Actually the sunk cost dilemma is slightly different and pertains to continuing a task/project which you already started which you wouldn't have before based on the information you have now.

i.e You see shop A is selling an item cheaper than shop B. You go to buy the item from shop A, queue up in the line and at the cashier discover the (mislabelled) item is $1 more expensive than shop B. Well now you've already become invested in buying the item and it's not worth the payoff to withdraw now and go for shop B (you're already near to completing the transaction).

If you knew from the beginning you would've gone to shop B though. In gambling the odds are known but people still like to try to cheat odds (Martingale).

What she's describing is the Gambler's Fallacy. The reason they continue gambling is from misunderstanding how probability works- believing that future chances are dependent on past luck. They continue gambling because they believe they'll win it all back when their luck turns around.

In fact if I flip a coin 10 times and get all tails, the chance of a tail in the next flip is still 50/50.

But if you flip a coin 100 times and get 100 tails, the coin is bent.

The only reasonable conclusion is that the coin isn't true and the probability that you will get a tail on the next spin is not 50/50.

sudanglo:But if you flip a coin 100 times and get 100 tails, the coin is bent.

The only reasonable conclusion is that the coin isn't true and the probability that you will get a tail on the next spin is not 50/50.

Random.org: Statistical Analysis

sudanglo:I suppose Erinaj that the difference between the Rauxmista view point and the Finvenkista is that from a Rauxmista perspective it doesn't make too much difference if there are 20,000 speakers of Esperanto or 200,000.

This is dead wrong.

To the Raŭmist it makes a great deal of different whether there are 20,000, 200,000, or 20,000,000 million speakers. The Raŭmist appreciates the language for what it is now, indeed, but that's not the end of the story. A larger speaker base means greater possibilities for cultural activities: a bigger market for books, music, gatherings, and so on. A bigger market means that these activities can flourish at a higher level, and Raŭmists are very interested in that.

The Finvenkistoj want more like 50 million - at least 10% of the EU population.

I'm sure Raŭmists would be happy with that number too, although they needn't be centered in the EU. 50 million speakers worldwide would make a lot of things possible.

If argument changes nothing then I wonder why politicians, lobby groups, and protesters bother at all with their campaigns.

Of course argument can change attitudes.

Erinja didn't say argument changes nothing; she said it usually doesn't change people's minds. Arguments are more likely to influence the beliefs of people whose minds are not yet made up.

Politicians, lobby groups, and protesters are not, in fact, known for their use of carefully reasoned arguments. Political "debates" seldom bear any resemblance to real debates.

It's not that the educational argument for Esperanto has no merit at all. There's simply not enough evidence to be compelling. Yes, there are studies that suggest that pupils will achieve a given level of skill in Esperanto faster than in various other foreign languages. Are there studies that show that their native language skills improve more than they would have if they'd studied some other language? Are there studies that show that they improve at all? Mere theoretical plausibility won't cut it when there are political realities involved. There's no reason to expect school administrators to move on something like this in the absence of hard evidence. There are actual teachers of French, Spanish, and so on, whose jobs are on the line. If the argument is that the study of Esperanto, rather than some other L2, makes people better speakers of their own language, then you need actual evidence for that.

If logical arguments were very effective, the Fina Venko would have happened about 100 years ago. Does anyone believe that the reason why Esperanto is not the universal second language is because not enough people have heard the arguments?

Genjix:What she's describing is the Gambler's Fallacy. The reason they continue gambling is from misunderstanding how probability works- believing that future chances are dependent on past luck. They continue gambling because they believe they'll win it all back when their luck turns around.

In fact if I flip a coin 10 times and get all tails, the chance of a tail in the next flip is still 50/50.

Luckily outside of gambling in most situations humans have volition and an ability to act out that volition and directly interfere with chance , otherwise EO truly would be screwed if it were left to random fate.

From what I can see here, as far as finvenkistoj and rauxmistoj are concerned, they both want the language to thrive and more speakers are good. In fact, they both effectively want the same basic things, but finvenkists are more focussed on EO dominating as a world language and raumists are more focussed on EO itself. Ze ende, no need to worry about either groups ;D

ceigered:

From what I can see here, as far as finvenkistoj and rauxmistoj are concerned, they both want the language to thrive and more speakers are good. In fact, they both effectively want the same basic things, but finvenkists are more focussed on EO dominating as a world language and raumists are more focussed on EO itself. Ze ende, no need to worry about either groups ;D

A few years ago, I attended an academic conference in Amersfoort, Netherlands. The conference was conducted entirely in English, although no more than 20% of the participants were native anglophones. Not many were Dutch, either. There were quite a few Italians and Germans attending, and a smattering from Spain, Austria, Poland, and Finland. I'm sure I'm leaving out a few countries, too. This, of course, is precisely the sort of situation that Esperanto was intended to provide a "solution" for. Many of the participants were very comfortable speaking English, but some struggled. And during the social hours, people naturally segretated into native language cliques (if possible).

This is a perfect illustration of "anglophone privilege." As a native English speaker, I was completely at ease. I didn't have to worry one bit about whether I'd be able to handle the language during the discussion periods, for example. I could relax and think only about the ideas under discussion. Did I discuss Esperanto with anyone at the conference? I did indeed. What do you suppose the response was?

If situations such as this persuade no one, then it's vain to suppose that polished arguments will do better. The world doesn't want Esperanto. But Esperantists do. Esperanto is for us.

T0dd: The world doesn't want Esperanto. But Esperantists do. Esperanto is for us.

Hear hear!

(and anyone can join)

it's vain to suppose that polished arguments will do better

What we need Todd is not 'polished arguments', but different arguments.

Your story of the conference illustrates that in today's world we should abandon the traditional narrative - presenting Esperanto as the solution to the language problem.

We must get smart and find a way of talking about Esperanto that is not vulnerable to the riposte 'everybody speaks' English.

You could encourage people to learn Esperanto because it is a unique and interesting experiment in the history of mankind to bring to life a language that is artifical in it's origins and is not encumbered with the leftovers of all the twists and turns that the natural languages have been through in their development. In other words it is of academic interest.

But I see the obvious solution as being to get Esperanto taught in school, as a way of introducing the learning of a different language, which realistically will advance pupils to the point where they can actually be creative in the language, as opposed to still being bogged down in rote learning of the foreign language's historical baggage of irregularities and opaque idiom.

Such arguments (whatever the best ones might be) must still justify (still be valid for) the learning of Esperanto in a future world where the technology has effectively 'solved' the language problem.

Why do I see Europe as the natural battle field? Well, if Esperanto with its European origins can't triumph here, what hope is there for it on a global stage.

Remember that nowhere else in the industrial world are there so many languages being used in close geographical proximity. No European lives far from a linguistic boundary. The EU has 27 or so official languages (all of which in theory have equal status).

T0dd: Did I discuss Esperanto with anyone at the conference? I did indeed. What do you suppose the response was?

Was it "But we all speak English here, so what's the problem?"

Claude Piron answered this objection in his video The Language Challenge, by pointing out that only a minority of Europeans were fluent in English.

However I doubt that this argument will succeed in getting Esperanto to replace English, because, whether we like it or not, English has become an international language for academic and professional purposes.

Therefore I believe that Esperanto can succeed only on a small scale, till sufficient people have experience of its efficacy for ordinary people on an international scale. Exchange trips between Esperanto clubs in schools from countries with different national languages may help further this aim.

sudanglo:
You could encourage people to learn Esperanto because it is a unique and interesting experiment in the history of mankind to bring to life a language that is artifical in it's origins and is not encumbered with the leftovers of all the twists and turns that the natural languages have been through in their development. In other words it is of academic interest.

I think Esperanto could be of academic interest as an object of study. Linguists are very interested in the "twists and turns" of natural languages, and the causal story behind them. Since Esperanto doesn't have the same kind of causal history, it would less interesting in that way, but perhaps more interesting in other ways. The very survival of an L2-only language (disregarding the small number of L1 speakers) for over a century is unique enough that it should attract some scientific interest.

But I see the obvious solution as being to get Esperanto taught in school, as a way of introducing the learning of a different language, which realistically will advance pupils to the point where they can actually be creative in the language, as opposed to still being bogged down in rote learning of the foreign language's historical baggage of irregularities and opaque idiom.

So you've said, but you persistently overlook the fact that the goal of getting pupils to a point where they can be creative in Esperanto is not shared by anyone outside the Esperanto community.

Why do I see Europe as the natural battle field? Well, if Esperanto with its European origins can't triumph here, what hope is there for it on a global stage.

Remember that nowhere else in the industrial world are there so many languages being used in close geographical proximity. No European lives far from a linguistic boundary. The EU has 27 or so official languages (all of which in theory have equal status).

Exactly! And there is probably more awareness of Esperanto in Europe than anywhere else on the planet (which isn't saying much). So, in 120+ years, what have we learned from Europe? Europe isn't interested in Esperanto! Despite the fact that Esperanto is the drop-dead obvious solution to the language problems of Europe, it is not wanted. It's unreasonable to expect people to welcome into the schools what they reject outside the classroom.