Final answer:
It can be considered foolish to always seek the optimal decision because this approach can lead to unnecessary cognitive load and time consumption without proportionate benefits, while satisficing balances adequacy with efficiency.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question addresses why it might be considered foolish to always strive for the optimal decision instead of satisficing. The concept of satisficing involves choosing an option that meets a certain threshold of acceptability, as opposed to seeking the best possible outcome.
This term was coined by Herbert Simon to describe a decision-making strategy that aims for a satisfactory solution rather than the optimal one. In the context of cognitive load and decision-making efficiency, seeking the optimal decision can be unnecessarily time-consuming and create increased cognitive load, often without proportionate benefit.
Considering modern cognitive psychology and behavioral economics, satisficing can be a more effective strategy because it balances the need for good enough outcomes with using time and mental resources efficiently.
The pursuit of the optimal decision might lead to an exhaustive analysis, which correlates with the law of diminishing marginal utility, suggesting that the additional gains from spending more resources (time, cognitive effort) to find the best possible decision decrease with each unit of additional input.
Moreover, people tend to use heuristics, or cognitive shortcuts, which allow for more rapid decision-making without the in-depth analysis that optimal decisions would require.