When Nobel Prize–winning economist and psychologist Herbert Simon initially introduced the idea of "satisficing" in the 1950s, he suggested that when all the costs {in time, money, and anguish} involved in getting information about all the options are factored in, satisficing is, in fact, the maximizing strategy.
In the 1950s, Herbert Simon, an esteemed economist and psychologist, put forth the concept of "satisficing," which emphasizes making decisions that satisfy adequate criteria rather than seeking the ultimate best choice. This approach recognizes that the resources required to evaluate all possible options can be overwhelming and burdensome. As such, choosing a satisfactory option can often be more beneficial than striving for perfection.
Barry Schwartz, in his book "The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less," expands on Simon's theory, highlighting the futility of trying to attain absolute satisfaction through endless choices. Schwartz argues that the time, effort, and emotional distress involved in comparing every possible option can lead to anxiety and dissatisfaction, thereby supporting the idea that satisficing—selecting a good enough option—might actually lead to greater overall fulfillment.
