Thank you for this - I particularly appreciate your analogy about subscribing/unsubscribing.
A counterbalance is noting that some experiences are very much not sunk costs. I like how Oliver Burkeman puts this: "To experience the profound mutual understanding of the long-married couple, you have to stay married to one person; to know what it’s like to be deeply rooted in a particular community and place, you have to stop moving around. Those are the kinds of meaningful and singular accomplishments that just take the time they take." (Four Thousand Weeks)
For me, my most important act of quitting has been the decision to depart from the collective hunt for career and status. I have found myself a very simple 30h-per-week job with zero pressure and plenty of downtime where I can read and write about whatever I want during my work hours. I feel this is the best work-life balance I have ever achieved in my life.
Hi, Nick! Greetings from Berlin, Germany! From 4pm to 10pm, I work as a bartender in a very beautiful hotel in the city center. On most days, I have less than 10 guests coming by. I have just completed my probation period of five months! Good luck and best wishes to all of you who would like to find a similar “dream job” that pays the bills and leaves time for reading and writing!
Perhaps you do not wish to have kids, in which case this sounds great. But I'm guessing this doesn't pay enough to raise a family, right? Or is the social welfare system in Germany good enough that it doesn't even matter?
Right, I have only a four-legged "kid". I don't receive social welfare at the moment — I did in the past when I had just moved back from China in 2021. I can get by because I don't need a car as Berlin's public transport still works well enough, and I live in a 40sqm studio at the edge of the city! So yes, my way of life is very simple. Cheers^^^
This article seems off in an interesting way. I think there is good content here, but I think this piece could hit much harder and refine the gold way more, but it was initially hard to put a finger on why, so I tried to pin it down and write it out. I think there are concrete relevant points in there, and the article does have so many good ideas! Also, you seem like someone who is unusually good at taking feedback :) so here we go:
Most writing I really connect with has a clear delineation between setup and punchline. It says a bunch of unsurprising or scene-setting things, brings together the relevant pieces, and then points to one sharp, slightly unusual interaction or angle. There’s space to elaborate on that punchline, explore different analogies, or apply it in different contexts, but the central idea is crisp and unmistakable. Of course there can be multiple related ones, but each one represents a center of gravity for the text around which these other components orient.
Here, I feel like the piece is trying to gesture toward the idea of quitting from many different angles at once, without ever fully committing to one clear punchline to the point of transporting a relevant insight. This works beautifully when the goal is to introduce a new concept, term, or mental model, some of my favourite articles are like that. But here, the concept is already somewhat familiar and surface level obvious, so I think the lack of single, precise “this is the takeaway” moments make the piece feel less focused than it could be.
A few specific observations:
Feels like a draft with good sentences rather than a piece with an argument.
There are plenty of strong individual lines and interesting insights, but they often feel more like waving in a direction and less like a clear pointed finger.
No anchoring moment of specificity.
The analogies make sense in outline, but they stay abstract. I never get a vivid, concrete moment that makes the insight tactile. A single well-chosen story or scene to relate things back to could do a lot to cohere-fy the gestalt of the article.
Risk of “concept smudge.”
At various points, the piece could be read as making different claims: that quitting is underrated, that quitting is a skill, that quitting is situational, that quitting is hard but worth it. All are true, but without choosing one to be the central claim (at least for the corresponding subsection or paragraph), the argument feels diffuse.
On the poker analogy: The insight behind it is sound, and I can follow it because I can reconstruct the intended point from my own understanding. But if I didn’t already get the logic, I’m not sure the analogy alone would make it clear. It might be an audience-familiarity issue, but my sense is the explanation just isn’t doing the heavy lifting yet.
On the stable job example: Similar issue. I can see two or three interesting insights embedded in that section, but even after reading, I’m not entirely sure which one you intended as the core, which points to me mostly supplying the insight and constructing the connection backwards.
Overall shape: It reads less like “this thing needed to be written” and more like “this topic should be written about.” You are writing a book, so maybe it was even precisely like that, needing this to complete a larger pattern. It's hard to judge it for that context, a book is not a collection of substack articles. Actually, if a later chapter in a book is a good substack article, it's not taking advantage of the established common ground, vocabulary, and assumptions. But even given that, the article doesn't really seem to have that problem, having a more meandering structure could be fine when a chapter is about solidifying what came before, but this one does contain the main idea.
Ok, now I've spent way more time thinking about this post than intended and keep having even more thoughts about it. But I'll leave it here, I think those are the most directly relevant things to contribute for an unrequested feedback :) the rest are more substantial like what other point I would have wanted to make, up to whole rewrite ideas.
At some point I noticed I never quit a book in the middle. I’d just grit through for .. not sure why. I don’t know the correct ratio but If you aren’t quitting 10+ percent of your books you are either a gifted book selector or too hesitant to cut your losses
I've noticed that I have a tendency to both stick with things that I really should quit for far too long, *and* quit things too early when I really should stick it out.
I shudder to think how much better my life might be if those traits were reversed... 😂
This is kind of, just a little bit, the flip side to "tying yourself to the mast". The more you tie yourself to the mast, the harder it is to quit. So I guess the overall advice is "go through a process to be certain that you want to tie yourself to those masts, adn do the knots up pretty tight, but not, like, as tight as possible".
The information density of your writing is astounding. I feel like I’ve swallowed a pill, and then am sated for the rest of the day. Thank you so much for sharing your worldview!
This is such a fantastic framing of the sunken cost fallacy.
I think this is why we’re only able to see break-ups as a net positive once life has transitioned sufficiently to clear the fog of past habitual comforts.
I saw your note about this receiving criticism. I think it's overall a good primer and loss aversion. The framework around recognizing everything as a choice and choosing to resubscribe is powerful. My only quibble would be around applying this framework to relationships, or at least with the framing in the piece. There's something about longevity and commitment in relationships that produces incredible value, regardless of everything else. There are always negative examples of this as well but I think a lot of people, sadly, have no framework for the positive version. It is a much greater problem that few people have decades long friendships than that they maintained an acquaintance for too many months, etc.
The emphasis on "strategy" relative to "quitting" isn't usually what it needs to be. Thus, quitting is comprehended as a failure when it is just one of the many strategies to win.
ps: It's ironic that right before reading this wonderful piece, I was reading Think And Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill. And a part of me was literally irking at the unending obsession with "Never quit!" Haha. The irk went away after reading your piece, Cate. Because THIS presents the whole picture, instead of a polarizing belief. Thank you.
Four years ago, circumstances conspired to thrust me out of the woods of New Hampshire to move to Wilmington, DE, with only a week's notice. I ended up doing a smaller move two years later, this time to Main Line Philly. It was insane at first - not one friend, no knowledge of the area, all my belongings still in a Vermont barn. But I'm really happy with it all now. Sometimes a forced quit is a blessing.
I made up this saying years ago that basically translates to "a great poker player is capable of folding even at the very last chance". I did because I recurrently found myself trying to tell friends who had invested a lot into something that it was still better to quit then, with some chips left, if they had found a better path - be it in work, relationships, or anything. I also tried to tell such friends that they had surely gained some experience along the way, so the 90% wasn’t wasted, which is likely where the poker metaphor no longer worked. Truth be told, I’ve never played much poker at all, so why to make up a poker saying in the first place remains a mystery.
Thank you for this - I particularly appreciate your analogy about subscribing/unsubscribing.
A counterbalance is noting that some experiences are very much not sunk costs. I like how Oliver Burkeman puts this: "To experience the profound mutual understanding of the long-married couple, you have to stay married to one person; to know what it’s like to be deeply rooted in a particular community and place, you have to stop moving around. Those are the kinds of meaningful and singular accomplishments that just take the time they take." (Four Thousand Weeks)
For me, my most important act of quitting has been the decision to depart from the collective hunt for career and status. I have found myself a very simple 30h-per-week job with zero pressure and plenty of downtime where I can read and write about whatever I want during my work hours. I feel this is the best work-life balance I have ever achieved in my life.
Please tell us more. What job?
Hi, Nick! Greetings from Berlin, Germany! From 4pm to 10pm, I work as a bartender in a very beautiful hotel in the city center. On most days, I have less than 10 guests coming by. I have just completed my probation period of five months! Good luck and best wishes to all of you who would like to find a similar “dream job” that pays the bills and leaves time for reading and writing!
Perhaps you do not wish to have kids, in which case this sounds great. But I'm guessing this doesn't pay enough to raise a family, right? Or is the social welfare system in Germany good enough that it doesn't even matter?
Right, I have only a four-legged "kid". I don't receive social welfare at the moment — I did in the past when I had just moved back from China in 2021. I can get by because I don't need a car as Berlin's public transport still works well enough, and I live in a 40sqm studio at the edge of the city! So yes, my way of life is very simple. Cheers^^^
😂 Yes, where can we apply?
This article seems off in an interesting way. I think there is good content here, but I think this piece could hit much harder and refine the gold way more, but it was initially hard to put a finger on why, so I tried to pin it down and write it out. I think there are concrete relevant points in there, and the article does have so many good ideas! Also, you seem like someone who is unusually good at taking feedback :) so here we go:
Most writing I really connect with has a clear delineation between setup and punchline. It says a bunch of unsurprising or scene-setting things, brings together the relevant pieces, and then points to one sharp, slightly unusual interaction or angle. There’s space to elaborate on that punchline, explore different analogies, or apply it in different contexts, but the central idea is crisp and unmistakable. Of course there can be multiple related ones, but each one represents a center of gravity for the text around which these other components orient.
Here, I feel like the piece is trying to gesture toward the idea of quitting from many different angles at once, without ever fully committing to one clear punchline to the point of transporting a relevant insight. This works beautifully when the goal is to introduce a new concept, term, or mental model, some of my favourite articles are like that. But here, the concept is already somewhat familiar and surface level obvious, so I think the lack of single, precise “this is the takeaway” moments make the piece feel less focused than it could be.
A few specific observations:
Feels like a draft with good sentences rather than a piece with an argument.
There are plenty of strong individual lines and interesting insights, but they often feel more like waving in a direction and less like a clear pointed finger.
No anchoring moment of specificity.
The analogies make sense in outline, but they stay abstract. I never get a vivid, concrete moment that makes the insight tactile. A single well-chosen story or scene to relate things back to could do a lot to cohere-fy the gestalt of the article.
Risk of “concept smudge.”
At various points, the piece could be read as making different claims: that quitting is underrated, that quitting is a skill, that quitting is situational, that quitting is hard but worth it. All are true, but without choosing one to be the central claim (at least for the corresponding subsection or paragraph), the argument feels diffuse.
On the poker analogy: The insight behind it is sound, and I can follow it because I can reconstruct the intended point from my own understanding. But if I didn’t already get the logic, I’m not sure the analogy alone would make it clear. It might be an audience-familiarity issue, but my sense is the explanation just isn’t doing the heavy lifting yet.
On the stable job example: Similar issue. I can see two or three interesting insights embedded in that section, but even after reading, I’m not entirely sure which one you intended as the core, which points to me mostly supplying the insight and constructing the connection backwards.
Overall shape: It reads less like “this thing needed to be written” and more like “this topic should be written about.” You are writing a book, so maybe it was even precisely like that, needing this to complete a larger pattern. It's hard to judge it for that context, a book is not a collection of substack articles. Actually, if a later chapter in a book is a good substack article, it's not taking advantage of the established common ground, vocabulary, and assumptions. But even given that, the article doesn't really seem to have that problem, having a more meandering structure could be fine when a chapter is about solidifying what came before, but this one does contain the main idea.
Ok, now I've spent way more time thinking about this post than intended and keep having even more thoughts about it. But I'll leave it here, I think those are the most directly relevant things to contribute for an unrequested feedback :) the rest are more substantial like what other point I would have wanted to make, up to whole rewrite ideas.
thanks for the feedback :) you sound like you have editing experience
Not professionally, but I have done a good bit of it. Why, looking for a volunteer? :)
At some point I noticed I never quit a book in the middle. I’d just grit through for .. not sure why. I don’t know the correct ratio but If you aren’t quitting 10+ percent of your books you are either a gifted book selector or too hesitant to cut your losses
I should probably stop reading your posts right before sinking into a day of work at a job that I've groused about for years. Today's gonna be weird.
I've noticed that I have a tendency to both stick with things that I really should quit for far too long, *and* quit things too early when I really should stick it out.
I shudder to think how much better my life might be if those traits were reversed... 😂
This concept is explored beautifully in Annie Duke’s wonderful book Quit - she also comes from a poker background so has similar analogies!
I haven't read it yet, but I intend to!
This is kind of, just a little bit, the flip side to "tying yourself to the mast". The more you tie yourself to the mast, the harder it is to quit. So I guess the overall advice is "go through a process to be certain that you want to tie yourself to those masts, adn do the knots up pretty tight, but not, like, as tight as possible".
oh what a great point haha
The information density of your writing is astounding. I feel like I’ve swallowed a pill, and then am sated for the rest of the day. Thank you so much for sharing your worldview!
what a wonderful message to receive!
This is such a fantastic framing of the sunken cost fallacy.
I think this is why we’re only able to see break-ups as a net positive once life has transitioned sufficiently to clear the fog of past habitual comforts.
I saw your note about this receiving criticism. I think it's overall a good primer and loss aversion. The framework around recognizing everything as a choice and choosing to resubscribe is powerful. My only quibble would be around applying this framework to relationships, or at least with the framing in the piece. There's something about longevity and commitment in relationships that produces incredible value, regardless of everything else. There are always negative examples of this as well but I think a lot of people, sadly, have no framework for the positive version. It is a much greater problem that few people have decades long friendships than that they maintained an acquaintance for too many months, etc.
Personally I think the biggest thing is when your identity is wrapped up in your choices - if something fails -> you are a failure.
Memento mori and visualizing failure have worked wonders for me.
Quitting is a strategy.
The emphasis on "strategy" relative to "quitting" isn't usually what it needs to be. Thus, quitting is comprehended as a failure when it is just one of the many strategies to win.
ps: It's ironic that right before reading this wonderful piece, I was reading Think And Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill. And a part of me was literally irking at the unending obsession with "Never quit!" Haha. The irk went away after reading your piece, Cate. Because THIS presents the whole picture, instead of a polarizing belief. Thank you.
Four years ago, circumstances conspired to thrust me out of the woods of New Hampshire to move to Wilmington, DE, with only a week's notice. I ended up doing a smaller move two years later, this time to Main Line Philly. It was insane at first - not one friend, no knowledge of the area, all my belongings still in a Vermont barn. But I'm really happy with it all now. Sometimes a forced quit is a blessing.
I made up this saying years ago that basically translates to "a great poker player is capable of folding even at the very last chance". I did because I recurrently found myself trying to tell friends who had invested a lot into something that it was still better to quit then, with some chips left, if they had found a better path - be it in work, relationships, or anything. I also tried to tell such friends that they had surely gained some experience along the way, so the 90% wasn’t wasted, which is likely where the poker metaphor no longer worked. Truth be told, I’ve never played much poker at all, so why to make up a poker saying in the first place remains a mystery.
Dear Cate,
Great piece!
I love this: "Once you realize you’re choosing something, you regain the ability to un-choose it."
It reminds me of something I heard long ago that "no choice is also a choice."
Thank you for choosing to share as always!
Love
Myq