It is your birthday and you are going out for a meal. It is up to you to choose the restaurant. How do you make your decision? Do you just pick any old place? Or do you pull out a spreadsheet and rank all your possible choices?

If you picked the second option, you are not alone. It is thought that around 10% of the population are "maximisers", who make their choices by ranking all the options available to them.¹

But now one writer has a warning for you. Rachel Connolly thinks the urge to rank everything is making you unhappy.

Humans have always loved ranking things. As far back as 350 BC, AristotleA student of Plato, tutor to Alexander the Great and the father of political philosophy. imposed a ranking on nature. He argued that mammals are superior to birds and reptiles, who are superior to insects, but that all animals are better than plants.

In the Middle AgesThe Middle Ages was the period in European history that came between ancient and modern times. It lasted from about 500 to about 1500., this ranking was extended to the whole of Creation, in what was known as the Great Chain of Being. At the top was God, followed by nine tiers of angels.

Below them were humans, who were lower than angels but higher than animals. But humans also had their own ranking. Kings were at the top, as representatives of God. Behind them came the nobilityThe aristocracy, or the highest social rank. , who again had their own ranking, with dukes at the top and barons at the bottom. Then came the commoners, and below them, the animal kingdom.

Even when we adopted a more scientific understanding of nature in the 19th Century, we could not resist the urge to rank it. Biologists claimed that the evolutionary process had advanced from "lower" forms of microbial life to "higher" complex life, with the ultimate aim of producing human beings, the highest life form of all.

But this urge to rank things did not do us any favours, say experts. It allowed a small group of people to repress the vast majority of the population. And it justified terrible cruelty to animals on grounds that they were "lower" forms of life.

So it is no wonder some think our modern rankings also have a sinister side.

The problem, Rachel Connolly points out, is that the search for the very best can be self-defeating. It means we are constantly wondering if we have really chosen the best course of action, so we cannot just enjoy what we are doing.

In the past, when we did not have many choices available to us, this was not such a problem. But today, we are constantly bombarded with choices: dozens of different chocolate bars, different travel opportunities around the world, Indian or Chinese or Italian food for a meal out. 

Ranking all of these things becomes a mammoth task, and the fear that we are not making the "best" choice can become overwhelming.

She thinks it is better to be a "satisficer": someone who will gladly settle for anything good.

Some think philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari showed us a better way to live. They argued that all rankings, including hierarchies of desire, should be abolished. That means abandoning the whole concept of "the best" choices and seeing everything we might want or do as equal.

Yes: Obsessing over whether or not something is the best is a surefire way to unhappiness. Maximisers need to learn to relax and go with the flow a little more often.

No: Maximisers often have a good time putting together spreadsheets and deciding which options are better than the rest. They should be happy with their unique personalities. 

Or... Maximisers and satisficers are good for each other. The maximisers make the choices and the satisficers help them enjoy themselves. We should embrace a world where some of us overthink and some underthink.