I’ve been thinking about optimizing and “satisficing” in relation to my own life, with respect to certain decisions, and more generally. Why am i sometimes fine with x decision even though it’s not the “best”? Why am i sometimes not? Why is that some people seem to be explicitly optimizing for whatever thing, whereas some people aren’t?
As often construed, these are seen as two ways we engage in decision making. Supposedly, when we “optimize”, we pick the “best” decision and when we “satisfice” we merely pick the decision that is above some acceptable threshold, even if it’s not the “best”. A common way one might be acquainted with “satisficing” is through the thought that x decision is “good enough!“. The concept of “satisficing” certainly does justice to our own internal experience of at least some of our decision making and also comports with how we talk about it. The distinction between satisficing and optimizing also gives a neat explanation to the differences in observed decision making behavior surfaced by the questions above. The concept of “satisficing” and it’s distinction with “optimizing” takes on further significance when it enters the normative realm: there’s an implicit notion present in our culture that “optimizing” is a recipe for unhappiness, and therefore you shouldn’t do it; people with “optimizing” tendencies need to chill and just be satisfied, or they’ll hurt themselves in some way.
But the more i think about it, the more satisficing just seems like optimizing, merely dressed in different terminology. In fact, i think EVERYONE is ALWAYS optimizing and WE CAN’T STOP! Let’s explore this with an example. Let’s say there’s a very strange and unhygienic store that sells chips and lets you open any bag in the store and taste a chip from it. Two people walk in with the intention to buy chips. The first guy walks up and down every aisle, tasting every bag he can and finally settles on the tastiest one he finds. The second guy tastes only a few bags and settles on a decently tasty one, but he wouldn’t claim and have any knowledge of whether it’s the “tastiest”. It’s tempting to say, “oh the first guy is optimizing but the second guy isn’t, he’s..uhhh..oh yeah, satisficing!!”
But that doesn’t seem correct. Sure, It’s clear what outcome the first guy is optimizing for - taste - and he doesn’t seem to care about anything else. But isn’t the second guy also optimizing, but perhaps for something more complicated, such as some combination of taste, time, effort, and not getting sick? After all, if you asked him why he stopped searching, he might’ve said it “wasn’t worth it” or these chips “are good enough”, or “i don’t feel like walking more” or “i want to go back home already”, all hinting that continuing to taste chips isn’t “optimal” to him, but doing as he did was.
Moreover, how does one genuinely break out of this pattern of behavior? How does one do anything else? I think it’s trivially true that this is all we can do. In so far as our limbs are not being contorted and our minds aren’t being injected with thoughts that aren’t ours, WE are choosing to make the decisions we made and why did we choose the decision unless it’s in some way the optimal one according to our perception?
To be clear, i’m not saying that everyone makes the best/optimal decision, ALL things considered, and therefore has no reason to act differently. For example, someone who is obese and decides to continue overeating is optimizing. But they’re optimizing for the short term pleasure of food and avoiding the discomfort of exercising and a broader lifestyle change. If they stopped overeating, they would still be optimizing, except this time for their longer term health. So the question is not whether someone is optimizing or whether they should or shouldn’t be. We can’t help it, we always are! The question is the nature of the outcome we are optimizing for: what are the variables that make it up and their relative importance.
Relatedly, the difference between the decision-making process we label as “optimizing” and the one we don’t (i.e., “satisficing”) seems to be dependent on the complexity of the outcome being optimized for. If it’s a complex outcome based on the consideration of many different variables, then we don’t consider it “optimizing” - we might resort to calling it “satisficing”. Going back to the chips example, both guys were optimizing, though the second guy was optimizing for a more complex outcome that was a combination of not only taste, but also time, effort, and health (avoiding sickness). Whereas, the first guy was optimizing for a much simpler outcome with only one variable: taste. Such a simple outcome makes it easier to see that he’s doing some sort of conscious, intentional, more explicit/quantifiable optimizing, which may be why we more easily label it as optimizing.
Practical Relevance: being wary of “satisficing” behavior
A lot of my decision making is not as conscious or intentional as i’d like it to be and i think that “satisficing” decision-making can be the most suspect in this regard. It’s easy to resort to “good enough” as a heuristic to short-circuit further thinking. In such cases, the decision-making process can itself become one of the variables (in that i aim to shorten it) in the outcome i’m optimizing for; basically, it’s a meta way for me to be lazy lol.
Another issue that typical “satisficing” decision-making might be more prone to is hidden short-term biased thinking. Perhaps a decision is really only “good enough!” because i’m subconsciously weighing short-term discomfort and/or effort too much?