Setting ambitious goals can improve outcomes, but aiming unrealistically high may ultimately reduce the chances of success, according to researchers whose mathematical model examines the relationship between aspiration and achievement.

The findings contribute to a long-running debate about whether individuals should pursue the most ambitious targets possible or calibrate expectations more carefully to match realistic opportunities. While the research lends support to aspects of conventional self-improvement advice, its authors caution against interpreting the results as a formula for life decisions.

The study explored how people make choices when pursuing uncertain opportunities and found that outcomes are often strongest when ambitions are high but remain grounded in realistic assessments of what is actually attainable. Excessively ambitious targets can lead individuals to overlook achievable opportunities while waiting for outcomes that may never materialize.

The researchers noted that the model offers a simplified representation of decision-making and cannot capture the full complexity of human relationships, careers or personal aspirations. As a result, they argue that the findings should be viewed as a framework for thinking about decisions rather than a universal strategy.

“I hesitate to quantify relationships in that way,” said researcher Landgren, acknowledging the limits of applying mathematical models to deeply personal choices.The study also raises questions about the influence of social comparison on ambition.

Researchers suggested that people frequently judge potential opportunities against highly visible success stories rather than against the broader range of realistic possibilities available to them. In an era shaped by social media, this tendency may encourage expectations that are disconnected from typical outcomes.

Rather than focusing on exceptional cases, the findings suggest individuals may benefit from evaluating opportunities based on a more representative view of what is realistically achievable.The conclusions stand in contrast to some traditional motivational advice that encourages people to pursue the most ambitious goals imaginable.

One of the most widely cited examples comes from the late Norman Vincent Peale, the American clergyman known for promoting positive thinking, who urged people to “shoot for the moon,” arguing that even failure could still lead to impressive results.Landgren suggested a more measured interpretation.”I would say aim a little lower than the moon,” he said.

“Shoot for the stars, but make sure that the stars you’re seeing are what’s really out there.”The research has attracted attention from scholars studying decision-making and motivation. Peter Ayton, director of the Centre for Decision Research at Leeds University Business School, described the work as offering valuable insight into the balance between aspiration and achievement.

While noting that the authors acknowledge the simplifications inherent in the model, Ayton said the findings provide a useful perspective on how people set goals and evaluate opportunities.”Our ambitions can be very subtly and capriciously influenced,” he said.Ayton pointed to previous research illustrating the impact of goal-setting on performance.

One study involving runners in U.S. marathons found that participants who were simply asked to state a goal before a race performed better than those who were not asked to do so.According to the study, the improvement was equivalent to approximately a 13.5% increase in training volume or the performance advantage associated with being nine years younger during a marathon event.

The findings add to a broader body of research suggesting that clearly defined goals can influence behaviour, persistence and performance. Psychologists have long argued that goals help direct attention, sustain effort and create benchmarks against which progress can be measured.At the same time, researchers continue to debate how ambitious those goals should be.

Targets that are too modest may fail to inspire effort, while goals perceived as unattainable can discourage persistence and increase the likelihood of disappointment.The latest research suggests that the most effective approach may lie between those extremes.

Ambition appears to be most productive when it encourages individuals to stretch their capabilities without losing sight of realistic possibilities.

For decision-makers navigating careers, education, relationships or other life choices, the study offers a reminder that success may depend not only on aiming high but also on accurately understanding the opportunities that genuinely exist.

Journalist and author Simone Stolzoff says growing political instability, rapid technological change and declining public trust are intensifying people’s fear of uncertainty, arguing that modern society increasingly rewards the appearance of certainty even when the future remains unknowable.

In his new book, How to Not Know: The Value of Uncertainty in a World That Demands Answers, Stolzoff examines how individuals respond to unpredictability in work, relationships, politics and personal identity, and why learning to tolerate uncertainty may be essential in an era shaped by artificial intelligence, misinformation and economic disruption.

Stolzoff said the idea for the book emerged after readers of his earlier work, The Good Enough Job, repeatedly asked how they should think about their futures amid rapid technological and social change.“The most common question asked by readers was how to think about the future of their careers, given AI and all these other changing forces,” Stolzoff said.

The author describes himself as someone naturally prone to self-doubt and overthinking, tendencies he said became especially pronounced earlier in his career when he faced a decision between remaining a journalist in New York City or taking a role at a design company in San Francisco.

At the time, Stolzoff said he struggled to decide between what he saw as two diverging versions of his future identity.“I could see these two diverging paths Simone the journalist, Simone the designer and, for the life of me, I could not make up my mind,” he said.

He recalled seeking advice from nearly everyone around him, including friends, relatives and even casual acquaintances, because he believed he needed certainty before making a decision.

Looking back, Stolzoff said the problem was not uncertainty itself but his inability to tolerate it.“It was my intolerance of uncertainty that was causing so much of the angst,” he said.Stolzoff argues that the human tendency to seek certainty evolved as a survival mechanism, helping people anticipate threats and reduce risk.

However, he said modern life surrounds individuals with constant triggers that encourage anxiety about the future.“We have these brains that are wired to get out of uncertainty as quickly as possible, in a world where there are triggers all around us,” he said.

The book explores how this dynamic affects public life, including political polarisation and declining social trust. Stolzoff said people increasingly rush to fixed conclusions about others based on political identity or online narratives, reducing the possibility for dialogue or ambiguity.

“I do think that intolerance for uncertainty is at the root of so much of our political polarisation,” he said.He also linked uncertainty to what many researchers and policymakers describe as a growing loneliness epidemic, arguing that social connection often requires people to accept unpredictability in human interaction.

“You have to be willing to enter into an interaction with a stranger, not knowing how it will go,” he said.Stolzoff cited research by psychology professor Philip Tetlock, whose long-term analysis of expert forecasting found that many predictions performed little better than random chance.

He also referenced psychologist Daniel Gilbert and the concept of the “end-of-history illusion,” which describes people’s tendency to believe their current preferences and identities will remain stable over time.According to Stolzoff, individuals often underestimate their own capacity to adapt to changing circumstances.

“We discount our ability to course-correct or adapt,” he said.While some decisions merit careful consideration because they are difficult to reverse, Stolzoff argued that many everyday choices become unnecessarily stressful when approached with excessive analysis.

“There’s a huge cost if we take that highly analytical framework and apply it to decisions like what to watch on Netflix,” he said.

Instead of waiting for complete clarity before acting, Stolzoff said people should continue making decisions despite incomplete information. He compares the process to “rowing through the fog,” a metaphor that became central to the book.

“You might not be able to see very far ahead, or know exactly where you’ll end up, but you have to keep rowing,” he said.Stolzoff said he encourages people to make decisions that align with their values rather than trying to guarantee specific outcomes.

“If you act in alignment with your values, you can still stand by the choice, even if you don’t get the outcome that you desire,” he said.At the same time, he stressed that uncertainty tolerance does not mean embracing instability in every aspect of life.

The book encourages readers to identify “anchors” stable relationships, values or commitments that can provide continuity during periods of change.“I think about my family, my values and my commitment to my home,” he said.

Part of Stolzoff’s reporting for the book took him to Tuvalu, one of the countries considered most vulnerable to rising sea levels caused by climate change. He said conversations there shaped his understanding of how communities respond collectively and individually to uncertain futures.

One resident focused on self-sufficiency and resilience at the household level, while another emphasised international cooperation and collective support.“They’re two approaches to uncertainty,” Stolzoff said. “It’s not either-or; it’s both-and.”

He compared those responses to debates surrounding artificial intelligence and employment, where discussions often become polarised between technological optimism and fears of widespread job displacement.“Often they’re set up in the media as opposites,” he said.

“I think the truth is probably somewhere in between.”The book also examines how uncertainty intersects with mortality. Stolzoff argues that fear of death is closely connected to the human desire for certainty and control, but says accepting life’s limits can also deepen meaning and purpose.

“Part of what makes life meaningful is the fact that it’s not going to be forever,” he said.He argued that complete certainty about the future, including knowledge of exactly when or how a person would die, could ultimately diminish the unpredictability that gives life emotional depth.

“In the uncertainty, that’s where magic, surprise and delight lives,” he said.