Yes I know, your least-favorite idea goes here. But seriously, someone must have come up with the concept before. Like a bad get-rich-quick scheme could fall into this category, where joining the scheme makes people lose money and become more desperate, so they become more likely to do desperate things like invest more in the scheme. But it can apply to a number of other bad ideas.

  • Hugin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Springtime for Hitler. Somewhat fits. It’s an intentional failure that succeeded.

    Popular boondoggle is a term we used to use at work. I’ve never herd it used outside that job though.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    I world call that “failing upward” which is fucking up your job such that you get a promotion.

  • Drusenija@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Sunk cost fallacy is probably the most obvious one that springs to mind. Not unlike gambling in a sense, people feel they just need one big payout to win it all back and then some, so they keep betting, hoping that this time things will go in their favour.

  • machinin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Perhaps the closest term is “cognitive dissonance.” I don’t think current usage best fits your description, although the original event that inspired the term certainly does.

    https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

    Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult that believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood, and what happened to its members — particularly the really committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the flood did not happen.

    While fringe members were more inclined to recognize that they had made fools of themselves and to “put it down to experience,” committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members).

  • AirBreather@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    Feels like there ought to be a term… it’s kind of a mix between “vicious circle”, “feedback loop”, and “echo chamber”.

  • jbrains@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    There’s a certain amount of Gambler’s Fallacy in this, too: I’ll keep going, because it’s going to turn around.

    • otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Yeah, I think it’s the really the Gambler’s Fallacy, even if OP doesn’t describe gambling. It’s the idea of “It’s my turn for success to come soon – I’m due for my turn!”

  • TootSweet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    “Streisand effect” comes to mind, but like “sunk cost fallacy” it’s just an example of something “becoming more popular the more it fails.”

  • _bcron_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    I don’t know if the ‘wanting is better than having’ trope is the best fit but it’s a decent fit and kind of caters to the social aspect of what you’re describing. You know, some shiny trendy new thing and everyone’s chasing after it and as people get it they’re sorely disappointed, but it doesn’t dissuade others one bit (sometimes the reaction from the initial acquirers causes even more appeal to those who don’t have it) , until everyone is all disappointed. And then the moral of the story plays out in the resolution