Seeking Less, Living More: Rethinking How We Seek Success

Are we seeking the wrong things?

In a world filled with curated lifestyles, comparison-driven ambition, and endless information, the drive to “achieve more” is almost instinctive. But not all pursuits are created equal. Many of us chase professional wins, luxury goods, validation, or certainty—only to find ourselves more anxious than fulfilled.

This article introduces a behavioral framework for what not to seek. Grounded in neuroscience, Stoicism, and decision science, it offers a counterintuitive truth: long-term happiness often begins with subtraction. Inspired by Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s idea of via negativa—that knowing what to avoid is more powerful than knowing what to add—we identify five common but misleading paths people pursue in the name of success or happiness. This framework provides space to explore joy while using five “NOT” categories as a guide on what to avoid to refine your happiness goals.

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.

Each “NOT” represents a trait that, when left unchecked, can distort our decision-making, drain our energy, and delay our growth. By avoiding these patterns, we free up space for more authentic, purpose-driven living.

Proposing a shift toward activities that bring joy is one thing, but implementing it is a different challenge. Many believe that achieving "enough" - like earning money or achieving work goals, like closing deals or hitting budget targets - boosts happiness. Yet, could the time spent earning or pursuing career milestones be redirected toward activities that help others and lead to greater fulfillment? As discussed in our "Seeking what not to seek" article, the research suggests that the answer is “Yes.” However, our instinctual drive to seek often obscures awareness of alternative pursuits that may better support happiness.

Seeking to Find “Enough”: John Bogle, the late Vanguard founder, shared a story illustrating our struggle with seeking: At a party hosted by a billionaire on Shelter Island, Kurt Vonnegut remarked to Joseph Heller that their host, a hedge fund manager, had made more in one day than Heller had earned from Catch-22 in its entire history. Heller replied, “Yes, but I have something he will never have… enough.”

While we are wired to seek more, our genome doesn’t differentiate between resources that enhance happiness and those that don’t. For our genome, happiness is simply survival to pass on DNA; it doesn’t matter how it happens. Thus, how and what we seek affects our happiness. Both neuroscience and longstanding religions agree on this point: since our genes don’t discern sources of happiness, cultural support from religion and philosophy fills this gap.

Determining what makes you happy is difficult. Instead, aim to avoid what leads to unhappiness, leaving behind what genuinely supports your happiness.

---

Now, we’ll outline each category in the “NOT to seek” framework. To help you remember, think of seeking “what not to seek” as a way to live well—essentially, to be a “GOOD LIVE-R.” This memory aid highlights five things to avoid seeking:

• [L] - Luxury

• [I] - Ignorance

• [V] - Vanity

• [I] - Immediate gratification

• [R] - Risk avoidance

“It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor.” — Seneca

1. Not Seeking Luxury: After working diligently, it’s natural to feel we’ve earned some luxury. Yet linking luxury to hard work can be misleading. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said, “Work is its own reward.” Similarly, labor economist David Autor observed, “Work is what structures adults' lives: it gives us purpose, focus, a set of responsibilities, and an identity.” This highlights that the intrinsic value of work extends far beyond material rewards. So, why do we chase luxury? It’s often because work enables luxury, and luxury-seeking simply replaces one pursuit (work) with another (consumption). Earnings from work reflect societal value creation, while luxury is how we choose to spend today. With fixed budgets, luxury-seeking often crowds out resources we might otherwise save or use to benefit others. Luxury is thus an inferior substitute for the value we could create by diverting our efforts.

Contentment with what we have fosters happiness. The more we’re satisfied, the more resources—time and money—become available to create value for others and save for the future. This cycle of fulfillment begins by redirecting the very drive that makes us effective at work. Avoiding luxury is also a form of expectation management; as we acquire more, our desire grows, and unmet desires can undermine happiness. By resisting luxury, we selectively pursue “more” that actually enhances happiness.

A ‘Faux Pro’ Bike Example: I recently spoke with a friend who, like me, enjoys biking, though he rides faster and longer, often joining a group of ten riders every weekend.

He had just bought a new bike for $17,000, which surprised me. Curious, I asked why he chose such an expensive model. He highlighted its quality, lightweight, and smooth ride, noting that many in his group also own high-end bikes. People like him are often called “faux pros”—amateurs who, influenced by industry marketing and FOMO (fear of missing out), buy professional-grade gear and ride as if they are pros.

FOMO is a psychological response to social pressure. It arises when people feel that others are having better experiences or gaining advantages they may miss if they do not follow suit. In this case, FOMO likely fueled the desire to match the group’s status and performance level.

When I asked if he could keep up on his old bike, he admitted he could and that it was not broken; he even kept it as a backup. Given his work as a financial trader, he can easily afford the luxury, but his choice reflects the pull to keep up with the group and ride as if he is on a pro-like level.

While a less costly bike could meet his exercise and safety needs, his motivations extended to luxury. His bike group became his “Joneses” to keep up with, influenced by a kind of FOMO-driven peer pressure. Assuming he retires in 30 years, the future value of the bike’s price could be nearly $350,000. He is effectively exchanging a faux pro bike for $350,000 that could support him or others in retirement. His choice seems less about utility, like fitness or safety, and more about satisfying the impulse to keep up with peers. Later, we will discuss how appearances often mislead.

The Luxury-Work Dynamic: My friend’s career as a trader, a field that’s competitive and comparison-driven, likely fuels his desire for luxury. The habit of comparing trades and benchmarks translates easily into a “keeping up with the Joneses” mindset. It is challenging to separate work from luxury-seeking, especially when we tend to adopt traits of those around us. So, it is wise to be selective when choosing our influences.

Avoiding luxury also applies the Pareto Principle or the 80/20 rule. Strive for 80% of the value at 20% (or less) of the cost required for the final 20% of the value. The bike example is an extreme case: by not seeking luxury, my friend could achieve nearly all the biking benefits for 1% or less of the long-term opportunity cost.

“Humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less.”

— C.S. Lewis

2. Not Seeking Vanity: Vanity and luxury-seeking are related, as one’s vanity can drive the pursuit of luxury, but they’re not always linked. Luxury is often easier to assess since it has a price tag. With a bike, for example, you can compare costs and ask whether spending more aligns with your values or simply fuels vanity. Vanity, however, is trickier. For some, self-worth is tied to feeling important—to their workplace, friends, or society. This comes to us naturally, as vanity is connected to Smith's moral philosophy regarding being "lovely." But importance is largely a perception within the mind of the seeker. We tend to inflate our own importance compared to how others see us. Most people focus on their own significance rather than noticing or admiring others’ self-importance. Morgan Housel, author of The Psychology of Money, captures this paradox of vanity:

"There is a paradox here: people tend to want wealth to signal to others that they should be liked and admired. But in reality, those other people often bypass admiring you, not because they don’t think wealth is admirable, but because they use your wealth as a benchmark for their own desire to be liked and admired."

We should strive to help others and find joy in their company—but without seeking admiration. Demonstrating humility, kindness, and empathy often garners more respect than seeking validation through self-importance.

A recurring theme with vanity and difficult life choices is decision readiness. Choices that impact future growth—like selecting a college or committing to marriage—are challenging because they require envisioning how we’ll thrive in an unknown future. Vanity can cloud our judgment on readiness for such decisions. Listening to your values and consulting people you respect—parents, a mentor, or a trusted community member—can help balance vanity with wise decision-making.

A College Example: Suppose you’re in high school and deciding whether to attend college. Are you ready? You may feel pressure because your “smart” friends are attending prestigious schools, while “losers” choose community college. But that’s vanity speaking! Research shows that peer pressure in college choices often outweighs parental guidance, and it can lead to poor decisions. Questions about study habits and paying fair value for a college education are critical. Community colleges and non-traditional paths can offer substantial value. Related to Housel’s paradox, the risk is that friends may use your college choices as a benchmark to elevate themselves. Vanity here distracts from understanding how college will support your growth.

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

 — Mark Twain

3. Not Seeking Ignorance: While people don’t intentionally pursue ignorance, it can easily arise if we aren’t attentive. The phrase “It seemed like a good idea at the time” often signals a choice that, in hindsight, was rooted in ignorance. Ignorance occurs when we either fail to update our beliefs or ignore new information.

Belief updating requires us to adjust our perspectives as new information becomes available. Philip Tetlock, a professor and forecasting expert, notes, “Beliefs are hypotheses to be tested, not treasures to be guarded.” However, people often resist testing beliefs, especially when new information challenges long-held views.

To avoid ignorance, we should focus our limited attention on matters that genuinely impact our lives. While gossip about political scandals may be entertaining, unless you’re a policymaker, your attention is better directed toward issues where you can make a real difference. Aim to “Think Globally” but guide your attention by opportunities for “Acting Locally.”

A Deadly Example of Ignorance: The January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, where Americans harmed fellow citizens, illustrates the consequences of unchecked misinformation. A congressional report found that:

“The Committee’s investigation has identified many individuals involved in January 6th who were provoked to act by false information about the 2020 election repeatedly reinforced by legacy and social media.” - 117th Congress Second Session House Report

While the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights protect our freedom to express beliefs, these protections have limits when misinformed beliefs lead to tragic outcomes like the Capitol attack.

“Beware of little expenses; a small leak will sink a great ship.”

 — Benjamin Franklin

4. Not Seeking Immediate Gratification: Among the most persistent challenges to long-term well-being is the tendency to prioritize immediate comfort over enduring value. Immediate gratification appeals to our evolutionary wiring. When food or shelter was scarce, acting on impulse improved survival. In today’s context, however, the same instinct often leads to poor habits and delayed regret. We eat poorly, overspend, and defer discipline—not because we lack knowledge, but because we respond to availability and emotion rather than intention.

This tendency is amplified in personal finance. Spending delivers a quick dopamine reward, while saving or investing requires abstract thinking and delayed benefit. The brain treats future-focused behaviors like a loss in the present, making them feel emotionally costly even when they are objectively wise.

To address this challenge, effective financial decision-making begins with structure, not willpower. The goal is not to rely on constant restraint, but rather to build a consistent, repeatable process that reduces friction in making the right choice. As a behavioral economist and personal finance professor, I teach learners to embed key practices into their routines—automated savings, scheduled investment reviews, and prioritized self-payments at the beginning of each month.

These practices create a default toward discipline. Just as a thermostat maintains a temperature, automated routines preserve decision quality without requiring continuous deliberation. Saving then becomes a system, not a struggle.

We often use decision-support technology to reinforce this mindset. The tools do not just track budgets; they clarify opportunity costs, visualize trade-offs, and prompt future-oriented reflection. The habit of connecting present actions to long-term outcomes is what ultimately changes behavior.

This is not about asceticism. It is about allocating finite resources—time, attention, money—toward goals that compound meaningfully over time. By resisting the impulse to satisfy every short-term desire, we create space for investments that serve health, freedom, and contribution.

When viewed this way, delayed gratification becomes an act of agency. It signals a commitment to future outcomes and reflects the confidence to trade comfort today for options tomorrow. That is not a restriction. That is empowerment.

“If you’re not quitting enough, you’re probably not winning enough.”

 — Annie Duke

5. Not Seeking Risk Avoidance: There’s a crucial difference between risk and ruin. [iii-d] Ruin is irreversible—like losing your health, your integrity, or your financial foundation. It should absolutely be avoided. But risk itself is not the enemy. In fact, risks—especially those that are calculated, reversible, and growth-oriented—are essential to learning, progress, and happiness.

Our brains are wired for caution. From an evolutionary standpoint, risk avoidance once kept us alive. But in today’s world, this hardwiring can lead us to avoid opportunities that don’t threaten survival but do offer long-term upside. This includes everything from career shifts and entrepreneurship to meaningful conversations and financial investing.

Take employment, for example. Many people seek jobs with large companies, drawn by perceived stability and steady income. Yet, surveys consistently show that employees at large firms are often disengaged or overworked. In fields like professional services, “greedy work” cultures demand excessive hours with diminishing personal returns. And despite the aura of security, large firms frequently restructure or lay off employees in downturns—revealing that job security is often an illusion.

One strategy for managing this risk is to reframe your career as a portfolio—a collection of roles, skills, and networks rather than a single job identity. Think of yourself not as “the employee,” but as a value creator with multiple channels. Whether you’re freelancing, teaching on the side, or building a startup, this mindset gives you the flexibility to adapt as industries change and personal goals evolve. It shifts your perspective from “the fish” to “the house”—or from being at the mercy of chance to designing your own odds.

Beyond work, this principle applies to health, investing, learning, and relationships. Avoiding emotional risk—like the vulnerability required to build deep connections—can leave us isolated. Avoiding financial risk—like starting to invest—can erode long-term wealth through missed compound growth. Growth comes through strategic exposure, not total avoidance.

As poker champion and decision scientist Annie Duke explains: “Contrary to popular belief, winners quit a lot. That’s how they win.”  Learning when to walk away from bad bets—or stale roles—is not failure. It’s progress.

That said, not everyone thrives in high-variability environments. Some find genuine satisfaction in structured, lower-risk settings—such as government, education, or mission-driven nonprofits. If your current path brings joy and aligns with your values, there’s no reason to abandon it. Just be sure it’s a conscious choice, not one driven by fear of the unknown.

---

The framework identifies five categories NOT to seek. But this raises another question: “What about those who do seek some or all of these NOT categories? How should we view them?”—As long as their actions are lawful, we should accept others pursuing these categories. Adam Smith’s concept of the “invisible hand” describes how people’s diverse moral sentiments converge within a community or marketplace. Smith understood that motivations stem from a complex blend of self-interest, including selfishness and altruism. The invisible hand is an emergent phenomenon because individual and societal situations continually evolve.

It’s difficult for an observer to fully understand another’s motivations. So even if someone appears to pursue these NOT categories, we may misinterpret their motivations. For example, in employment, a friend may be happy working in a large, structured organization, even if it’s not appealing to you. Why not ask them how they find joy? Or, in the “faux pro” bike case, my friend’s reasons may go beyond what I can see. Just because I value a $500 bike doesn’t mean his choice lacks meaning.

Embracing diversity strengthens the marketplace, enabling it to function optimally. Ultimately, our judgments cause discomfort. We’re better off valuing differences, following this framework, and withholding judgment. As Southern Baptist minister Billy Graham said:

"... God's job is to judge, and my job is to love."

or as Walt Whitman is often attributed:

"Be curious, not judgemental."

Likewise, we should welcome friends who avoid the NOT categories, surrounding ourselves with people who share positive motivations. However, people’s behaviors shift over time, making it likely they will sometimes pursue a NOT category. Choosing friends who align with these principles is a useful and supportive filter.

My wife and I try to accept our friends as they are, even if their choices diverge from this framework. Our faith emphasizes grace, acceptance, reconciliation, and forgiveness as keys to lasting relationships. We also, albeit imperfectly, measure our own seeking against this framework to guide us in correcting misguided pursuits.

Yet, there are times when releasing a relationship and trusting our faith is the best course. Letting go is never easy. In a world wired for endless seeking, the real breakthrough comes not from chasing more—but from intentionally seeking less. By identifying what not to pursue—luxury, ignorance, vanity, immediate gratification, and risk avoidance—we create room for deeper meaning, stronger relationships, and more deliberate living. This framework is not about judgment or minimalism for its own sake. It is about aligning our natural drive to seek with a clearer sense of purpose. Living well begins with knowing what to let go. When we remove the noise, what remains is opportunity—opportunity to seek what truly matters.

Resources for the Curious

These sources informed the concepts and decision frameworks in this article. They span behavioral economics, neuroscience, philosophy, and personal finance:

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

• Seneca. Letters from a Stoic. Penguin Classics, various editions.

• Housel, Morgan. The Psychology of Money. Harriman House, 2020.

• Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. Random House, 2012.

• Autor, David. “Why Are There Still So Many Jobs?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 29, no. 3, 2015.

• Tetlock, Philip, and Gardner, Dan. Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction. Crown, 2015.

• Franklin, Benjamin. Poor Richard’s Almanack, various editions.

• Duke, Annie. Quit: The Power of Knowing When to Walk Away. Portfolio, 2022.

• Lewis, C.S.. Mere Christianity. HarperOne, 2001.

• Schwartz, Barry. The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Harper Perennial, 2004.

• Prat, Chantel. The Neuroscience of You: How Every Brain Is Different and How to Understand Yours. Dutton, 2022.

• Hulett, Jeff. “Solving the Decision-Making Crisis,” “Our Trade-off Life,” and other essays at The Curiosity Vine (2021–2024).

For more on applying decision science to personal finance and career strategy, explore the Making Choices, Making Money book and the Definitive Choice decision-support app.