Fear of Missing Out: "This guy seems great, he pushes all of my buttons the right way and there might not be another like him for awhile so maybe I should try with him even though I don't really know him that well?"

Sunken Costs Fallacy:

  • In relationship: "So we've been together for awhile. Initially things were great but now he seems to have stopped trying. I don't want to just throw away our relationship of X years down the drain and start over so I'm hoping things will change now that we've talked it out last year."
  • Outside of relationship: "I've been holding out for awhile and although I've met many great guys, they just didn't live up to my ideal so I'll continue holding out for that perfect guy that I could meet soon if I just stay patient."

​

From what I've noticed, women tend to succumb to fuck boys with FOMO and facepalm themselves with Sunk Costs by investing in losers or passing up decent guys for that fabled unicorn that's going to pick them out of every other girl/woman in the area like some typical cheesy romance that's obviously made for a female audience.

Not only is this behavior quite lazy but it displays a lack of thought that is crucial for success. Hence, why the women that engage in these thought processes tend to be unsuccessful and unsatisfied with their dating situation.

I don't think anyone can tell/teach people how to vet because proper vetting comes from knowing yourself and what you want and being realistic about what is available/attainable to a person.

I'll leave the rest for y'all to discuss.

Edit:

Per Wikipedia for clarification on what the "Sunk Cost Fallacy" is

Sunk costs do, in fact, influence people's decisions,[8][15] with people believing that investments (i.e., sunk costs) justify further expenditures.[17] People demonstrate "a greater tendency to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made."[18][19] This is the sunk cost fallacy, and such behavior may be described as "throwing good money after bad",[20][15] while refusing to succumb to what may be described as "cutting one's losses".[15] For example, some people remain in failing relationships because they “have already invested too much to leave.” Others buy expensive gym memberships to commit themselves to exercising. Still others are swayed by arguments that a war must continue because lives will have been sacrificed in vain unless victory is achieved. Likewise, individuals caught up in psychic scams will continue investing time, money and emotional energy into the project, despite doubts or suspicions that something is not right.[21]-21) These types of behaviour do not seem to accord with rational choice theory and are often classified as behavioural errors.[22]

Additional related sources for interesting info:

https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/sunk-cost-fallacy/

https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/status-quo-bias/

While status quo bias is frequently considered to be irrational, sticking to choices that worked in the past is often a safe and less difficult decision due to informational and cognitive limitations (see bounded rationality). For example, status quo bias is more likely when there is choice overload (Dean et al., 2017) or high uncertainty and deliberation costs (Nebel, 2015).

​