On Finishing Things

[theanimal]

From the Atlas Shrugged thread..

On the other hand, just because you start reading a book doesn't mean you have to finish it. Or can't come back to it later.

....

I have a problem with this myself. It actually applies to a book I'm about two-thirds of the way into now, just having trouble with the idea of not finishing it..

This applies to so many things in life. We are inculcated from the beginning to "finish what we start", and sometimes people wrongly equate that idea to be a moral virtue in and unto itself. For lots of people in the world, yes, they do need to learn to finish what they start if they have that problem of never getting anything done. For most of us, though, myself included, at some point this mantra just became one of those "foolish consistencies" that Emerson warned could be the hobgoblin of our little minds if we let it.

To ALWAYS finish what we start just because we started it means we probably aren't thinking too hard in the middle about whether we might be wasting our time with something that turned out to be not as valuable as we thought it might be when we started. It becomes more of a sign of inflexibility than one of virtue.

Like finishing that PhD that we don't really want anymore. Or sticking with that job that one hates just because we started in that field. Or even more seriously, insisting on finishing a physically strenuous event that could kill or maim us. Finishing is often overvalued and overly romanticized, especially in fiction and news stories. Surviving to have another go at it (or not) is undervalued.

How does one decide if something is worth finishing or not after already beginning? Aren't some things worth persevering through even though they might not be ultimately satisfying or rewarding in the present moment? Where does one draw the line?

[jacob]

I draw it at the point where I've been complaining loudly and daily about the activity for 12 months.

[Ricky]

I think it's pretty simple really...

Either
a. It becomes unprofitable or unaffordable.
b. It becomes dull, boring, unfulfilling.

(Assuming you started said activity/project to make money or to do what you love. I think these reasons encompass any project really: ie, why finish a PhD if it's both something you dislike and don't plan to earn money at?)

If the latter part of "a" happens at any point, then there is no debate.

In the case of "b", if it was worth revisiting then you likely will.

[Dragline]

I don't think there's any quick and easy answer, because there are so many variables. And of course, many obstacles are worth persevering through. But this is more about re-evaluating goals as we move through life.

Often it goes back to purpose. Ask yourself, what was the purpose of starting this activity? Does it still matter to me? Does it still matter to anyone? Has it been superseded by another purpose or goal that I didn't have at the start? Is this activity now conflicting with other more important goals (like staying alive in some circumstances)? Has the purpose of this been effectively fulfilled -- or fulfilled enough -- by coming this far? And is the effort I estimate that I have yet to put in still worth it? (Often we underestimate the total time and effort required at the beginning of something).

The last question also gets at the time element. You've often heard people say "Don't throw good money after bad," and its generally good advice. But you seldom hear it said "Don't waste your future time on what turned out to be time not-well-spent in the past." Yet time is really your most limited resource, not money. So I think the sentiment should apply even more so in the latter case.

What I want to get away from is the idea that the act of "finishing" necessarily makes you a better or more virtuous person and if you don't, you automatically become worse or less virtuous by definition. I think that's a debilitating idea that creeps into many lives and keeps people unhappily tied to things they'd honestly rather not be doing, pursuing goals they no longer care about or that were set for them by someone else.

[jacob]

This question is a little bit like asking "where should I set my stop loss for maximum profit". Setbacks should be given more chances/time the harder the project is in case the project might turn around again. Corollary, thou shalt not engage in a project which has maximum draw downs that are larger than you can stomach.

The virtue in follow-through is a subtle way of encouraging people to take on bigger projects than their carpe-diem selves might otherwise do.

No pain, no gain. If it's easy, it ain't worth having.

[Tyler9000]

Pain for gain is fine if the gain outweighs the pain.

Fundamentally every decision has an aspect of economics, even if the currency is measured in something other than money (time, happiness, health, etc.). When the return on an activity is outweighed by the costs, the incentives are upside-down and it makes sense to move on. Or at the very least, set the task aside until something changes in the equation.

[skintstudent]

The virtue in follow-through is a subtle way of encouraging people to take on bigger projects than their carpe-diem selves might otherwise do.

No pain, no gain. If it's easy, it ain't worth having.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The "no pain, no gain" saying is frequently used to get people to do things that are not really in their best interests, by attempting to raise the pain part to the status of a virtue. There are plenty of things that are easy (not painful) that are well worth having.

The question here is not one of motivation to start something, but how to reevaluate it once started.

When deciding whether to complete a task many things come into question. These include:
1. What are the costs of completing it,
2. What are the rewards for completing it,
3. What are the costs of NOT completing it.
The one thing that really should't be considered, is probably the most often quoted - "the amont of time/money already invested".

[jacob]

Well, something like breathable air is well worth having and easy to get (still). I was not suggesting that pain causes gain but that pain (physical, monetary, patience, effort, ...) frequently acts as a barrier to gain. Before taking on a project, the maximum barrier must thus be estimated first to avoid "getting stopped out".

Someone who has a low threshold is likely to give up at the first hint of trouble and will waste a lot of effort getting nowhere. Trite idioms like no pain, no gain can serve as a remember to not waste time on giving up too easily.

A big problem with many things is that while the rewards for completion are fairly well known, the costs aren't. For example, it is hard to know whether a creative (original discovery) project will take 6 months or 18 months. In particular in such cases, sunk costs aren't actually entirely sunk. Imagine you're inventing the light bulb. You may have to discover 999 ways that don't work before you discover the one that does work. 500 null results have value because it suggests that you're likely this much closer. Hence the further you go, the greater the likelihood of the reward. This is what makes it hard to give up if you're pretty far into the project. The cost is essentially not sunk until the project is abandoned because it makes the remaining cost of the reward that much lower.

Another example would be in climbing a mountain. If you're 10 meters from the top and don't feel like climbing anymore would you be more/less/same inclined to give up compared to still being at the foot of the mountain? What if you don't know exactly how high the mountain is except for a general idea? Still, you can subtract the distance you already climbed. It's not sunk.

Of course it IS sunk if you discover that you have been working in the wrong direction (climbing the wrong mountain). Often figuring this out is non-trivial too.

[theanimal]

Appreciate everyone's insight. I was thinking more in line with Dragline. I don't assume anyone on this board is looking for the easy route in most scenarios.

Yes, you are going to face many setbacks in any worthy endeavor. But to continue with the mountain example..say you are close to the summit and the wind picks up or a storm rolls in. Would you continue? The logical answer utilizing risk assessment guidelines is no, yet many accidents/deaths happen each year because people decide to continue. Even though there is nothing wrong with turning back. They see the summit as the ultimate goal.

This is a relatively simple example. I think it becomes a lot more complex when the thing you are evaluating is a job, whether you should continue college/PHD etc. I like the ideas of considering purpose and length of time you have complained.

[jennypenny]

How do other people factor into the decision? Very little of what we do is in isolation. What if you were climbing with someone else and felt like quitting. Would you let the other person down? What if they wanted to quit but you didn't? Would you quit to stay together? Even in smaller issues like reading a book, if you're reading the book for a book club or book review, would you stop reading if you didn't like it?

For me, I don't have as much trouble assessing whether something is 'working for me' anymore and deciding to stop. I run into trouble quitting something if I think I'm affecting others with that decision. I do think there are circumstances where finishing something that isn't what you thought it would be is the right thing to do if you've made a commitment to others.

edit: I hate to generalize, but I wonder if worrying about letting people down by quitting might be more of a problem for women.

[skintstudent]

Before taking on a project, the maximum barrier must thus be estimated first to avoid "getting stopped out".

Someone who has a low threshold is likely to give up at the first hint of trouble and will waste a lot of effort getting nowhere. Trite idioms like no pain, no gain can serve as a remember to not waste time on giving up too easily.

I completely agree, however this refers to things you haven't started. It will reduce the likelyhood of getting into the situation where you have started something you later come to realise may not have been worth it. However as you point out...

A big problem with many things is that while the rewards for completion are fairly well known, the costs aren't.

I do however disagree with the following.

In particular in such cases, sunk costs aren't actually entirely sunk. Imagine you're inventing the light bulb. You may have to discover 999 ways that don't work before you discover the one that does work. 500 null results have value because it suggests that you're likely this much closer. Hence the further you go, the greater the likelihood of the reward. This is what makes it hard to give up if you're pretty far into the project. The cost is essentially not sunk until the project is abandoned because it makes the remaining cost of the reward that much lower.

Another example would be in climbing a mountain. If you're 10 meters from the top and don't feel like climbing anymore would you be more/less/same inclined to give up compared to still being at the foot of the mountain? What if you don't know exactly how high the mountain is except for a general idea? Still, you can subtract the distance you already climbed. It's not sunk.

I would argue that these costs are most definitely sunk. That is not to say that they have not provided value. In your mountain climbing example the effort to climb the, for example, 1490m to nearly get to the top has been expended. You may well have had a great day, enjoying the exercise and scenery, but you cannot recover that expended time and energy. Your decision on whether to continue the remaining 10m to the top will depend on what the reward of bagging a 1500m peak means to you. If it's an easy last 10m it may well be worth pushing yourself given that you valued climbing a 1500m hill enough to start it. You would be getting a 1500m peak for only 10m more effort. However...

But to continue with the mountain example..say you are close to the summit and the wind picks up or a storm rolls in. Would you continue? The logical answer utilizing risk assessment guidelines is no, yet many accidents/deaths happen each year because people decide to continue. Even though there is nothing wrong with turning back. They see the summit as the ultimate goal.

In this case you have to evaluate if the reward of a 1500m peak for a life-risking 10m climb is worth it. The previous 1490m doesn't make this last 10m any easier. I've made decisions both ways on the hills in these situations.

I think it becomes a lot more complex when the thing you are evaluating is a job, whether you should continue college/PHD etc. I like the ideas of considering purpose and length of time you have complained.

It does, but when you consider the purpose, you are evaluating the reward for continuing. Likewise the length of time you have complained gives an indication of the ongoing costs.

How do other people factor into the decision? Very little of what we do is in isolation. What if you were climbing with someone else and felt like quitting. Would you let the other person down? What if they wanted to quit but you didn't?

An excellent point. Going back to hill climbing examples, I've been in the situation where I had enjoyed the day so much that completing the original planned route was no longer important to me, but I was pretty confident I was capable of it. However, I was with two companions, one of whom was determined to continue (and was willing to go it alone) and another who had picked up a minor injury and did not feel able to continue. That was a really tricky day and the situation really reduced my enjoyment. I ended up with a compromise whereby I saw the injured person back to a safe part of the climb, from which they started to descend, then returned to keep the continuing party in sight while they went on. I didn't feel I could complete it myself as that would have meant leaving someone already injured on the hill alone (the routes down were different). I still think that the person who wanted to continue was being unreasonable and selfish. It put us all in an akward situation, creating risk where there needed have been any. They either didn't understand the risks, valued the next peak a lot more than I did or simply had to continue at all costs.

[Kalevipoeg]

Any Less Wrong readers here?

http://lesswrong.com/lw/at/sunk_cost_fallacy/

Their archives are definitely something I have trouble finishing... Interesting and often deep, but difficult to apply in practice - a bit like ERE?

[Ricky]

This is a relatively simple example. I think it becomes a lot more complex when the thing you are evaluating is a job, whether you should continue college/PHD etc. I like the ideas of considering purpose and length of time you have complained.

I would argue those scenarios are even more basic in scope.

Like I said, no matter how you shake it, it comes down to "is this worth my time"? Obviously there is no universal answer as you will have to use your own judgment or metrics to discover that, case by case.

When I say "unaffordable" or "unprofitable" I don't necessarily mean that in monetary terms. When you're expending more energy than the enjoyment you are receiving, it's unprofitable to your soul and mind. Even in said situation, you may keep going because you feel or know you will be profitable in the long run. If it's a project or activity that costs money and you've ran out of money for that project or activity (PhD, research, new job, etc.) then it's a no brainer that you can't continue. Obviously this extends to can I receive funds elsewhere, but like I said there is no point in including that as a "rule" since that will depend on the situation. In the PhD example, obvious avenues of sponsorship are grants and loans. A non-monetary example of unaffordability would be your health. If you have poor joints and weak bones, you can't afford to risk climbing Mount Everest. Again, the method for determining affordability will always differ from case to case.

Maybe you don't realize it but a lot of this boils down to psychology and efficient markets. People trade their time for things they think will benefit them or that they will get enjoyment out of, if only subconsciously.

Something like this shouldn't be overthought because it depends heavily on the situation, but I still stand by the fact that it goes back to something as simple as unprofitability.

[Dragline]

How do other people factor into the decision? Very little of what we do is in isolation. What if you were climbing with someone else and felt like quitting. Would you let the other person down? What if they wanted to quit but you didn't? Would you quit to stay together? Even in smaller issues like reading a book, if you're reading the book for a book club or book review, would you stop reading if you didn't like it?

For me, I don't have as much trouble assessing whether something is 'working for me' anymore and deciding to stop. I run into trouble quitting something if I think I'm affecting others with that decision. I do think there are circumstances where finishing something that isn't what you thought it would be is the right thing to do if you've made a commitment to others.

edit: I hate to generalize, but I wonder if worrying about letting people down by quitting might be more of a problem for women.

Yes, this is a consideration. But often if you just asked that other person, "Do you mind if I just stop this -- I really can't finish" -- they would say "ok, no problem". Sure if you did it all the time on a whim, they would become frustrated with you and think you're a flake, but not if its just once in awhile and for a good reason. So the question becomes -- what makes you afraid of asking? Often I think its a question of the false virtue of always insisting on finishing everything. Or a false assumption of what the other person really thinks.

Too many people walk through life trying to fulfill others' expectations without recognizing that the other might not care as much as you think if they have your best interests at heart.

This often comes up in parent/child dynamics and forms a classic but trite tale of a child who does not want to go into his parent's business but wants to be an artist or a baseball player or whatever.

[Dragline]

Maybe you don't realize it but a lot of this boils down to psychology and efficient markets. People trade their time for things they think will benefit them or that they will get enjoyment out of, if only subconsciously.

If only that were the case. I think decisions not made consciously (and even some conscious ones) are often just irrational extensions of what one did in the past or mindless adherence to the false virtue of completion for completion's sake.

Nothing else explains why humans repeatedly do the same stupid things over and over again or stick with experiences that make them unhappy.

As another aside, efficient markets implies perfect information, especially about your own future, including what your preferences will be in that future. That condition is rarely satisfied except in trivial or short-term matters.

[saving-10-years]

How do other people factor into the decision? Very little of what we do is in isolation. What if you were climbing with someone else and felt like quitting. Would you let the other person down? What if they wanted to quit but you didn't? Would you quit to stay together? Even in smaller issues like reading a book, if you're reading the book for a book club or book review, would you stop reading if you didn't like it?

Don't know if this helps but its what came to mind when I read this thread. I play chess (pretty badly but hope to improve) and when I am observing other (better) players and even my son (also better) they will reach a conclusion in a match or a friendly game not to continue. They 'know' that it will end as a draw and offer one and or they 'know' that their opponent will win. They end the game there and then. For me, who still is pretty ignorant at adding up the odds and who still sees chess as a mysterious 'well anything _could_ happen' exercise I tend to play on. Even in quite hopeless positions. Sometimes I can escape a really bad position (remember my opponent is likely to be pretty poor too). Some people will be quite dismissive that I did not just quit but want to see it through. I think its because I am gaining something from this exercise (learning about chess, or trying new things out), but for a more experienced player its okay to quit before the end. In fact quite the respected thing to do. You don't need to finish because you know how it will turn out.

Long way of saying that it can be the custom to quit and in fact the *right* decision for the others around you. Its considered "unaffordable" or "unprofitable" to finish in better chess circles. Maybe I will join them one day.

[jennypenny]

You don't need to finish because you know how it will turn out.

Long way of saying that it can be the custom to quit and in fact the *right* decision for the others around you. Its considered "unaffordable" or "unprofitable" to finish in better chess circles. Maybe I will join them one day.

Maybe this is why I see things differently. You (S10Y) won't learn anything if the other player pulls the plug as soon as they've calculated that they'll win. I understand why that is appropriate some of the time, but not all of the time.

This feels like some of the same objections I had on the Wheaton scale/communication thread and the Climate Change thread. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that seeing something through to the end is virtuous, but I do think that there is some inherent value in going through the motions, even if the value is only to someone else.

[Tyler9000]

Some people will be quite dismissive that I did not just quit but want to see it through. I think its because I am gaining something from this exercise (learning about chess, or trying new things out), but for a more experienced player its okay to quit before the end. In fact quite the respected thing to do. You don't need to finish because you know how it will turn out.

This reminds me of a recent discussion during the Olympics about whether the US hockey team quit once a gold medal was no longer possible (losing the game for bronze 5-0). IMHO, undertaking an activity solely to "win" implies that there is nothing to be learned or gained in losing. I personally find that mentality rather shallow.

[jennypenny]

Ignoring my derailment regarding other people ...

I still think quitting should be seen as a negative until proven positive for two reasons.

1. If people always assume they can opt out of things when their interests change or their enthusiasm wanes, it might keep them from pursuing the goal 100%. Pick a cliche here--having one foot out the door, Cortez burning the ships, sink or swim, etc.

2. Angela Duckworth's research on grit shows that success is not just dependent on intelligence, but also stamina. Finishing something that you don't want to finish might build your determination muscle so that it's stronger for the next task.

Duckworth ... The gritty individual approaches achievement as a marathon; his or her advantage is stamina. Whereas disappointment or boredom signals to others that it is time to change trajectory and cut losses, the gritty individual stays the course.

Full paper here ... http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~duckwort/imag ... 20JPSP.pdf

[Dragline]

Oh, yes, we should definitely learn that discipline -- I'm not saying we shouldn't and I wouldn't want my kids to just quit things willy-nilly. But I don't think that's an issue for most of the people in this crowd like it is for the public at large. A lot of things just aren't that hard or painful to complete. We've all run into people who spend more energy complaining about a task than they would if they just sat down and did it.

I think its more a matter of balance. So I tell my kids, yes, you joined that team and you need to complete the season, both because you need to give it a real chance and because you told people you would be there. But you don't have to do that again next season/year if you really don't enjoy it. There are other things you can do.

Whether something is "worth it" or not also depends a lot on whether enjoy the process. To someone who enjoys tinkering, playing around with electronics or mechanical parts might be fun, even if you don't ever invent anything useful. But if you considered yourself a failure if you didn't get a patent, it might not be such a great idea to work for years at something you really did not enjoy.

And you might enjoy biking or running or swimming, but finishing some particular race might turn out to be a bad idea if you were sick or hurt or the weather was really bad. Or maybe it was something you enjoyed 10 years ago but now you only do it out of habit.