I’ve heard loss aversion called a cognitive bias. People treat it like a flaw in human thinking. Something to overcome. That’s never made sense to me.
In 2002, Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in Economics for documenting the tendency. He and Amos Tversky found that people feel losses roughly twice as strongly as equivalent gains. They framed it as irrational.
But the math agrees with our instinct.
You start with $100. You lose 50%. You have $50. You gain 50% back. You have $75. The same percentage that took you down can’t bring you back up.
A 50% loss requires a 100% gain to recover. A 90% loss requires a 900% gain. The deeper the hole, the steeper the climb.
And some holes have no ladder.
- Lose your health.
- Lose your reputation.
- Lose all your money.
These are risks of ruin. You can’t compound your way back from zero.
Caring more about loss than gain keeps you alive. A species that treats a 50% loss the same as a 50% gain goes extinct. The one that overweights loss stays in the game long enough to reproduce.
This is why I run small experiments instead of big bets. Each experiment is a survivable loss. If it fails, I’m still at the table. The goal is to stay there long enough for compounding to work.
Loss aversion is rational.
🕳️
What would you do this week if you knew the loss was survivable?
