Maximizing efficiency and optimizing our lives can come at a cost. In the past, psychologist and economist Herb Simon drew a distinction between maximizing and satisficing. Maximizing involves seeking the absolute best, while satisficing means being content with what is good enough. Simon argued that while maximizing may not be logically flawed, it places excessive demands on us. Given the plethora of choices in the modern world, we could spend our entire lives searching for the finest seagulls and end up famished. Simon recognized that our cognitive resources are limited, but he suggested that we can still strive for what is good enough and appreciate unexpected improvements. Maximizers, who constantly raise their standards, tend to achieve better outcomes objectively but experience greater dissatisfaction subjectively. They leave no room for pleasant surprises. On the other hand, satisficers, who are content with meeting minimum standards, generally feel happier with their decisions. This prompts us to ponder: is it preferable to objectively perform better and subjectively feel worse, or to subjectively feel better but objectively perform worse? Ultimately, how we perceive our decisions is just as crucial as their objective quality.(Time 0:08:37)