Researchers have challenged the common motivational phrase about aiming high in life goals. Rather than pursuing unrealistic targets, a mathematical model indicates that setting sights modestly above average often produces superior outcomes. While less inspiring than calls for maximum effort, this approach appears more effective across various decisions, from salary negotiations and housing choices to parking spot selection or dating prospects.
Economist Matt Burgess from the University of Wyoming noted that the model supports everyday advice with key adjustments. People receive mixed guidance about avoiding both complacency and unattainable aims, yet the central finding shows optimal results typically arise from exceeding average performance without pursuing perfection.
The team developed the model after observing that fishing fleets achieved better results by halting searches once catches exceeded average levels. They tested whether similar logic applied more broadly. In the simulation, virtual agents search for rewards and maintain personal satisfaction thresholds, such as minimum salary expectations. Agents reject subpar offers and accept those meeting their standards.
By varying thresholds and reward distributions, researchers examined scenarios where high payoffs were scarce, like entrepreneurial success, versus common, like finding an engaging book. Optimal outcomes occurred when thresholds sat above average but not excessively high. Overly ambitious agents performed worse than equally under-ambitious ones, showing that excessive selectivity harms results more than leniency.
Greater ambition proved advantageous when rewards varied widely or when downside risks exceeded upside potential, relevant to housing markets or policies avoiding severe downturns. Another result highlighted problems with comparing oneself to selective social media portrayals, leading to chronic dissatisfaction and overlooked opportunities.
The study, published in Physical Review E, stresses understanding complete distributions of possibilities rather than curated highlights. Co-author Kath Landgren cautioned against overapplying the model to complex personal matters like relationships. While supporting some traditional views, the authors note real-world decisions involve greater complexity.
Commentator Peter Ayton from Leeds University Business School described the work as offering valuable perspective on ambition despite its simplifications, noting how subtle factors influence goal-setting and performance.
