the Nirvana Fallacy

Sometimes an imperfect solution is better than waiting for a perfect one.

The nirvana fallacy (aka the “perfect solution fallacy”) is when you compare an imperfect option to an idealized perfect option. Basically it’s when you dislike/reject an option just because it isn’t perfect. Rather than weighing the merits of realistic (albeit flawed) options, you pit realistic options up against unrealistic perfect options.

Something is better than nothing

In the world of COVID we see this with wearing masks. When you board a plane or enter a restaurant you have to wear a mask, you can remove your mask to eat or drink, but then you have to put your mask back on. This leads some to think “Well why even bother wearing the mask if we’re just going to take it off?”, but this is fallacious. The perfect solution would be to stay at home or to wear your mask all the time, but this is unrealistic. Even though temporarily removing your mask is flawed, to wear your mask at all is still better than never wearing a mask. The imperfect solution is better than not even attempting a solution just because it isn’t perfect (which, spoiler, the perfect solution neither exists nor will it ever exist).

The nirvana fallacy frequently finds its way into public policy debates. When some policy doesn’t fully solve a problem its political opponents will attack it for its flaws. However, no realistic solution will ever go far enough to satisfy all critics. Good governance is choosing the best possible available solution knowing that all options will be flawed.

When weighing your options don’t reject an option just because it isn’t perfect — all options will be imperfect. By holding out for the perfect option you can do more harm than good. Doing something is frequently better than doing nothing at all.

“Perfect is the enemy of good.” – Voltaire

The Sunk-Cost Fallacy

Just because you started something doesn’t mean you have to finish it. Sometimes quitting is a good thing.

The Sunk-Cost Fallacy is where, because you have invested time / effort / money etc. into something, you feel you can’t quit. The cost of the thing makes you continue because you think that stopping would be a waste of all that time / effort / money etc. In reality however, if something isn’t worth it anymore, you should quit.

Loss Aversion

Humans are strongly loss averse. Losing something hurts more than gaining something by almost two to one. We’re naturally protective of the things we have and we focus more on what we may lose than what we may gain. This manifests itself when it’s time to move house, have a yard sale, or generally clean-up – people can have a difficult time parting with possessions. Similarly, walking out of a bad movie, turning around and asking for directions when driving around lost, or ending a relationship are all hard to do, partially because we are invested in them and we don’t want that investment to have been a waste. We don’t want to look foolish for having invested poorly so we double-down and continue with things we aren’t enjoying anymore to save face. By continuing forward no matter what we are increasing our investment costs as well as the damage by staying the course.

Sunk-costs are the investments we’ve made that can never come back – they’re in the past. They’re also irrelevant in considering our future paths. Past costs are looking backwards but your future choices are looking forward. For example, just because you’ve paid for a ticket to a concert doesn’t mean you have to go. If you’re feeling sick then maybe don’t go. The money you paid for the ticket is gone so all you have to consider now is: do I feel like going to this concert?

When evaluating potential courses of action, consider what is best for your future and don’t think too much about the past. The sunk-costs of your past can’t be recouped and sometimes it’s worth quitting something and turning in a new direction.

the Fallacy of Relative Privation

Just because someone else has it worse than you doesn’t mean you don’t have problems.

The Fallacy of Relative Privation is a faulty way of thinking where someone dismisses a problem because there are worse problems in the world. For example “Oh you think you have a bad headache? Well some people live with migraines for days at a time.” The idea of this kind of statement is that you should feel better, comforted by the knowledge that the situation could be worse. Unfortunately, knowing that someone has a worse headache won’t improve the condition of your headache. A more severe problem doesn’t negate a less severe problem.

This fallacy also goes the other direction. When judging people who are more affluent someone might say “What do they have to complain about? They’re rich & famous.” Just because someone is better-off than you doesn’t mean they don’t have problems. The idea of “First World problems” touches on this. While the day-to-day problems of a wealthier society are not as significant as the problems of a poorer country, wealthy people / societies still have problems.

If we follow the fallacy of relative privation to its logical conclusion, only the person with the absolute worst problem(s) could ever have any right to complain about anything. Obviously this is wrong. Therefore when considering problems, your own or the problems of others, remember that all problems are problems regardless of severity or whose they are.