Opportunity Over Outcomes: Rethinking What It Means to Be Fair

Summary...

Why do so many well-meaning efforts to create fairness through equal outcomes fail—and even backfire? Because human beings are not carbon copies. They possess different goals, constraints, and definitions of success. In many cases, government interventions intended to develop and enforce fairness rules end up amplifying the very disparities they aim to reduce—misreading incentives, misallocating resources, and entrenching bureaucratic inefficiencies. This article challenges the popular narrative that equity means sameness and makes the case for a better path: equal opportunity. Drawing from behavioral economics, neuroscience, and the insights of thinkers like Hayek, Sowell, and Adam Smith, it reveals why personal autonomy—not imposed equality—is the true engine of human flourishing.

Table of Contents

Introduction: The Fallacy of Sameness

I. Rationality Is Not Uniform—And Neither Is Happiness

II. The Neuroscience of Seeking: Why More Is Not Always Better

III. Money and Happiness: The Threshold Effect

IV. The Case Against Equal Outcomes

V. The Case for Equal Opportunity

VI. Designing for Opportunity: A Better Framework

Conclusion: Embracing Differences, Empowering Choices

Resources For The Curious

About the author: Jeff Hulett leads Personal Finance Reimagined, a decision-making and financial education platform. He teaches personal finance at James Madison University and provides personal finance seminars. Check out his book -- Making Choices, Making Money: Your Guide to Making Confident Financial Decisions.

Jeff is a career banker, data scientist, behavioral economist, and choice architect. Jeff has held banking and consulting leadership roles at Wells Fargo, Citibank, KPMG, and IBM.

Introduction: The Fallacy of Sameness

Efforts to enforce equal outcomes—where everyone receives the same income, status, or rewards—are often framed as fair, progressive, or compassionate. Yet such efforts rest on a critical misunderstanding of human nature. People are not identical units operating in identical conditions. They are complex, evolving individuals with diverse goals, constraints, and definitions of success. When this diversity is ignored, policy outcomes can become not only inefficient, but actively harmful.

The United States Declaration of Independence articulates this insight with clarity and restraint. It affirms that all people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Importantly, the Founders chose not to define what happiness is, nor did they guarantee its achievement. Instead, they secured the right to pursue happiness—recognizing that the content of happiness would differ for each individual. In doing so, they avoided the mistake of prescribing outcomes, focusing instead on the freedom to seek them.

This founding principle directly challenges modern attempts to enforce equal outcomes. Just because happiness is pursued does not mean it will be, or should be, attained equally. Efforts such as centralized wage controls in Venezuela, race-based college admissions quotas in the United States, federal housing mandates that overlook local context, and zero-growth economic policies in parts of Europe illustrate how well-intentioned policies often fail when they ignore individual differences and local realities. These interventions frequently distort incentives, reduce personal agency, and generate backlash—especially when imposed outcomes do not align with individual goals or lived experiences.

Two foundational concepts help explain why. First, diverse rationality demonstrates that individual preferences and decision-making processes vary widely across contexts and over time. Second, research from behavioral economics reveals that additional income produces diminishing returns to happiness once basic needs are met. These realities suggest that striving for equal outcomes is not only impractical but also misaligned with how people actually experience well-being.

A better alternative is equal opportunity—creating environments in which each individual has the freedom, tools, and autonomy to pursue a life aligned with their unique capabilities and aspirations.

"Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." —F.A. Hayek

I. Rationality Is Not Uniform—And Neither Is Happiness

Neoclassical economics has long assumed that rational decision-making follows a consistent, predictable pattern. Under this model, if two individuals possess the same information, face identical incentives, and operate under the same constraints—and if those conditions persist over time—they should arrive at the same optimal conclusion. In this narrow, theoretical sense, neoclassical economics is technically correct. This framework, often labeled "robo-rationality," allows for elegant mathematical modeling and tidy predictions.

However, a central contribution of behavioral economics is showing why the neoclassical ideal rarely—if ever—manifests in reality. Human beings are not static decision machines; they are adaptive, emotionally responsive, and shaped by unique life experiences. Scientific research confirms that preferences are fluid, not fixed—subject to change based on evolving circumstances, shifting incentives, and subtle environmental influences. It is virtually impossible for any two individuals to hold the exact same information, face identical constraints, and respond with the same behavioral outcomes. The metaphorical “chaos butterfly”—flapping its wings through every lived moment—ensures that decision-making is inherently variable.

This is why the concept of diverse rationality is so powerful. It recognizes that individuals differ not just in their inputs but in how they define and pursue their goals. Factors such as life stage, cultural background, family responsibilities, and personality traits all influence how people weigh trade-offs. For example, a recent graduate may chase mobility and growth, while a new parent may anchor their decisions in stability and caregiving. Both are rational—but in contextually distinct ways. Behavioral economics affirms that rationality is not universal—it is personalized, adaptive, and deeply shaped by time and place.

These differences persist over time and across domains. They cannot be flattened into a single utility-maximizing function. Policies or systems designed to produce equal outcomes fail because they assume uniform preferences in a world where values and constraints are anything but uniform.

II. The Neuroscience of Seeking: Why More Is Not Always Better

Humans are biologically hardwired to seek. This instinct, rooted in evolutionary survival, once served our ancestors by compelling them to hunt, gather, and secure social standing within tribes. Today, that same drive expresses itself in more complex forms—accumulating wealth, achieving status, or acquiring possessions. Social media amplifies this instinct, fostering constant comparisons that push individuals to seek more, even when their basic needs are already met.

From a neuroscience perspective, dopamine-dominant neural circuits play a central role in fueling our seeking behavior. Dopamine motivates forward action, reinforces anticipation, and rewards novelty—it is the engine behind “what’s next.” However, dopamine is not designed to signal contentment; that function is more closely associated with serotonin-based pathways, which support feelings of satisfaction, stability, and emotional well-being.

Through neuroplasticity, individuals can shape these pathways over time. When we habitually activate dopamine-driven seeking—through comparison, consumption, or constant novelty—we strengthen that loop. But this imbalance is not irreversible. By cultivating behaviors that stimulate serotonin—such as reflection, gratitude, deep relationships, and present-focused awareness—we can gradually rebalance our neurochemistry. While this is a simplification of a complex system, the core insight holds: we are not biologically doomed to over-seek. We can retrain the brain to favor moderation, trading restless pursuit for meaningful fulfillment.

This explains why many high achievers feel restless even after reaching impressive milestones. They are winning the wrong game. Without an intentional framework for discerning what not to seek, the human tendency to pursue more can lead to burnout, dissatisfaction, or misallocated time.

III. Money and Happiness: The Threshold Effect

The relationship between income and happiness is nonlinear. As behavioral psychologist and economist Daniel Kahneman famously stated,

“Money does not buy happiness, but lack of money certainly buys misery.”

Once an individual surpasses a minimum income threshold that covers basic needs—estimated at approximately $60,000 per year in 2010 dollars—the incremental gains in happiness diminish sharply.

This is known as the threshold effect. At low income levels, scarcity dominates cognition. Research by Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir shows that scarcity creates “cognitive tunneling”—a narrowing of attention that undermines long-term planning. Individuals below the income threshold tend to focus exclusively on short-term needs, making it difficult to think broadly, help others, or invest in future success.

However, once income surpasses this threshold, individuals regain cognitive bandwidth. The ability to plan, reflect, and support others increases—yet the genome, still wired for comparison-based seeking, often continues to push for more. The paradox is this: the very instincts that helped us survive in scarcity become maladaptive in abundance. While the average happiness threshold is estimated at $60,000 in 2010 dollars, this is very much a statistical midpoint. Some individuals—especially those who are high seekers or live in high-cost regions—may require substantially more to feel secure. Others, particularly those in lower-cost areas or with simpler needs, may require less. The broader insight is that seeking is incredibly diverse, and once basic needs are met, it becomes a choice shaped by one’s values and willingness to seek what not to seek.

"Happiness is reality minus expectations." —Manel Baucells

IV. The Case Against Equal Outcomes

Policies aimed at enforcing equal outcomes suffer from both theoretical and practical flaws. They presume a level of informational control and moral clarity that central authorities rarely possess. Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek warned against this in The Pretence of Knowledge, arguing that dispersed, tacit knowledge embedded in individuals cannot be captured by planners. Thomas Sowell, in Knowledge and Decisions, further cautioned that value is context-specific, not intrinsic—two people may value the same object or opportunity very differently based on their needs and environments.

A common rationale for outcome-based policy is the observed income and wealth disparities between social groups—whether by race, gender, geography, or generation. These differences are often cited as justification for government intervention. However, as Sowell argues, this reasoning suffers from two critical problems:

1. Misinterpreting the Data: Apparent disparities often vanish or reverse when examined through broader and more rigorous lenses. Short time horizons, failure to adjust for age, and comparisons between inherently different subgroups can yield misleading conclusions. Sowell emphasizes that long-term data frequently reveals substantial upward mobility and intergenerational progress across social groups. These improvements are obscured when analysts do not control for key demographic and temporal factors.

2. The Bureaucratic Incentive Problem: Even with noble intentions, government agencies tasked with enforcing equality tend to devolve into self-preserving bureaucracies. These organizations often continue to exist—and even expand—regardless of their effectiveness. As Sowell notes, instead of measuring success by outcomes achieved, bureaucracies often redefine problems in ways that justify ongoing intervention. The result is institutional inertia, with administrative structures that persist long after any measurable benefit to the population they were meant to serve. Moreover, bureaucrats—motivated by job security and budget maximization—often become data hammers looking for a nail, interpreting statistics in ways that confirm their agency's mission. The narrower their data lens, the more likely they are to find justification for continued action. As Upton Sinclair famously observed, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”  This quote encapsulates the structural incentives that perpetuate misaligned interventions and reinforce flawed interpretations of inequality.

The main idea is that, over extended periods and when accounting for other factors that influence outcomes, the results often are not as drastically different as basic statistics might suggest. However, even if the outcomes were significantly different, the risk posed by bureaucracy typically outweighs the benefits of the social interventions they oversee.

Moreover, the pursuit of equal outcomes often stifles innovation and undermines autonomy. When individuals are rewarded identically regardless of effort, competence, or values, incentives erode. Talented individuals may opt out. Those who would otherwise thrive through differentiated contribution are instead constrained by bureaucratic ceilings.

Equal outcomes also breed resentment. When effort and results are disconnected, people lose trust in the system. As Adam Smith recognized, fairness is not the same as sameness. His "invisible hand" depends on allowing diverse preferences and talents to express themselves in a competitive yet moral environment.

Public Choice economist Gordon Tullock, co-author of The Calculus of Consent, warned of this very dynamic:

“Once a bureaucracy is established, it is almost impossible to eliminate—even if it proves to be ineffective or unnecessary.” —Gordon Tullock, The Politics of Bureaucracy (1965)

This quote encapsulates the long-term challenge of state-led equality initiatives: once the machinery is in motion, the incentives ensure it rarely stops, regardless of whether it serves the public good.

V. The Case for Equal Opportunity

In contrast, equal opportunity respects individuality. It does not dictate what someone should pursue—it enables them to pursue what matters to them. This includes access to:

• Quality education and skill development

• Transparent and fair legal systems

• Decision-making autonomy in work and life

• Freedom from cognitive tunneling caused by poverty

Psychological theories such as self-determination theory reinforce this perspective. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness are core psychological needs. When individuals have the freedom to make meaningful choices and feel effective in their pursuits, their well-being increases.

David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage also supports this view. Specialization based on relative strengths—rather than forced sameness—yields better outcomes for everyone. Equality of opportunity allows individuals to find and develop their unique contributions, which in turn generates collective gains.

Ricardo’s insight has been decisively validated in the modern market era, beginning in earnest with the rise of global trade and industrialization in the 19th century. Since then, global GDP has increased more than 50-fold, driven by the expansion of trade and specialization. This period has also seen a dramatic reduction in global poverty, major improvements in living standards, and a near doubling of life expectancy worldwide.

VI. Designing for Opportunity: A Better Framework

A productive way to support equal opportunity is not to engineer what people should want, but to guide them away from what they should avoid. This shifts the role of policy, education, and institutions from controlling outcomes to enabling better choices. Drawing on behavioral economics, Stoicism, world religions, and decision science, the GOOD LIVE-R framework outlines five categories of what not to seek:

• Luxury: Pursuing excess consumption crowds out savings and service to others

• Ignorance: Failing to update beliefs leads to poor choices and social harm

• Vanity: Chasing admiration often results in shallow relationships and disappointment

• Immediate Gratification: Sacrificing long-term value for short-term pleasure undermines growth

• Risk Avoidance: Avoiding all risk prevents development, experimentation, and resilience

This framework does not prescribe a single path. Rather, it helps individuals build capacity for thoughtful pursuit by removing distractions and false signals. It also honors the diversity of goals, allowing each person to define and achieve a version of success aligned with their values. The GOOD LIVE-R framework certainly enables financial success—including many of the achievements celebrated in capitalism. The difference lies in motivation: fulfillment tends to increase when economic outcomes result from helping others rather than from the direct pursuit of status or excess. It is also recognized that self-interests are complex, often blending both selfish and selfless motivations. That said, individuals are free to pursue any path—including those in the categories advised against—which is the very essence of democratic freedom.

To support decision-making within these bounds, choice architecture—a concept pioneered by behavioral economists like Richard Thaler—offers powerful tools. By structuring environments that make good decisions easier and bad decisions harder, individuals can nudge themselves toward better outcomes. These strategies include simplifying options, using default settings wisely, and prompting reflection at key choice points.

One such tool is Definitive Choice, a smartphone-based decision-making companion that helps users compare options based on clearly defined criteria. It is designed to reinforce autonomy, clarity, and long-term alignment—especially when facing complex life or financial decisions.

This approach is detailed in the book Making Choices, Making Money, which provides the full decision-making framework that powers the Definitive Choice experience. Readers not only gain the theoretical foundations but also receive access to the tool itself, enabling them to put these principles into practice immediately. Together, the book and app help individuals build decision confidence and avoid common pitfalls of impulsivity, bias, or emotional overwhelm.

Designing for opportunity, then, means setting up systems, environments, and tools that support wise and adaptive decision-making—without falling into the trap of enforcing sameness.

Conclusion: Embracing Differences, Empowering Choices

Equal outcomes promise fairness but attempt to deliver the false promise of conformity. They overlook the rich diversity of human rationality, the biological complexity of happiness, and the economic principles that reward specialization and creativity.

Equal opportunity, on the other hand, is not only more ethical—it is more effective. It fosters environments where individuals are free to pursue their unique definitions of happiness, enabled by autonomy, competence, and social trust.

To promote a flourishing society, we must move beyond simplistic notions of fairness and build systems that respect the individuality of choice. True equality lies not in making everyone the same, but in empowering everyone to become themselves.

Resource For The Curious

• Hulett, Jeff. Making Choices, Making Money: Your Guide to Making Confident Financial Decisions. Personal Finance Reimagined Press, 2023.

  Demonstrates how structured decision-making can increase financial confidence and align personal goals with long-term wealth-building.

• Hulett, Jeff. Seeking What Not to Seek: How to Align Achievement and Happiness. The Curiosity Vine, June 18, 2024.

  Explores how overactive achievement-seeking can erode happiness and proposes a behavioral framework for what to avoid pursuing.

• Hulett, Jeff. Rethinking Rationality: The Hidden Diversity in Our Choices. The Curiosity Vine, February 6, 2024.

  Argues that rationality is diverse and dynamic, making one-size-fits-all economic and policy models ineffective for real human behavior.

• Hayek, F.A. The Pretence of Knowledge. Nobel Prize Lecture, December 11, 1974.

  Warns that centralized planners lack the dispersed knowledge required to manage complex economies effectively.

• Sowell, Thomas. Knowledge and Decisions. Basic Books, 1996.

  Critiques top-down decision-making and explains how incentives and information asymmetry weaken bureaucratic solutions.

• Kahneman, Daniel, and Deaton, Angus. “High Income Improves Evaluation of Life but Not Emotional Well-Being.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, no. 38, 2010, pp. 16489–16493.

  Finds that beyond a certain income threshold, additional earnings do little to increase emotional well-being.

• Mullainathan, Sendhil, and Shafir, Eldar. Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much. Times Books, 2013.

  Shows how poverty and scarcity narrow cognitive bandwidth, making long-term decision-making more difficult.

• Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Edited by D.D. Raphael and A.L. Macfie, Liberty Fund, 1982.

  Describes the human desire to be “loved and lovely” as central to moral behavior and well-being, highlighting empathy’s role in social order.

• Ricardo, David. Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. First published 1817.

  Introduces the theory of comparative advantage, explaining how specialization based on relative efficiency benefits all parties.

• Pinkovskiy, Maxim, and Sala-i-Martin, Xavier. “Parametric Estimations of the World Distribution of Income.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 15433, October 2009.

  Shows global poverty fell sharply and living standards rose dramatically in the post-industrial era due to economic growth driven by specialization and trade.

Examples of unsuccessful equal-outcome policies:

• Venezuela Wage Controls Corrales, Javier, and Penfold, Michael. Dragon in the Tropics: Venezuela and the Legacy of Hugo Chávez. Brookings Institution Press, 2015.

  Examines how price and wage controls in Venezuela, intended to reduce inequality, led to inflation, scarcity, and economic collapse.

• Race-Based College Admissions Quotas (U.S.) Roberts, Dan. “U.S. Supreme Court Ends Race-Based Affirmative Action in College Admissions.” The Guardian, June 29, 2023.

  Reports the Court’s decision striking down affirmative action, citing how race-based policies failed to achieve long-term equity and invited legal and social backlash.

• Federal Housing Mandates Glaeser, Edward L., and Gyourko, Joseph. “The Impact of Building Restrictions on Housing Affordability.” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review, vol. 9, no. 2, 2003, pp. 21–39.

  Shows how federally imposed housing mandates and zoning restrictions, designed to enforce affordability, often lead to supply constraints and worsen inequality.

• Zero-Growth Economic Policies (Europe) Kallis, Giorgos, et al. “Research On Degrowth.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 43, 2018, pp. 291–316.

  Explores the growing movement for “degrowth” in Europe and critiques the policy's limited success in balancing sustainability and individual well-being.