New research and a rising cultural backlash suggest a counterintuitive path to well-being: stop chasing exceptional—and aim for good, ordinary, and enough.
For years, our feeds have glamorized “10x” ambition and main-character energy. But psychology’s long arc is pointing the other way: people who chase the exceptional at every turn tend to be less satisfied, more regretful, and more stressed than those who aim for “good enough.”
That isn’t a self-help slogan — it’s the repeated finding behind a seminal line of work on maximizers vs. satisficers.
Individuals who maximize—always hunting the absolute best option—report more regret, less happiness, and more depressive symptoms than those who satisfice, i.e., choose an option that clears a sensible bar and then move on.
In the classic paper that kicked this off, Barry Schwartz and colleagues showed the pattern across multiple studies; two decades later, replications still find the same well-being gap. In other words: the habit of insisting on “above average” in every decision may be costing us joy.
Why “ordinary” isn’t mediocre
Being average does not mean being apathetic; it means valuing the ordinary.
A widely cited series of studies in the Journal of Consumer Research split experiences into “extraordinary” (rare, high-gloss) and “ordinary” (common, everyday). The surprise: ordinary experiences produced as much—and, with age, more—happiness than the flashy one-offs.
People underestimated how meaningful those “average” moments would feel later, then discovered that daily rituals—coffee with a friend, a neighborhood walk, the way late sun hits a kitchen wall—age like wine in memory.
The authors argue that ordinary experiences accumulate into a coherent life story, and their accessibility makes them a reliable well-being engine.
Translation: if you design your days around small repeatables instead of constant peak-chasing, you’re playing the long game for happiness.
The comparison trap: when “average” beats elite
There’s also a structural reason average can feel better than exceptional: where you rank changes how you feel about yourself, even if your absolute ability doesn’t budge.
Decades of research on the Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect show that students placed in high-achieving environments develop lower academic self-concepts than statistically similar peers in average settings.
A comprehensive meta-analysis confirms the effect across countries and age groups.
The mechanism is blunt: constant upward social comparison quietly erodes confidence. This doesn’t just shape test scores; it shapes identity and motivation—core ingredients of well-being.
If you always choose the most rarefied room, you may end up feeling smaller, not larger, inside it.
Being “average” in a right-sized pond can produce a sturdier, happier self-view.
The perfectionism problem
If chasing the exceptional were harmless, we could shrug and let the go-getters go. But the rise of socially prescribed perfectionism—feeling that others demand flawlessness—tracks with higher anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation, and it has climbed sharply across birth cohorts since the late 1980s.
A major Psychological Bulletin review quantified the uptick and connected perfectionism to poorer mental health outcomes.
That’s a societal signal, not just a personality quirk.
When every arena becomes a leaderboard—work, dating, parenting, fitness—average starts to feel like failure.
The data argue the opposite: trading “perfect” for good, consistent, and humane is protective.
The values shift that matters most: what you strive for, not how high you rank
Another long-running thread explains why “average” can be emotionally superior: what we value.
Self-Determination Theory research shows that prioritizing intrinsic goals (relationships, growth, community) is tied to higher well-being, whereas prioritizing extrinsic goals (status, image, wealth) predicts lower well-being—even when people hit those targets.
The implication: you can be “average” by status metrics and still be deeply fulfilled if your days invest in connection and competence.
Conversely, you can be exceptional on paper and miserable if the wins are mostly symbolic.
Choosing ordinary, intrinsically meaningful aims is not settling; it’s strategically reallocating attention to where happiness actually lives.
What “being average” looks like in practice (and why it works)
1) Make enough decisions, not perfect ones.
Set clear thresholds—what’s “good enough” for an apartment, a job change, a weekly grocery budget—and stop at the first option that meets them. This satisficing posture reduces regret and frees time for relationships and rest, both strong happiness drivers.
2) Design for ordinary joy.
Treat repeatables as assets: a daily 20-minute walk, a weekly dinner with neighbors, a standing library visit. These “average” experiences compound into satisfaction faster than sporadic luxury.
3) Choose your pond.
If a school, team, or workplace leaves you perpetually inferior by comparison, the happiness-optimal move may be switching to a right-sized environment where you can contribute and feel competent. That’s not playing small — it’s optimizing self-concept.
4) Ditch performative perfection.
Notice where you’re optimizing for image—titles, follower counts, prestige checkboxes—and re-route some effort toward intrinsic goals. The mental-health return tends to be higher.
Wider impact: why this reframing matters now
Workplaces, schools, and platforms are built to reward outliers — “employee of the month,” dean’s lists, viral metrics. But the population-level consequence is a majority made to feel behind.
The research above doesn’t argue against excellence — it argues against universal exceptionalism as a life strategy.
Leaders can respond by designing systems that celebrate consistency and contribution (not just top 1% outcomes): performance bands instead of stack ranks, more formative feedback than winner-takes-all awards, schedule norms that protect ordinary life.
For policy makers, nudges that reduce comparison pressure—like defaulting school dashboards to growth metrics—align with the psychology of well-being.
For each of us, the takeaway is personal and immediate: if you’ve been chasing the best version of everything, try choosing the kind version instead.
The odds, per the data, are that you’ll be happier for it.
Bottom line
Average is not the enemy of ambition — it’s the architecture of a livable life.
The strongest findings in modern well-being science—on satisficing, ordinary experiences, social comparison, rising perfectionism, and intrinsic goals—converge on a simple, liberating point: you don’t have to be exceptional to be happy.
In fact, insisting on exceptional may be the very thing getting in your way.
So pick a good-enough option, schedule something delightfully ordinary, choose a pond that fits, and let the highlight reel belong to someone else. Your day-to-day might just get brighter—quietly, reliably, and for the long haul.
What’s Your Plant-Powered Archetype?
Ever wonder what your everyday habits say about your deeper purpose—and how they ripple out to impact the planet?
This 90-second quiz reveals the plant-powered role you’re here to play, and the tiny shift that makes it even more powerful.
12 fun questions. Instant results. Surprisingly accurate.
