A new mathematical model challenges the motivational adage to "shoot for the moon," suggesting that aiming for merely above average often yields the best results. Researchers from the University of Wyoming, Stanford University, and the University of Colorado Boulder developed the model to explore how ambition influences success across various life scenarios, from job hunting and apartment searching to finding a parking spot or even dating.
The Mechanics of Ambition
Matt Burgess, an economist at the University of Wyoming, explained that the model provides a mathematical basis for conventional wisdom with important nuances. "We hear conflicting advice: don't settle, but don't chase the unachievable," he said. "Our core insight is that you're best off trying to do better than average, but not infinitely better." The research, published in Physical Review E, emerged from earlier work on fisheries, where boats performed best when they stopped searching after achieving higher-than-average catches.
In the model, agents represent individuals searching for a reward, each with a personal threshold. They reject offers below that threshold and accept those that meet it. Researchers varied the thresholds and the distribution of rewards to simulate different scenarios, such as rare high rewards (like becoming a billionaire) or common high rewards (like finding an interesting book).
Optimal Ambition: Above Average, Not Extreme
The key finding is that optimal satisfaction comes from setting the threshold above average, but not excessively so. Overambitious agents, with thresholds far above the mean, fared worse on average than underambitious agents by the same margin. In other words, being too hard to please is more detrimental than being too easy to please. However, when rewards are highly variable—like in a housing market with both dream homes and dilapidated properties—being more ambitious than average pays off. The same applies when negative extremes outweigh positive ones, such as in economic policies aiming for growth while avoiding deep recessions.
The Social Media Trap
The model also highlights the danger of judging success based on social media highlights. Agents with a distorted view of the world—seeing only the best outcomes—became chronically dissatisfied and missed achievable rewards. Co-author Kath Landgren, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford, emphasized the importance of understanding the full range of possibilities, not just the bragged-about successes.
Real-World Applications and Limitations
While the model supports conventional wisdom, the authors acknowledge real life is more complex. It may not provide a foolproof strategy for finding the best partner, as Landgren hesitates to quantify relationships. Still, the insights are thought-provoking. Peter Ayton, director of the Centre for Decision Research at Leeds University Business School, noted that ambitions can be subtly influenced. He cited a study of marathon runners where simply asking for a goal improved performance equivalent to a 13.5% increase in training or being nine years younger.
The late Norman Vincent Peale famously urged, "Shoot for the moon; even if you miss, you'll land among the stars." The model suggests a tweak: "Aim a little lower than the moon," Landgren said. "Shoot for the stars, but make sure the stars you see are real."
