Sunk costs; fear and faith

I came across this article in The Atlantic, How to Walk Away. It talks about sunk costs. The premise is essentially that you shouldn't make a decision to stick with something you no longer want/need/desire whatever just because you've already put effort/money/time or some other form of investment into this said thing.

Your investment has been spent. Suppose it doesn't offer the return you were hoping for. Do you dig in your heels and stick with it? Do you say "I've spent thousands of dollars and four years of my life preparing for a career that I hate. I have to stick with it or those years would have been a waste"? So then, you end up wasting decades more of your life in a career that you hate? Should you have walked away  four years in and called it a loss, opening those remaining 20-30 years for something better? Note: I believe there is learning value from all of our experiences so I wouldn't ever call any time spent in any experience a complete loss. But, I hope you get what I mean here. An economist would say you've given up the opportunity costs. Many experiences that might have been better, brought greater happiness, etc.

This was the quote from the article that jumped out at me; "As studies by behavioral economists like Daniel Kahnemen and Dan Ariely show, people are generally loss-averse. Putting in a lot, only to end up with nothing to show for it, is just too awful for most of us to seriously consider. The problem is one of focus. We worry far too much about what we'll lose if we just move on, instead of focusing on the costs of not moving on: more wasted time and effort, more unhappiness, and more missed opportunities."

This made SO MUCH SENSE. While I have no desire to leave my relationship at this point (well I guess I should clarify that I feel that way on most days when I'm not all triggered up), I do recognize that this may be where the road of addictions leads T and me at some point. That is SCARY stuff! It's scary because of  that one problem mentioned above, my focus. I might have to abandon my investment. I might have to leap out to the unknown. It would be risky to leave what I know, even if what I know isn't working for me and my family any more. Even if I would be continuing to (in case my blog is lacking in blatant cliches) throw good money after bad. It would be scary. I would be fearful. Fear. My focus would be fear. Fear, the antithesis of faith.

Again, I'm not thinking about separating or leaving at this point. But I appreciated this article because it made me realize that the whole decision is really about fear and faith. My focus needs to be in the right place. I need to be sure I'm staying in my marriage because I still believe I'm making a good investment. I still have hope that things can turn out well for our little family. If it ever comes to the point where I'm here simply out of fear, because I don't want to lose what I've already put in, despite the fact that I've discovered my investment isn't in fact, what I thought, that would be a problem.

My faith in Jesus Christ dictates that I believe whatever happens, I will be okay. My kids will be okay. T can choose to be okay. (I feel I've stolen that verb-age from someone else. Sounds familiar. Sorry if it was yours, just know I think you're super smart!) Right now, that faith is leading me to invest in my marriage with as much as I can safely give. But, I don't want to allow fear to force me into throwing "good money after bad" rather than cutting my losses and moving on should it come to that either.

The article ended with this statement, "When we see our goals in terms of what we can gain, rather than what we might lose, we are more likely to see a doomed endeavor for what it is." My marriage is not a doomed endeavor. I'm realizing that there is still potential for a great deal to be gained.