Here is something that shows up in therapy more often than you might expect: a person who is objectively doing well — good job, good relationship, good life — who cannot stop wondering if something better is out there.
They are not ungrateful, exactly. They are haunted. By the apartment they did not rent, the job offer they turned down, the partner they might have met if they had stayed on the app a little longer. Every decision, once made, immediately generates a parallel universe in which a different choice led somewhere better.
This is not a character flaw. It is a well-documented cognitive style that psychologists call maximizing — and the research on it has a lot to say about anxiety, decision fatigue, and the specific kind of unhappiness that feels inexplicable precisely because everything is, by most measures, fine.
The Psychology of Maximizing
The concept comes from Nobel laureate Herbert Simon, who spent decades studying how humans actually make decisions. Simon observed that humans cannot truly evaluate all available options for most decisions — there are too many, our information is incomplete, and our minds are not built for it. Instead, we consider a manageable set of options, find one that meets our standard, and move on. He called this satisficing — a blend of "satisfy" and "suffice." The satisficer's standard is not "the best available" but "good enough for what I need."
Simon was a committed satisficer in his own life. He wore one brand of socks, ate the same breakfast every morning, lived in the same house for 46 years. These were deliberate choices to remove low-stakes decisions from his attention so that his cognitive resources remained available for the things that actually mattered.
The maximizer operates differently. The standard is not "good enough" but "the best." And because that standard is difficult to confirm — you can only know you found the best if you have exhausted all the others — the search tends to continue long past the point of diminishing returns.
What the Research Shows
Researchers developed a scale to measure where individuals fall on the spectrum between maximizer and satisficer. What they found was consistent: maximizing is associated with worse outcomes, not better ones.
Maximizers tend to be less satisfied with their decisions even when those decisions are objectively good.
They are more prone to regret, more likely to engage in social comparison, and less happy overall. They second-guess more. They ruminate more. The very process of trying to ensure the best outcome produces the psychological conditions that undermine satisfaction with whatever outcome they reach.
Satisficers do not have lower standards. They simply have standards that are achievable and confirmable. "Good enough for me" can be met. "The best" rarely is.
Why It Has Gotten So Much Worse
The sheer proliferation of options is part of it — one economist calculated that consumer options in modern economies exceed those of preindustrial societies by a factor of roughly 100 million. That extends into the most fundamental questions of identity: who to be, how to live, where to work, whom to love.
Social media added a specific and damaging layer: the infinite comparison engine. When you can see curated versions of other people's careers, relationships, and lives at all times, "good enough" begins to feel like settling. Research has found that simply having many options to compare makes people less satisfied with whatever they choose. The mere awareness that something else might be out there degrades the present moment.
Dating apps are the purest expression of this — a system architecturally designed to keep users wondering whether a better match exists beyond the next swipe. And AI now promises to optimize everything, which carries the hidden risk of expanding the menu of comparisons indefinitely, producing not better outcomes but more haunted ones.
What This Looks Like in the Therapy Room
The clinical presentation of maximizing rarely announces itself by name. It tends to look like this: a patient who made a good decision but cannot stop wondering if it was the right one. Someone in a solid relationship with a persistent background awareness that other options exist. A person who accepted a good job and immediately began scanning for signs they should have waited.
What is tricky is that maximizing feels like conscientiousness. It presents as due diligence. The person doing it is not sure they have permission to stop — because stopping before finding the best option feels like settling.
But the research is clear: the search itself is a cost. And most maximizers are not accounting for it.
Satisficing Is Not Lowering Your Standards
This is the point most people resist. Choosing "good enough" is not resignation or a failure of ambition. It is the recognition that there is a standard — your standard, based on what actually matters to you — and that when that standard is met, continued searching produces diminishing returns on outcomes and significant costs to wellbeing.
The question worth asking is not "is this the best?" but "is this good enough for what I actually need?" Those questions produce different psychological experiences. The first cannot, in most cases, be answered with confidence. The second can be.
A Practical Reframe
In clinical work, one of the most useful reframes for people caught in maximizing patterns is this: the goal is not to find the best option. The goal is to find a good option and then fully invest in it.
Research on relationship satisfaction bears this out. Couples who psychologically close the door on alternatives — rather than keeping it open — report higher satisfaction and stronger attachment. The act of committing, not the quality of the match itself, is a significant predictor of relationship wellbeing. Investment produces satisfaction. Continued search undermines it.
A few things that help in practice:
Clarify your actual criteria before you start searching. "The best" is not a criterion — it is an instruction to keep looking. Specific, confirmable criteria allow the search to stop.
Name the cost of continued searching. Time, attention, cognitive load, and eroding satisfaction with what you already have are real costs. Making them explicit counteracts the bias toward treating more searching as always worthwhile.
Practice committing. For chronic maximizers, closing options feels like loss. That discomfort is worth sitting with rather than immediately acting on — it is usually the sensation of commitment, not the sensation of a mistake.
The Deeper Stakes
There is a Haruki Murakami story in which a boy and girl meet on a street corner and immediately recognize they are perfect for each other. They talk for hours. Then doubt creeps in: if they are truly meant for each other, they reason, they can part and will inevitably find each other again. The boy walks west. The girl walks east. They were perfect for each other. Years later they pass on a street, memories faded. They never reconnect.
The tragedy is not that the right person was lost. It is that the search for certainty destroyed something that was already, right there, enough.
Many of the patients I work with who are caught in maximizing patterns are not missing something. They are standing inside a life that contains real good things, unable to settle into it because some part of their mind is still searching for confirmation that this is the right life.
That particular kind of suffering responds well to therapy. Not because therapy provides the certainty the maximizing mind is looking for, but because it helps people examine the standard they are holding themselves to, where it came from, and whether it is actually serving them.
Good enough, chosen consciously and invested in fully, is often where a life of real satisfaction begins.
Citations:
Iyengar, S. S., Wells, R. E., & Schwartz, B. (2006). Doing better but feeling worse: Looking for the "best" job undermines satisfaction. Psychological Science, 17(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01677.x
Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1178–1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1178
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769
Sparks, E. A., Ehrlinger, J., & Eibach, R. P. (2012). Failing to commit: Maximizers avoid commitment in a way that contributes to reduced satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.09.002