MentalPolyphonics
Smash monogamy.
Neo-classical economics assumes that people are rational agents: given a choice, they will always choose the option that maximizes utility (wealth, happiness, etc). And yet, as with most things in economics, actual observation shows this to be a poor model for reality. Instead of rationality, it turns out that “satisficing” is an excellent model: given a choice, people will choose an option that does a “good enough” job of maximizing utility.
I like to think of satisficing in terms of computational theory: people make choices using an algorithm that yields increasingly accurate answers the more computational resources are devoted to it; but the optimal answer would require huge resources, so a “good enough” answer must suffice.
I believe we not only satisfice when we’re making decisions but also when we implement them. The concept is closely related to “settling”. We constantly decide that what we have readily available is good enough, whether it’s paint colour or a mate.
Life has sparse survival decisions and many inconsequential decisions between essentially interchangable choices. Most of the interesting decisions in life are aesthetic choices and for these we consistently satisfice.
I’ve been wondering lately if satisficing increases stress? Is it frustrating to know that greater effort could achieve a more optimal answer? Do our brains’ decision processes dislike being halted before they complete? Life is a series of aesthetic choices and it pains us to make each one = life is suffering, the First Noble Truth.
I thought this set a good overview. Also: there is very little...
Jack
You can really run with that one. Aesthetic choices are bound up in desire. Desire is the cause of suffering, the Second Noble Truth.
Your Personal Brand | MentalPolyphonics
on July 4, 2009 at 12:52 am
[...] left to our own devices, most of the decisions we make are satisficing: choosing to do things that are good enough. You wear whatever’s clean, you watch whatever’s on, you do stuff because your friends [...]
MentalPolyphonics » Homework: Why Not Vote?
on March 31, 2010 at 9:55 am
[...] economic agents use heuristics to approximate solutions under bounded rationality (“satisficing”). For example, voters could use a loss aversion heuristic: the cost of living under a bad [...]