 for our two-bedroom $250k house in a take it or leave it offer, but we should turn it down because it isn’t $1 billion.”
None of these fallacies are quite the same but I am looking for the general direction of the “We should not go for the alternative even though our current situation is worse than the alternative.” Can someone steer me in the right search direction?
I am not sure if you are just talking about generic escalation of commitment, but you may want to look at the sunk cost fallacy which should be in the same family.
The closest I can think of is the “Nirvana fallacy” where someone thinks they can choose between a perfect but impossible option vs. a realistic but not perfect option.
Gotta be careful about the word “fallacy”. There’s a more-or-less official list of argumentation fallacies.
Then there’s the other one million ways to make a crappy argument or use crappy rationale in advancing a position. None of which are a “fallacy” while all are fallacious.
IMO there is no formal argumentation fallacy in the OP’s examples. There absolutely is crappy less-than-logical thinking. But there’s no magic agreed term for that particular pattern of crappy illogical thinking.
It is maybe related to the mathematical issues of third parties in first-past-the-post elections. Though not a fallacy as I would understand it.
If you just had to options A($500k) and B($0) you would choose A. But the introduction of option C ($billion) splits the “vote” between A and C, and B wins, even though what most people want is something between A and C.
Yeah, I don’t see this at all as a fallacy. It’s a calculated risk. The offer for that house (or land or collectible) may be more than what you paid, but you’re comparing what you see at your upside with what others do. They may be right, but nobody can know that ahead of time, and often you are absolutely better off waiting for the higher offer. OTOH, You may be an idiot, as in the parachute example, but stupidity isn’t the same as a fallacy, even an informal one.
The second part appears to be insulting the OP rather than the examples. Let’s refrain from such comments in GQ (as well as pointless ellipses;)). No warning issued.
It’s called “Cherry picking,” or “Fallacy of incomplete evidence.”
It’s very popular in political arenas these days. A given concern is described as though only two options are available (when actually many options are possible) in order to pretend that once one of the options is proven undesirable, that the other is the only alternative.
I also say it’s not a fallacy. In addition to the calculated risk that Expano mentioned, there’s ths:
If I’m considering selling something I’m going to consider whether the money offered is worth more to me than the item.
In the house example given, if I paid 250k for a house, but I would have been willing to pay 550k, you’re going to have to offer me considerably more than 500k to entice me to sell.
Sounds a bit like Pascal’s Wager to me. It’s one of my favorite whatever you call these things (I do not believe mine’s a fallacy though, is it?) because it’s the only one I can understand at this age.
Pascal’s Wager is a fallacy of specificity. As commonly used, it applies only to the Judeo-Christian God, but it works equally well to require worship of Zeus, Odin, Osiris, or Marduk.
For the OP, I agree with kunilou that it is an example of “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” It isn’t exactly a fallacy, because to dismiss it, you have to acknowledge an unspoken bias in favor of maximizing your returns. Once that is accepted as a value, then the procedure is, while not “fallacious,” definitely sub-optimal.
It isn’t a “false” bargaining stance, just a dumb one.
