throws the bad ones away, regardless of the time  it takes him to find, catch, and clean the fish.

扔掉不好的魚，不管他花多少時間去尋找、捕捉和清洗魚。

Jimmy knows that if he were to sell spoiled goods,  his customers would not return. So, instead of  

吉米知道，如果他出售變質的貨物，他的顧客就不會再回來。是以，他沒有

crying over stale fish, he considers them as sunk  costs and sells what customers actually want.

他為陳舊的魚哭泣，認為它們是沉沒成本，並出售客戶真正想要的東西。

In his free time, Jimmy isn't' that rational

在空閒時間，吉米並不那麼理性

Unlike fish that don't go to the movies, Jimmy  does. He buys himself a ticket for the afternoon  

與不去看電影的魚不同，吉米去看了。他為自己買了一張下午的票

show. But it turns out that a few hours before  the film starts, his friends want to meet up to  

顯示。但結果是，在電影開始前的幾個小時，他的朋友們想相約到

play football, Jimmy's favorite sport. Since  he has already spent the money on the ticket,  

踢足球是吉米最喜歡的運動。既然他已經花了買票的錢。

he declines the invitation. According to sunk  costs theory, he shouldn't have — the money  

他拒絕了這個邀請。根據沉沒成本理論，他不應該有--這筆錢

he spent on the tickets is already gone, and  he won't get it back by watching the movie.

他花在門票上的錢已經用完了，而且他看電影也拿不回來了。

What matters is that he has a good time.

重要的是，他有一個美好的時光。

Jimmy falls for the so-called sunk cost  fallacy, the strong natural fear of losing  

吉米陷入了所謂的沉沒成本謬誤，對失去的強烈自然恐懼。

what we already own and the tendency of our  brain to treasure all the things we possess.

我們已經擁有的東西和我們的大腦傾向於珍惜我們擁有的所有東西。

A more famous example of the fallacy is the  Concorde — the supersonic passenger plane.  

這個謬論的一個更著名的例子是協和飛機--超音速客機。

Building the aircraft proved to be very difficult  and expensive, but instead of shutting down the  

事實證明，製造這架飛機是非常困難和昂貴的，但是他們並沒有停工。

project, the British and French governments  continued funding it even though they knew the  

在這個項目中，英國和法國政府繼續資助它，儘管他們知道

aircraft would not have any economic benefit. They  argued that they had invested too much to give up.

飛機不會有任何經濟效益。他們爭辯說，他們已經投資了太多，不能放棄。

To test the sunk cost fallacy, economists  Hal Arkes and Catherine Blumer came up with  

為了檢驗沉沒成本謬論，經濟學家哈爾-阿肯斯和凱瑟琳-布盧默提出了

an experiment using theater season tickets.  The regular price for the season was $15,  

一個使用劇院季票的實驗。 該季的正常價格是15美元。

but some people were randomly given discounts of  either $7 or $2. It turned out that the people  

但有些人被隨機給予7美元或2美元的折扣。 結果發現，這些人

who had paid the regular price attended more plays  than those who received a discount. Interestingly,  

支付正常價格的人比獲得折扣的人参加更多的演出。有趣的是。

the only ones who behaved rationally  were children under the age of 6.

唯一表現得理性的是6歲以下的兒童。

Behavioral economists suggest that there are  three psychological reasons for our irrationality.

行為經濟學家認為，我們的非理性有三個心理原因。

1. Loss aversion: people prefer avoiding  losses to acquiring equivalent gains — most  

1.損失厭惡：人們寧願避免損失也不願獲得同等的收益--最

avoid bets where they can win $50  because they could also lose $50.

避免在他們可以贏得50美元的情況下下注，因為他們也可能失去50美元。

2. The desire not to appear wasteful:  this is why some finish their food even  

2.希望不顯得浪費：這就是為什麼有些人甚至吃完了他們的食物

when they feel full or don't  think it's particularly tasty.

當他們覺得飽了或不覺得特別好吃的時候。

3. To ensure we do things we  fear we otherwise wouldn't:  

3.確保我們做我們擔心的事情，否則我們不會做。

We might buy expensive gym membership to  make sure we actually go and work out.

我們可能會購買昂貴的健身房會員資格，以確保我們真的去鍛鍊。

Assuming you are immune to the Concorde  fallacy and you could completely ignore  

假設你對協和飛機的謬誤有免疫力，你可以完全無視

all investments you have ever made into your  education or getting to where you are today: 

你曾經為你的教育或達到你今天的地位所做的所有投資。

What would you be doing differently  going forward? Can you identify any  

在未來，你會採取什麼不同的做法？你能確定任何

'sunk costs' that are holding you  back from making those changes?

阻礙你做出這些改變的 "沉沒成本"？

If you found this helpful, check  out our other videos and subscribe. 

如果你覺得這很有幫助，請查看我們的其他視頻並訂閱。

If you want to support our work,  join us on patreon.com/sprouts. 

如果你想支持我們的工作，請在patreon.com/sprouts上加入我們。

For more information and additional  contents, visit sproutsschools.com

欲瞭解更多資訊和其他內容，請訪問sproutsschools.com。