Well keep in mind the golden rule of game theory, players payoffs = players payoffs, not the values you assign them.
So students as a whole go to university to get a degree. As this is a core unit that must be completed, gibberish or not, a rational university student will aim to pass the unit. The lecturer (I’ve no idea what his payoffs are) makes a career out of advancing his own gibberish viewpoint, so he’s also rational. Clearly, while I see a clear failing of the university system, all players are achieving their goals. All players are rational in the game theoretic sense.
But the student in uncertain of the value of the degree, especially since that value is function of how others evaluate the quality of the education. You could consider that the gibberish is evidence that the degree might be of low value, or only of value for careers where spouting gibberish is considered a desirable trait.
One of those careers is teaching cultural psychology, but obviously not all students of cultural psychology can become teachers of cultural psychology, which is why some people call higher education a pyramid scheme.
It’s also possible that some companies value the ability to unthinkingly accept gibberish as a valuable loyalty signal. It does seem quite likely that loyalty is valued more often than critical thinking.
If you’re 80% of the way through a degree in a field that you care about, I see two options, continue or stop. If I stop, I’ve wasted time, effort and considerable amounts of money. If I continue, I have to put up with my lecturers unpolished set of beliefs.
Continuing the degree is a perfectly rational course of action. Even assuming that my degree was complete bollocks, there is a market for lemons.
If I stop, I’ve wasted time, effort and considerable amounts of money
No. If the degree is not valuable, you’ve wasted time, effort, and considerable amounts of money, and that’s true regardless of whether you continue from the present point or not. Your prior investment doesn’t actually have a logical bearing on the best course of action after the investment has already been made.
Your reasoning is correct IF AND ONLY IF the degree is not valuable. The degree however is clearly valuable since it will increase my employment options. If you believe that degree is not valuable, I’ll ask that you give your line of reasoning.
Apparently some people here look down on a psychology degree. I don’t blame you, the curriculum doesn’t do the subject matter justice. The condescending attitude is something you might want to examine though.
What Sniffnoy said. I don’t have any opinion at all about your degree—I just started one myself, and being new to the thread didn’t know what yours was in. I was just trying to point out that you were committing the prior investment fallacy in a more polite way than saying “you’re committing the prior investment fallacy.” The point was not “the degree is useless, bail,” it was “don’t factor what you’ve already spent into your calculation about what to do next, just include what you may or may not spend in the future.”
Is there a way I could have phrased that which would have made it more clear to you that the comment wasn’t personal?
On reflection, you’re right. I wasn’t aware that the prior investment fallacy existed and I was certainly committing it. Thank you for pointing it out, I’m going to have a look at it in more detail to avoid falling into the same trap in the future.
I think I was a little irked at Daniel Burfoot’s comment and those feelings bled through into how I interpreted your post. I feel a bit silly now.
Huh? It looked like Relsqui just pointed out a pretty straightforward instance of the sunk-cost fallacy. How close you are to completion is relevant, how far you are from the start is not.
Who is the more irrational: the lecturer, who utters the gibberish, or the student, who pays to hear the lecture?
Well keep in mind the golden rule of game theory, players payoffs = players payoffs, not the values you assign them.
So students as a whole go to university to get a degree. As this is a core unit that must be completed, gibberish or not, a rational university student will aim to pass the unit. The lecturer (I’ve no idea what his payoffs are) makes a career out of advancing his own gibberish viewpoint, so he’s also rational. Clearly, while I see a clear failing of the university system, all players are achieving their goals. All players are rational in the game theoretic sense.
But the student in uncertain of the value of the degree, especially since that value is function of how others evaluate the quality of the education. You could consider that the gibberish is evidence that the degree might be of low value, or only of value for careers where spouting gibberish is considered a desirable trait.
One of those careers is teaching cultural psychology, but obviously not all students of cultural psychology can become teachers of cultural psychology, which is why some people call higher education a pyramid scheme.
It’s also possible that some companies value the ability to unthinkingly accept gibberish as a valuable loyalty signal. It does seem quite likely that loyalty is valued more often than critical thinking.
If you’re 80% of the way through a degree in a field that you care about, I see two options, continue or stop. If I stop, I’ve wasted time, effort and considerable amounts of money. If I continue, I have to put up with my lecturers unpolished set of beliefs.
Continuing the degree is a perfectly rational course of action. Even assuming that my degree was complete bollocks, there is a market for lemons.
No. If the degree is not valuable, you’ve wasted time, effort, and considerable amounts of money, and that’s true regardless of whether you continue from the present point or not. Your prior investment doesn’t actually have a logical bearing on the best course of action after the investment has already been made.
Your reasoning is correct IF AND ONLY IF the degree is not valuable. The degree however is clearly valuable since it will increase my employment options. If you believe that degree is not valuable, I’ll ask that you give your line of reasoning.
Apparently some people here look down on a psychology degree. I don’t blame you, the curriculum doesn’t do the subject matter justice. The condescending attitude is something you might want to examine though.
What Sniffnoy said. I don’t have any opinion at all about your degree—I just started one myself, and being new to the thread didn’t know what yours was in. I was just trying to point out that you were committing the prior investment fallacy in a more polite way than saying “you’re committing the prior investment fallacy.” The point was not “the degree is useless, bail,” it was “don’t factor what you’ve already spent into your calculation about what to do next, just include what you may or may not spend in the future.”
Is there a way I could have phrased that which would have made it more clear to you that the comment wasn’t personal?
On reflection, you’re right. I wasn’t aware that the prior investment fallacy existed and I was certainly committing it. Thank you for pointing it out, I’m going to have a look at it in more detail to avoid falling into the same trap in the future.
I think I was a little irked at Daniel Burfoot’s comment and those feelings bled through into how I interpreted your post. I feel a bit silly now.
No worries, it happens. :) Glad I could help.
Huh? It looked like Relsqui just pointed out a pretty straightforward instance of the sunk-cost fallacy. How close you are to completion is relevant, how far you are from the start is not.