Kamala Harris, target of maximizers

In the psychology field, there is a concept known as being a “satisficer” versus being a “maximizer”. According to The Balanced WorkLife Company, a satisfier (we’re going to use this spelling because it’s much more common) is someone whose:

satisfaction is judged by meeting the standards they have in place. To them time and energy is considered a waste if there is a reasonable option ready for the taking. Satisfi[]ers don’t necessarily have low standards; they can be super picky or want the top brand.

In contrast, according to the company:

Maximizers are satisfied by researching as many options as they can. They sacrifice time and effort into learning as much about the “offer” as possible. They consider all the variations, advantages, and weaknesses. When the decision is final, they then compare it to the choices those around them made. The question on the maximizer’s mind is “Is there something better out there?”

In simple terms, we like to think about satisfiers as choosing among the readily available options, and being happy with their best choice, even if they know it’s not perfect. Maximizers, on the other hand, are more like perfectionists, who obsess over every detail, and need everything to be just right. As one can imagine, such perfection is almost never achieved, and as a result, according to the book The Paradox of Choice, as cited by The Balanced WorkLife Company, “maximizers experience significantly less life satisfaction, happiness, optimism, and self-esteem.”