Y12W14WR When to quit
Apply honest quit-analysis to something you’re currently persisting at, and report on whether the analysis changes your decision.
1Retrieval check
Q1.What do Godin’s The Dip and Annie Duke’s Quit argue?
- AAlways persist
- BQuitting is systematically undervalued — knowing when to quit is a rarer skill than capacity to persist
- CAlways quit
- DPersistence is never valuable
Q2.What’s the article’s counter-thread on quit-friendly advice?
- AIt has no limits
- BQuitting too readily abandons projects that would have succeeded through the dip — the judgement call is genuinely hard
- CQuitting is always bad
- DOnly jobs should be quit
Show answer key
Q1 → B. Quitting is systematically undervalued — knowing when to quit is a rarer skill than capacity to persist.Sunk-cost thinking makes us continue failing paths; pre-committed quit criteria fight the bias when the moment arrives.
Q2 → B. Quitting too readily abandons projects that would have succeeded through the dip — the judgement call is genuinely hard.Set explicit quit criteria in advance; the advance commitment fights sunk-cost bias in the moment.
2Prompt deconstruction
- Command verb
- APPLY quit-analysis; REPORT honestly
- Must reference
- Staw’s escalation-of-commitment research; Duke; Godin
- Must include
- evidence you’ve been avoiding because it might tell you to quit
- Check
- the ‘advice to a friend’ test — what would you tell someone else in this situation?
3Pick nudge
Which commitment will you analyse honestly before deciding whether to persist?
4Planner — for each of your picks
5Sentence stems
- I noticed that ___ when ___.
- The specific moment it stood out was ___.
- Before paying attention, I had been assuming ___.
- [Researcher’s] finding that ___ captures what I saw, because ___.
- The pattern across my cases is ___.
- What this tells me about [wider topic] is ___.
6Exemplar paragraph (not about this article)
(1) The thing I am persisting at is a competitive programming commitment I joined in Term 2 last year. Factually: I go to two sessions a week, have not placed in any contest, and have noticed that my engagement has dropped steadily since January. (2) Staw’s escalation-of-commitment frame captures what I’ve been avoiding: I continue partly because I have already invested 14 months, which is not itself a reason to continue. (3) Duke’s test is the sharpest — the specific evidence I have been avoiding is my own performance trend, which I did not want to read as a trend. Before paying attention, I had been telling myself my recent performance was a rough patch. (4) The specific moment it stood out was reviewing a contest with my coach and realising I was the least engaged student in the room. (5) What would I tell a friend in this situation? (6) Almost certainly: set a specific quit-by date, try one specific change for a month, and stop if it doesn’t move. The pattern across my case is that my sunk cost is the whole argument for continuing — and that is precisely the pattern Staw identifies. What this changes: I’ll commit to one new preparation approach for four weeks, and stop cleanly if the performance trend hasn’t moved.
What this paragraph does, move by move
- Describes the commitment factually.
- Uses Staw to name the sunk-cost pull.
- Names the specific evidence you’ve been avoiding.
- Identifies the moment the trend was visible.
- Applies the advice-to-a-friend test honestly.
- Ends with a specific trial-and-quit plan.
- Choosing a selection results in a full page refresh.
- Opens in a new window.