Verified by 
I met my first emotionally available man in New York. I had heard they were mythical creatures, like leprechauns or the Loch Ness Monster-- lots of stories, but never actually documented in real life.
Terence was a graphic design student, attractivish (6.1), sweet, affectionate, and really into me. We knew each other all of two weeks, but he decided that he wanted to "be with me exclusively."
I was intrigued by the offer, so I took a test drive, but in the end returned the keys to the dealer. Why? Isn't that all women are seeking these days? or claiming to seek?
We just want someone nice, someone who will open doors for us, pay for a decent meal, genuinely like us, and not stink of B.O. Terence satisfied all these requirements.
So what's the problem?
The problem is that I'm in New York, mecca for maximizers.
In his book The Paradox of Choice, Psychologist Barry Schwartz discusses the phenomena of "maximizing" and "satisficing." Maximizers tend to settle and strive only for the best choice. In a dating context, maximizers:
"Treat relationships like clothing: I expect to try a lot on before finding the perfect fit. For a maximizer, somewhere out there is the perfect lover, the perfect friends. Even though there is nothing wrong with the current relationship, who knows what's possible if you keep your eyes open."
Meanwhile, satisficers "settle for something good enough and do not worry about the possibility that there might be something better." This is not to say that a satisficer will take any old crap; he or she will simply accept "merely excellent" as opposed to the maximizer's penchant for "absolute best."
But this is New York City -- center of the world, influencing global commerce, finance, entertainment, fashion, politics, and culture. There is no one in this world who wouldn't kill to live in a brownstone on the Lower East Side. It is a city replete with status symbols, opportunity, and people. Lots of people. 8,214,426 to be exact, and all of these people share one unique quality-- ambition to be the best. Drive for success seeps out of people's pores like scary steam seeps out of the sewers. In other words, this city breeds and attracts maximizers.
Schwartz relates that maximizers are less happy, less satisfied, and more prone to depression, because making trade-offs and sacrifices comes at a high cost. Someone who refuses anything but the best will have a much harder time accepting something not as good. No one wants a ring from Robbins Brothers when they've been dreaming about Tiffanys, right?
Schwartz instead suggests that it is best for people to be satisficers or be satisifed with "good enough." He humorously illustrates this theory by describing a trip to the Gap to buy jeans. What should have been a simple task turned into a full day of torture, when the shop girl supplied him with a myriad of choices (boot cut, loose fit, slim fit, stone-washed, carpenter, etc) to ensure that he purchase the absolute "best" pair, instead of jeans that simply fit "well enough." This perfectly explains the paradox of choice. Having variety appears to be a good thing, but actually can make things more complicated.
So satisficing sounds great, right? Strive to be happy with good, because frankly, it's somewhat impossible to accept only the best, all the time. This isn't Natalie Portman world, after all.
Which brings me back to Terence. He's great, right? Well, he's an artist, but still a student. Talented, but jobless. Lives in the nice part of Brooklyn, but still it's Brooklyn...
The truth is that we encounter too many new people in New York-- in other words, we have so many choices-- it's quite difficult to focus on just one person, especially when he or she is not exactly the ideal. Distractions hide in every crevice of the city, making any time we invest in someone both brief and tenuous. The moment we get bored or think there is something better out there, we run away, because chances are, there is. We don't need to invest in "good enough" because we know that with so many choices out there, there has to be a "best."
It is also the scary cutthroat competition in this city which breeds the "best" mentality; people cannot slack off, for even a moment. We're here to do our best (because that's probably the only way we're going to survive), so how can we be expected to be satisfied with "good enough"?
Perhaps if I go back to LA or somewhere where ambition and crazy competition is more lax, things might work out with someone like Terence, but then again, why would I ever leave the best city in the world?
Jen Kim is a PT intern
