I am currently on page 203 of a book I stopped enjoying around page 60.
It’s a novel about a family, and I could not tell you a single thing that has happened in the last eighty pages.
Last night I read the same paragraph three times and then put it face-down on the bed while I scrolled TikTok for a while.
I have never abandoned a book. Not the four-hundred-page one about the Greek goddess Circe, not the one everyone said was a masterpiece that I found unbearable.
Not one that I bought in an airport in 2014 and disliked immediately and finished anyway on the flight home.
I could blame my mother, who did not raise a quitter, which is closer to the truth than I meant it to be.
Because this goes well beyond books, and well beyond me. The job nobody leaves. The degree nobody wanted by year three. The friendship that ended two years before either person said so out loud.
All of it runs on the same broken piece of reasoning, and there’s a name for it, and knowing the name barely helps at all.
What’s already spent does the deciding
In 1985, two psychologists arranged something clever at a university theater. People buying season tickets were randomly given either the full price or one of two discounts.
Same seats, same plays, same everything. The only difference was what they’d paid, and it was decided by chance.
Over the next six months, the full-price group attended more plays. The gap was concentrated in the first half of the season.
Nothing about the plays was different. Nothing about the people was different. The only thing driving the extra attendance was money that was already gone and was not coming back either way.
The same researchers ran a second version that’s even starker.
People were asked to imagine they’d paid for two ski trips that fell on the same weekend, one costing a hundred dollars and one costing fifty. They were told plainly that they’d enjoy the cheaper one more.
Most of them picked the expensive trip. Told outright which weekend would be better, they chose the other one, because more money was attached to it.
That’s the sunk cost effect, and the shape of it shows up hourly. The meal finished after it stopped being good. The membership used because it was expensive. The show watched to the end of a season nobody has enjoyed since episode four.
My 200-some pages are the ticket. The book is not holding me. The pages I’ve already read are.
Sunk costs change what people expect to happen
There’s a second finding from the same work that gets quoted far less, and it makes the whole thing harder.
Arkes and Blumer also found that people who had already sunk something into a project rated that project as more likely to succeed than people looking at the identical project cold.
So nobody sits there thinking this is bad and I am staying anyway. The investment quietly edits the prediction.
By the time you’re deciding, you’re working from a rosier prediction than a stranger would give you. From the inside, it feels like judgment.
Which is exactly what it might pick up in the last third is: A real belief, produced by a mind that has already spent three weeks and would like that to have been worth something.
There’s an awkward wrinkle in the timing, too. For something already paid for, the pull fades as the payment recedes. The theater ticket bought four weeks ago is easier to skip than the one bought yesterday.
But for something still running, something you’re still putting into, it works the other way. The longer it goes on, the harder leaving gets.
Books and degrees and relationships behave like the second kind, though the research on that measured money and deliberately left time investments out.
More Bolde Stories
Nobody wants to be the person who wasted it
When Arkes and Blumer looked for what was driving all this, they proposed something smaller and more social than greed or optimism: a desire not to appear wasteful.
That’s a rule, taught, and taught early. Finish what’s on your plate. Don’t start what you can’t finish. We paid good money for those lessons, so you’re going.
Which is where my mother stops being a joke and starts being the mechanism.
Sitting underneath that is a second thing. Stopping right now turns the last three weeks into a mistake, retroactively, all at once. Continuing keeps the question open.
As long as I’m still reading, the jury is out on whether those weeks were wasted.
That discomfort has a name too. Changing course means admitting we made a mistake, which is uncomfortable enough that people will sit inside a bad situation rather than concede the earlier call was wrong.
The finishing isn’t about the book. It’s about not having been stupid.
Sometimes it really is flakiness
All of which could be read as permission, and it isn’t, quite.
There is a version of quitting that deserves the word flaky, and pretending otherwise would be doing everyone a favor that isn’t a favor.
What separates them is timing.
Walking away at page 203, after three weeks and a fair try, is a decision made with information. Walking away on page 12 because the first chapter was slow is a decision made with none.
And the person who does that every time never gets far enough into anything to find out what it was.
The pattern shows up everywhere. Four instruments, none past the second month. Three business ideas, all abandoned at the point where they stopped being fun and started being work.
A pattern of leaving right where difficulty begins, which is also right where everything worth having begins.
That person has swapped one discomfort for another and called it discernment.
The people who can walk away decide before they start
So who manages it, and how?
Not the people who understand it best. A review pooling a hundred separate measurements of the effect tested whether economic training helps, and found that it doesn’t reliably protect anyone.
People with business backgrounds, people explicitly taught that sunk costs should be ignored, fell for it about as often as everyone else. Knowing the rule in a seminar room and using it on a Tuesday night are two different skills.
The same review did find one thing that tracks: the effect gets weaker as people get older. Whether that’s accumulated experience or something else isn’t settled, and the age result held in some kinds of decision and not others.
What the people who can do it seem to share is a procedure, and the procedure happens early.
They set the exit before anything has been spent, when the decision is still cheap, and no pride is attached to it. Two more chapters. One more quarter. Six months, then we talk again.
The rule gets written by a version of you who has nothing invested, and handed to the version who will have plenty.
Carlos Alós-Ferrer, the economics professor who edits the Journal of Economic Psychology, gives more or less this advice: decide in advance what would make you stop, be specific about it, and do it while you’re still thinking clearly rather than once you’re already in.
It’s a small, unglamorous move, and it’s the one that works.
More Bolde Stories
What I did about the book
I put it down.
Not easily. I got as far as thinking, but I’m more than halfway, noticed that this was the exact sentence I’d just spent a thousand words describing, and felt annoyed rather than enlightened.
It’s on my nightstand now. I have a suspicion I’ll pick it up again in a week, and that won’t be about the book either.
