Apply reverse sunk-cost thinking to existing commitments

Ask "Would I commit to this today, knowing what I know now?" for every ongoing obligation.

Why it works

Sunk-cost bias causes people to continue bad investments because of what has already been spent (time, money, identity). Essentialism applies the correction not just to new decisions but to the standing pile of commitments already on the calendar. The reversal question — "if I weren’t already in this, would I choose it?" — breaks the prior-investment frame and evaluates each commitment on its current and future value only.

How to do it

1. List your current standing commitments (committees, projects, social obligations).
2. For each, ask: "If someone proposed this to me today, with no history, would I accept?"
3. If the answer is no, plan an exit — even a slow one is better than indefinite continuation.

Evidence

Sunk-cost effects are among the most reliably replicated findings in behavioral economics. The counterfactual question ("would I choose this fresh?") is a standard debiasing technique in decision-quality frameworks. (observational)

Sources

• Arkes & Blumer (1985), "The Psychology of Sunk Cost," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Common mistake

Reviewing only big commitments and ignoring the small recurring ones — the small ones are often the largest aggregate drain on time.