Spotting the Sunk Cost in Disguise

Opens with a concrete scenario: you bought a $400 concert ticket, now you're sick, and the resale value is $80. The slide frames the driving question without naming the concept yet.

• Frame the setup: pre-paid cost vs. current choice
• Surface the gut pull to 'not waste it'
• Ask: how would you even know if that pull is warping you?

A single multiple-choice question: in the $400 concert scenario, what's the strongest sign that a sunk cost is secretly driving your decision? The learner commits before seeing the evidence.

• One independent choice
• Tests naive intuition: emotion vs. logic vs. framing

An interactive comparison where the learner flips through two parallel stories (a freelancer's project, a learner's certification course) and drags a label onto each one: 'Future-Value Decision' or 'Sunk Cost in Disguise'.

• See the pattern across different domains
• Notice the felt difference between the two
• Reveal the markers that distinguish them

Explains the mechanism: a sunk cost is secretly at work when the only justification is past investment, not future gain. Introduces the cleanest diagnostic — the 'start from zero' question — and why the brain resists it.

• Future value vs. past investment as decision inputs
• The start-from-zero thought experiment
• Why the question feels unfair but is accurate

A second interactive where the learner applies the start-from-zero test to four short scenarios (relationship, project, subscription, course) and gets immediate feedback on whether the test exposes a hidden sunk cost.

• Practice the diagnostic on varied contexts
• See where the test is decisive vs. ambiguous

Boundary case: persistence itself isn't always a sunk cost. A learning curve, a relationship in a hard season, or a long-term investment can still have positive future value. The test works only if you apply it honestly, not rhetorically.

• Effort and duration ≠ sunk cost on their own
• The danger of using the test as a self-justifying weapon
• Re-check: are you answering, or arguing?

Transfers the idea to a new, mildly pressured situation: the learner picks one current choice they're facing and runs the start-from-zero test on it in writing, then checks the result against a short list of red-flag signals (guilt, identity, 'I already…').

• Apply to a personal, not hypothetical, decision
• Match the test against guilt- and identity-based signals
• Surface the specific signal that was hiding

Resolves the driving question directly: a sunk cost is secretly at work when the only reason to continue is what you've already invested — and you can recognize it by running the start-from-zero test and watching for guilt, identity, and 'I already…' language as the dominant justifications.

• Direct answer to the driving question
• A compact, repeatable checklist
• Closing reframe: not willpower — legibility