SCRIPT CHECK · 60 SECONDS
Five quick questions show how often it appears, how believable it feels, and what it makes you avoid. You’ll get one private next step.
This is not a diagnosis and there is no pass or fail. It measures the current frequency, credibility, and behavioral cost of “I can’t leave after four years — it would all be wasted”, including the private rule underneath it: The years I've already spent are proof that I must continue, because if I leave, those years become meaningless. Continuing is the only evidence that they were worth something. Therefore, the past controls the future.
QUIET
“I can’t leave after four years — it would all be wasted” appears, but it rarely gets the final say. Keep this line available for higher-pressure moments: “Four years are mine either way. Only the next choice is actually mine to make.”
PRESENT
“I can’t leave after four years — it would all be wasted” wins some small decisions before you catch it. Your useful interruption is: “If I stay to justify what's gone, I'm using the future to cover the past—that's the real waste.”
ACTIVE
“I can’t leave after four years — it would all be wasted” is shaping action often enough to deserve a deliberate counterexample. Start privately and concretely: Write down one specific cost of staying (not finishing, but staying as you are now) and one specific gain of leaving. Read both without deciding anything. Notice whether the math changes.
DOMINANT
Right now, “I can’t leave after four years — it would all be wasted” is steering many of the moments you measured. That is a pattern reading, not a diagnosis or character verdict. Begin with one reversible receipt: Write down one specific cost of staying (not finishing, but staying as you are now) and one specific gain of leaving. Read both without deciding anything. Notice whether the math changes.