The premise is that decision-makers who do not engage in severe mental gymnastics actually make better decisions.
Consider the "take the best" heuristic. "Take the best" means that you reason and calculate only as much as you absolutely have to; then you stop and do something else. So, for example, if there are 10 pieces of information that you might weigh in a thorough decision, but one piece of information is clearly more important than the others, then that one piece of information is often enough to make a choice. You don't need the rest; other details just complicate things and waste time.
The distinction between the two types is described this way:
Gigerenzer calls such decision making "satisficing," as in "satisfying" enough to "suffice." Satisficers don't feel the need to know everything, in contrast to "maximizers," who do want to weigh every detail imaginable in making even minor life decisions. Interestingly, studies have found that satisficers are more optimistic about life, have higher self-esteem, and are generally happier than maximizers.
I think I've nailed down the big difference between DH and me. I would be really interested to know what impact gender has on being a satisficer versus a maximizer.
6 comments:
WOW- thanks for sharing that Article with me. That is VERY interesting
Um. I can TOTALLY relate to this article. Wow....Ill have to show this to Mook!
Ditto that.
Very interesting. Before all this IF crap I was definitely a statisficer but not so much anymore.
thanks for sharing
I find that I am not consistent in anything - even my decision making. Seems to me it is the decision that has to be made that determines how I make it!
I would definitely fall in the 's' category, my hubby is an 'm' through and through.
Geez, he can't even get dressed in a hurry.....
J
Post a Comment