Hunting for trophies and the "Paradox of Choice"

[2rocky]

This Term came up in another conversation I was a part of in an unrelated topic and it reminded me about hunting (doesn't everything?)


Posted by: Margaret Rouse
WhatIs.com

The paradox of choice is an observation that having many options to choose from, rather than making people happy and ensuring they get what they want, can cause them stress and problematize decision-making. Barry Schwartz wrote about the negative consequences of having too many options in his 2004 book, The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less. Schwartz maintained that an overabundance of options can actually lead to anxiety, indecision, paralysis and dissatisfaction.

Intuitively, it would seem that having a large number of options should mean that people could ultimately make a choice that satisfied them. In practice, however, a large selection of items with a variety of benefits and drawbacks can make it very hard for people to choose among them. That difficulty can cause people anxiety that persists while they evaluate options and prolong the process beyond what is warranted for the situation. As a consequence, decision-making processes can become stalled (See: analysis paralysis). Furthermore, once their choices have been made, people may still cause themselves stress by worrying that they made the wrong decisions.

Schwartz discusses two styles of decision makers that were identified by psychologist Herbert A. Simon in the 1950s: maximizers and satisficers. A maximizer is someone who is driven to make the best possible choice, which may mean they have to evaluate options exhaustively and yet – paradoxically – may be less satisfied with their ultimate choice than someone who did less research. The latter term is a portmanteau created from the words satisfy and suffice. Satisficers are pragmatic individuals who are content to choose options that adequately meet their requirements – they don’t waste time overthinking their options or regretting choices that have already been made.

I think among hunters the Maximizers would be trophy hunters (big buck/bull or none) and Satisficers would be meat hunters. So often we have the conversation about what we want from a successful hunt. Seldom do we realize that you got two different mindsets. Same could be said for Caliber scope boot, clothing decisions etc.

Can you be a Maximizer in one aspect and a Satisficer in another?

 

[cwitherow]

I think yes. I would describe myself as a Satisficer when it comes to game, but a Maximizer when it comes to gear. You can't eat antlers and who doesn't love reading countless threads about the "perfect elk rifle".

 

[Gumbo Hunter]

You can't eat antlers...

But you can't hang meat on the wall (kidding). I'm a maximizer (trophy hunter) to the core and definitely get anxiety and depression when I fail or feel I made a bad choice. But I am becoming more of a satisficer because meat hunts with this mentality are infinitely more relaxing and enjoyable, especially with my kids. I kind of separate the two anymore, antlerless tags for meat and save the either-sex/buck/bull tags for trophies. Also, I have realized nobody else cares about how big an animal you kill, how often, or what you type on a forum...it is all narcissism and self-aggrandization.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Also, I have realized nobody else cares about how big an animal you kill, how often, or what you type on a forum...it is all narcissism and self-aggrandization.

Fact.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

This Term came up in another conversation I was a part of in an unrelated topic and it reminded me about hunting (doesn't everything?)


Posted by: Margaret Rouse
WhatIs.com
The paradox of choice is an observation that having many options to choose from, rather than making people happy and ensuring they get what they want, can cause them stress and problematize decision-making. Barry Schwartz wrote about the negative consequences of having too many options in his 2004 book, The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less. Schwartz maintained that an overabundance of options can actually lead to anxiety, indecision, paralysis and dissatisfaction.

Intuitively, it would seem that having a large number of options should mean that people could ultimately make a choice that satisfied them. In practice, however, a large selection of items with a variety of benefits and drawbacks can make it very hard for people to choose among them. That difficulty can cause people anxiety that persists while they evaluate options and prolong the process beyond what is warranted for the situation. As a consequence, decision-making processes can become stalled (See: analysis paralysis). Furthermore, once their choices have been made, people may still cause themselves stress by worrying that they made the wrong decisions.

Schwartz discusses two styles of decision makers that were identified by psychologist Herbert A. Simon in the 1950s: maximizers and satisficers. A maximizer is someone who is driven to make the best possible choice, which may mean they have to evaluate options exhaustively and yet – paradoxically – may be less satisfied with their ultimate choice than someone who did less research. The latter term is a portmanteau created from the words satisfy and suffice. Satisficers are pragmatic individuals who are content to choose options that adequately meet their requirements – they don’t waste time overthinking their options or regretting choices that have already been made.

I think among hunters the Maximizers would be trophy hunters (big buck/bull or none) and Satisficers would be meat hunters. So often we have the conversation about what we want from a successful hunt. Seldom do we realize that you got two different mindsets. Same could be said for Caliber scope boot, clothing decisions etc.

Can you be a Maximizer in one aspect and a Satisficer in another?

You can be a maximizer until you get hungry and decide it's time to fill the freezer all in the span of one hunt. Maybe even within the same day.

Funny this came up in a discussion I was a part of as well not long ago. Maybe last Wednesday or the one before...

 

[NR_Hunter]

Man, I feel way happier when I'm somewhere with just a regular TV antenna and I have 5 channels to choose from and I just pick one and watch whatever is one.

When I'm home, I will sit down and peruse Netflix, Prime and HBO to pick something to watch while I eat a meal. I will usually finish my meal, still not have something picked, then just shut the TV off and do something else.

When it comes to hunting my analysis paralysis comes in form of picking a spot to set up. Every spot seems like it could be better than the other one, coupled with the fact I want to get set up quickly as to make less of an imprint in the area I plan on hunting. When I finally do pick a spot, I think about how there's probably a huge buck in the other spot I decided not to sit.

 

[bullbugle]

Sometimes I hunt for specific animals, sometimes I shoot the first legal thing. With mulies, I'm searching for a big old buck, fully prepared and expecting to go home empty handed. Put any legal whitetail or elk in front of me and it's in trouble.

Same goes for pheasants. I can shoot either sex birds at the Springer unit, but I'll be picky about shooting roosters. More experience for the dogs that way.

I know some people are hard-core trophy hunters, but I think most pick their goals based on the situation like I do.

 

[Sawtooth]

In my world, elk are for eating and mule deer are for trophies. If I can fill my freezer with an elk early in the season, all the smaller bucks are safe. Not that I am against a good deer steak. If I don't have an elk by the last weekend of deer season, look out forkies.

 

[geetar]

Fact.

Exactly why I no longer participate in the Instagram culture and don’t post stuff for likes. No one cares and honestly I shouldn’t expect them to.

 

[PrairieHunter]

This may be something good that comes from this year with the issues that have been exposed in our food supply. More people simply hunting for the meat.

 

[Pucky Freak]

I definitely have a dominant satisficer brain. I fly by the seat of my pants and make a lot of impulsive decisions, some of which I later regret. Very little analysis paralysis.

One year I held out for a absolute tank of a buck - I hunted hard and long, had numerous close encounters, and then at the 11th hour I sailed an arrow over his back with my recurve.

My latest guideline is if my heart starts hammering, it’s a shooter. It’s usually all or nothing - adrenaline dump or no reaction. I really don’t have or want to have the discipline to pass up an animal that gets me excited.

Last year I arrowed a 3-year-old WT, and I thought maybe this year I’d want to hold out for one that was 4+. However, I started this year with a better-than-expected pronghorn buck and it was like the pressure was off to get a nice WT too. I ended up passing on about a dozen 1-year-old bucks in bow range before finally taking a 2-year-old buck a month into the season. No regrets at all. I was ready to tag out and focus on my turkey tags. The older I get the less I care about what others think - that seems to be a typical progression from what I’ve heard others say.

 

[Bluffgruff]

I'm not sure the maximizer is a trophy hunter, or that the satificer is a meat hunter. I'm also not sure this is an adequate dichotomy. Surely there are other philosophers, sociologists, and armchair intellectuals who have come up with better systems, like just saying someone is a meat hunter, a trophy hunter, a "first bester," a "hunt the hunt hunter," a "camper/hiker with a gun," and on and on.
I switch hunt to hunt, but try to determine ahead of time what would actually make me happy on a hunt, then stick to that.

 

[antlerradar]

A question for a the meat hunters. Are you shooting the buck in front offering the broadside shot or taking the poor shot on the buck in the back?

 

[thusby]

I have to admit that I will typically take the first broadside shot I get on a 3-4 year old animal before I look over all the deer in the herd. Sometimes the excitement just gets to me.

In the scenario above, I do believe I would try a neck shot on the one in front. Yar!

 

[Nameless Range]

For a while now I have been working on a refutation of the adage, "Don't pass an animal on the first day that you would be happy shooting on the last." I think it is bad advice. I am trying to use Bayes Theorem to do it, and I am trying to make it look professional.

Basically, knowing (A)how much time one has left to hunt, and knowing (B) ones' own personal threshold given (A), a guy may mutate from a maximizer to a satisficer because his (B) will change based on his/her estimation of what is likely enough to happen.

For an extreme example, imagine you have the rest of your life to shoot one deer, and once you shoot it, you are done. I have a feeling that would generate a lot more maximizers than getting to hunt annually does.

 

[thomas89]

For a while now I have been working on a refutation of the adage, "Don't pass an animal on the first day that you would be happy shooting on the last." I think it is bad advice. I am trying to use Bayes Theorem to do it, and I am trying to make it look professional.

Basically, knowing (A)how much time one has left to hunt, and knowing (B) ones' own personal threshold given (A), a guy may mutate from a maximizer to a satisficer because his (B) will change based on his/her estimation of what is likely enough to happen.

For an extreme example, imagine you have the rest of your life to shoot one deer, and once you shoot it, you are done. I have a feeling that would generate a lot more maximizers than getting to hunt annually does.

If that means I get to get rid of all the hunting crap I’ve accumulated, and quit reorganizing and tripping over it, sign me up!!

Also we need a program like that for duck hunting as well, undecided about keeping the dogs. Most days she’s cool but she recently she did just eat an entire loaf of banana nut chocolate chip bread from the counter soo...

 

[thusby]

Also we need a program like that for duck hunting as well, undecided about keeping the dogs. Most days she’s cool but she recently she did just eat an entire loaf of banana nut chocolate chip bread from the counter soo...

That's exactly why I now use a go-devil and an 8 foot long net to retrieve ducks.

 

[longbow51]

I have to admit that I will typically take the first broadside shot I get on a 3-4 year old animal before I look over all the deer in the herd. Sometimes the excitement just gets to me.

In the scenario above, I do believe I would try a neck shot on the one in front. Yar!

Nah; that old buck will be so tough you have to use a knife to cut the gravy.

 

[JMG]

A question for a the meat hunters. Are you shooting the buck in front offering the broadside shot or taking the poor shot on the buck in the back? View attachment 162782

I’m shooting the buck in the back ... aiming at his nuts. Perfect presentation ... ”Montana Heart Shot”. That way you don’t ruin any meat .

 

[TheBenHoyle]

I'm an adult onset deer hunter and the first 2 years were filled with missed shots on any deer I saw. I finally shot a 2 year old buck my 3rd year hunting and I was very happy. I've decided that I am not a trophy hunter, but I can't say that I would shoot a young buck just to be done hunting. It is much more situational.

I can say that I shot a very nice buck in October and I have a freezer full of meat but I am still out there hunting with another buck tag in my pocket.

The pressure is off and I would like to take another deer, but I will probably just shoot the next deer that gives me a good shot rather than holding out for something bigger than what I already took this year.

I think I am still in a phase where I feel like seeing deer to shoot at is enough of an accomplishment for me.

Some day I would like to have some land of my own where I can geek out with trail cams and know all about the deer on it and perhaps target specific bucks, but that is a ways down the road.