Continuing past the point where others stop is claimed to be what separates those who succeed from those who do not.
The principle cannot fail a test, because the test is applied only to outcomes. Persistence that produced success is persistence; persistence that produced ruin is stubbornness, and the label is applied afterwards. What is genuinely known is that the decision to continue should turn on new information rather than on prior investment, which is the opposite emphasis.
In practice
- A business that survived by continuing and one that failed by continuing made the same decision.
- A researcher who spent nine years on a dead end is described as persistent only if the tenth year worked.
- Possible explanations
- The explanation offered is that most people stop before the point at which effort pays, so continuing past it is what separates outcomes. What research supports is narrower: persistence helps where the strategy is sound and feedback is slow.
- In its favour
- Persistence does predict completion in settings where the route is known and the main obstacle is effort, such as training programmes.
- Against it
- As stated it cannot be tested, since anyone who persisted and failed is reclassified as not having persisted enough, and it says nothing about when persistence becomes the sunk cost fallacy.
- Standing
- Testimonial evidence selected on success, with no comparison group. As stated it cannot be tested, since anyone who persisted and failed is reclassified as not having persisted enough. Compare the sunk cost fallacy, which describes the same behaviour when it is wrong.
- Subject
- Creativity & Work
- Essay
- The success literature and its sceptics