Satisficing
Set a good-enough bar, take the first option that clears it, and stop
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 82%
Satisficing, a term coined by Nobel laureate Herbert Simon by combining satisfy and suffice, means setting good-enough rules for decisions rather than exhaustively hunting the single best option. Simon argued humans cannot evaluate infinite options, cannot predict the consequences of their choices, and carry motivations beyond maximizing utility, so we should proactively satisfice wherever we can to preserve bandwidth for what matters. Barry Schwartz's maximization scale shows maximizers do not make demonstrably better decisions, yet spend far longer, feel more regret, and are less happy. The mechanism is simple: define a threshold up front, evaluate against it instead of against all alternatives, take the first option that clears it, then commit rather than keeping the door open. Because we are comparison engines, the mere possibility of a better option undermines satisfaction with what we have.
Origin
Coined by Nobel laureate Herbert Simon, who wore the same clothes and kept minimal possessions to preserve cognitive bandwidth, and developed further by psychologist Barry Schwartz through the maximization scale.
Core principles
- 01You cannot evaluate infinite options, so optimizing across all of them is a fantasy.
- 02Maximizers spend more time deciding, are more prone to regret, and are less happy with their choices.
- 03The cost of agonizing makes satisficing the real long-run maximizing strategy.
- 04Commitment and irreversibility protect you from regret.
- 05Setting decision rules preserves cognitive bandwidth for what matters most.
How to run it
- 1
Define good enough in advance
Before facing the options, decide the threshold a choice must meet. Simon told his daughter one only needs three sets of clothing: one on your back, one in the closet, one in the wash.
Pro tip Set the bar before you start browsing so the options themselves cannot inflate it.
- 2
Evaluate against the threshold, not the field
Judge each option only by whether it clears your bar, rather than ranking it against every alternative you could theoretically consider.
Watch out Comparing against the full field is what makes you a maximizer and reintroduces regret.
- 3
Take the first option that clears the bar
Once something is good enough, choose it and move on. Epstein ships his newsletter as soon as it reaches about a 6.5 out of 10, reserving 9-or-10 standards for his books.
Pro tip Reserve maximizing effort for the few domains that truly warrant it.
- 4
Commit and prefer irreversibility
People are more satisfied with irreversible decisions than reversible ones. Choosing to commit removes the escape hatch that fuels second-guessing.
Watch out Seeking reversibility to feel safe often leaves you less happy, not more.
- 5
Make the decision right
As Ellen Langer put it, do not make the right decision, make the decision and then make it right. Focus energy on what you do after choosing rather than agonizing beforehand.
In the wild
Simon wore the same socks, ate the same breakfast, and lived in the same house for 46 years, keeping just three sets of clothing. Far from low ambition, this proactive satisficing preserved his cognitive bandwidth for his work, and he won the Nobel Prize in economics, the Turing Award, and the top award in psychology.
→ Radical simplification of low-stakes choices freed capacity for the work that mattered most.
Epstein has maximizing tendencies and can feel paralyzed at anything short of a perfect book. To force himself to actually ship, he treats his free newsletter as a satisficing exercise: while a book must hit a nine or ten, he sends the newsletter out as soon as his own quality judgment reaches about a six and a half.
→ A deliberate good-enough bar lets him ship consistently instead of stalling.
Common mistakes
Chasing optionality as an end in itself
Preserving optionality can make sense early in a career, but when keeping options open becomes the goal, you never do the hard work of deciding and often sleepwalk into worse outcomes.
Agonizing on the front end
Because we cannot predict how choices will feel and cannot evaluate infinite options, front-loaded agonizing rarely improves the outcome and reliably increases regret.
Is it for you?
Best for
Anyone paralyzed by choice or perfectionism who needs to ship decisions and move on.
Not ideal for
Rare high-stakes, irreversible decisions where exhaustive analysis genuinely pays off.
From the transcript
“Satisfice is a term coined by this Nobel laureate Herbert Simon, that's a combination of satisfy and suffice. So it basically means setting good enough…”
“This is like Ellen Langer famously said, don't make the right decision, make the decision and then make it right.”
From the episode
Why You Feel Overwhelmed All The Time (and how to fix it) - David Epstein - #1121
David Epstein