The Concorde fallacy is the state of losing more in order not to be a loser. It is the state of not being able to leave a situation even if that situation harms the person. It can also be considered as a situation of incurring more losses because of the logic of saving the loss. This labor can be material, emotional or temporal. However, one cannot always act realistically and may be mistaken with the concorde fallacy without realizing it.
The name Condorde dates back to the 1950s. After the Second World War, Britain and France agreed to build "supersonic" airplanes that were faster than sound. In fact, the name Concorde symbolizes the cooperation between Britain and France in producing the airplane.
Despite the unsuccessful flight attempts of an airplane named Concorde, a group of people who worked on this airplane did not lose hope and continued to invest financially. The people who made this investment are actually smart people, but it has been found that living beings are vulnerable to obsessive tendencies thanks to the fact that they ignore the mistakes of the past and literally throw away their investments.
How was the Concorde fallacy discovered?
The Concorde fallacy is a theory created by zoologists as part of evolutionary theory. Animals make an effort when choosing a mate, just like humans. Before marriage, animals decide not to take on this responsibility if they encounter obstacles, despite their instinct to continue their generation. Animals that accept the obstacles continue their lives at the risk of their mate leaving the nest.
Another Concorde fallacy appears in behavioral economics under the name of "sunk cost theory". An example of this is when big football clubs persistently keep players in the game, despite the fact that they do not play good football, just because they transfer them at high rates.
Concorde Fallacy in Relationships
In everyday life, almost everyone has examples of the cconcordeoncorde fallacy. We often find it difficult to let go of relationships, especially those that are emotionally demanding. One is so afraid that one tries to maintain friendships and emotional relationships even though they are not beneficial to the person. Because we care about the effort that has been expended in the past, we find it difficult to think rationally.
Another reason for this behavior is that when making decisions, one is thinking more about past investments than about the future. In a sense, it is expected that the other party will get better because they are unable to end the relationships that harm and wear them out. Therefore, the person both devalues himself/herself and wastes time. The real situation here is that the person has difficulty in ending toxic relationships and therefore cannot accept being the defeated party.
The point to be aware of here is the importance of being able to distinguish between hoping and "deliberately drinking poison". Therefore, there is an unrealistic expectation for the concorde fallacy. Therefore, an unrealistic "act of hoping", even if it is called "hope theory", will not fix an already bad toxic relationship; in fact, it will make it even more complicated. The concorde fallacy, in particular, can be characterized as 'losing more when you know the outcome'. We can see the impact of this approach from economics to psychology, from everyday life experiences to bilateral relationships.
'Losing more to avoid being a loser'
A realistic decision is not based on past investments, but on future gains. When a person realizes that he or she has fallen into the concorde fallacy, the first thing to do is to take care of the damage he or she has suffered, move on to more sensible choices, and take the first step by ending the losses he or she has suffered. Ending an energy-sucking, abusive and exploitative relationship is akin to wanting to keep clothes that have been in the closet for a long time but never fit the person, simply because they were bought and branded.
It would be healthier to focus on what will be lost in the future rather than the sacrifices and efforts made in the past for situations and individuals who deliberately put the person in a difficult situation and cause pain. If the things to be lost are visible things that are obvious from this time, it is not a very logical behavior to say later, "I was already sure that this would happen".