(Answering all things backwards, because why not? It’s good enough for me.)
Let’s say this is the case: Since nobody is living in a vacuum, we have to take into account the burden of said obsessive individuals on others who may try to find new knowledge, too. So it might just be that maximizers might be better to find some kinds of knowledge to the detriment of the efforts of non-maximizers, who would without the outsourced coping labor put on them be even more prolific in finding new knowledge in this specific domain. In short: We can make a lot of if statements.
Let me also say, that it’ll take empirical studies to confirm any of those if-cascades. Let me further say, that it’ll take more than empirical studies, too (meaning the theoretical framework seems to oversimplify without a lot of benefits). There is a lot of work to do.
Which brings me to your question:
System 1 and System 2 are referring to Daniel Kahneman, I presume. So the next question is: Does this distinction actually relate to System 1? I mean, it seems plausible, but how to test for this? And furthermore: How to self-asses this? And is it really actually helpful to relate it only to one system? Maybe there is a System1-Version and a System2-Version of satisficing and maximizing? And if so is there only one distinction at play here?
But as I’ve tried to point out before: Satisficing and Maximizing are strategies that are applied situationally. People might tend to use one over the other and we might say then that they “are” a Satisficer. But then again in our self-assesments we need to be mindful that maximizing is satisficing - somewhere else. Which means we can transpose any maximizer into a satisficer and vice versa if we pick the right context. In this way we can accumulate a lot of complexity and uncertainty. Which brings me to my next point. When it comes to self-assesment, the distinction seems to me a not so worthwhile oversimplification. It might work in psychological studies where there is an external observer, who is looking at a defined situation, though the interesting question is how to carry the findings over into a more complex real-world context (for all the reasons stated above).
In short: I reject the premise that I am either/or.
No worries! I have enjoyed thinking about this.
Yeah. I regret stating it so strongly. Hyperbolic statements help me sometimes to inject some energy into the discussion, but I hope you won’t take it too seriously.
That’s a good, clear way of putting it. Funnily enough Option 1 seems the most intriguing to me.
That’s (Trigger Warning for sexual violence)->)the dice man approach! If you haven’t read it:
The Dice Man , a 1971 novel by career English professor George Cockcroft (writing under the pen name, “Luke Rhinehart”) tells the story of a psychiatrist who makes daily decisions based on the casting of a die.
But anyways: I said my piece about the distinction not being super useful for real life humans three times now (as per the DRY-Principle I should give my criticism a name… but I can’t think of one ). I won’t repeat it here again.
I have changed last year to evernote premium (after 10 years of absence) and REALLY love it (again).