Fact:
Just because something is worth money doesn't mean it necessarily has value.
While the term 'value' often denotes monetary worth, it also describes value as something of importance and usefulness. I think about all the trinkets I've owned in my life: Swarovski crystals, expensive rock specimens, name-brand clothing, etc... and I realize that while they were worth hundreds of dollars, they had absolutely no value to me. None. Zip. Zero. However, I kept all of these items, gathering dust for years on end, despite my disinterest, simply because I thought they had value.
I'm sure we've all owned similar items. The thought process goes a little something like this: 'I am the new owner of [enter value-less item here]. It dictates to others that I am superior. I have set a standard of excellence for the world to see my new found supremacy. People will treat me better, respect me more, and I will rise socially due to the presence of my new object.'
Okay, so maybe you don't sound quite that haughty but if you've ever succumbed to the pressures of society, *especially* a First-World society, you know exactly what objects you have in your own possession to which I am referring. And I admit, sometimes the possession of these objects may benefit you in the long run but the majority of the time, such is not the case.
Keeping value-less items is irrational.
Why would you invest space and time in something that means very little to you?
Let me introduce a concept called sunk cost fallacy.
Sunk cost fallacy, put simply, is investing in something that does not, and will not, ever have value. Or, as Wikipedia words it, "throwing good money after bad."
Years ago, I bought an expensive pair of shoes at a black market in Mexico. Once I got home I realized these shoes were too large, uncomfortable to wear, and didn't match anything I owned. A rational person would dispose of them. Did I? Absolutely not. Those shoes sat in my closet for years gathering dust before I finally came to terms with the fact that I was never going to wear them.
"How could you be so irrational?" you might ask.
It's simple: sunk cost fallacy.
You see, I had invested money into these shoes. I invested time shopping for them and hauling them to my home hours away. I had good intentions for these shoes and had sacrificed a lot of energy into transferring them into my possession.
Sunk cost fallacy.
I believed that those shoes had value and I wanted to extricate that value from them.
Sunk cost fallacy.
What a waste.
Let's look at this in terms of a relationship. How many times have you witnessed or been the person to stay (or return) to someone for that same reason? Yes, you invested your time, energy, money, love, etc. for them. They have learned the quickest way to make you smile and the way you most love to kiss. They know your deepest fears and how to piece you back together again. They are your greatest and most intimate investment.
But do they have value?
Are you choosing them because you don't want to waste your large investment?
Are you holding on because it seems like a smaller cost than starting over?
Are you throwing good time, energy, money, love, etc. after something that will never have value?
Sunk cost fallacy.
Think on it.
*Disclaimer: I am not advocating a lifestyle in which any time something is difficult you abandon ship and jump on another. What I am saying is that when there is absolute certainty that things will never change, it is rational to come to terms with the situation, put on your big girl panties, and move on.
No comments:
Post a Comment