The paradox of choice; GAS explained

[N+1]

Originally Posted by HHP

Thought it was baloney. Gourmet baloney maybe, but still baloney.

This is what I call philosophical pandering. Telling people that the problems they face are the result of some external force rather than their own inability to deal with it.

I don't think that's what he was doing. He was comparing two extremes: on one hand, we have the people who have no, or little choice. If they are unhappy, the psychological effect would generally be for them to blame their external circumstances (even if only subconsciously). Blame is likely to be directed outwards. On the other hand we have the people who have so much to choose from that the decision-making may feel almost impossible. His argument is that faced with such a wide choice that some sort of perfection seems possible in principle, we may feel that there's no one to blame but ourselves if we're unhappy about it. Blame is directed inwards.

My own experience tends to support this idea, though I can see we may all experience this differently. But I don't think it's baloney - that seems a bit hard. It's just an interesting idea, which may or may not match with a particular individual's experience.

[HHP]

Originally Posted by catdaddy

Pretty easy to say if you were born with a bucket in each hand, or had the benefit of family or academic education that taught you the value of critical thinking, introspective examination and self-worth. Sure, we should all be so enlightened, but unfortunately we're not, and the OP's video sheds insightful light on just what the rest of us are facing perhaps unawares in our lowly ignorance.

That sounds like you think some people need to have someone else do their thinking for them.

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by HHP

Thought it was baloney. Gourmet baloney maybe, but still baloney.

This is what I call philosophical pandering. Telling people that the problems they face are the result of some external force rather than their own inability to deal with it.

Too much choice is only a problem if you are unable to authoritatively discriminate or to be fully secure in your ability to do so. Basically, finding what you want is dependent on your knowing what you want. If you don't know what you want, you will often be disappointed by any selection you make but the problem isn't the choices, its your inability to discriminate between them.

While watching this I thought it would make a great Seinfeld show. It was reminiscent of issues George’s father might conjure up and get completely beside himself trying to convince everyone else it was an important problem.

[catdaddy]

Originally Posted by HHP

That sounds like you think some people need to have someone else do their thinking for them.

I think many people require information to understand and deal with a great many issues in our culture. I simply believe that the OP's video isn't didactic but merely instructionally educational. Insight isn't simply a matter of "growing up" as you suggest, it requires input from a variety of sources and experiences if a person is to effect change. Are you suggesting that illustrating the increasingly complex situation involving a tyranny of choice facing people today requires no explanation or illumination to be effectively dealt with?

[N+1]

Originally Posted by catdaddy

I simply believe that the OP's video isn't didactic but merely instructionally educational. Insight isn't simply a matter of "growing up" as you suggest, it requires input from a variety of sources and experiences if a person is to effect change.

Nodding in agreement ...

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by catdaddy

I think many people require information to understand and deal with a great many issues in our culture. I simply believe that the OP's video isn't didactic but merely instructionally educational. Insight isn't simply a matter of "growing up" as you suggest, it requires input from a variety of sources and experiences if a person is to effect change. Are you suggesting that illustrating the increasingly complex situation involving a tyranny of choice facing people today requires no explanation or illumination to be effectively dealt with?

"Tyranny of choice"...…...isn't that a bit dramatic? I see it more as a wealth of choice and our differences of perspective as to whether we see it as a "tyranny" or "wealth" dictates our response.

[HHP]

Originally Posted by catdaddy

I think many people require information to understand and deal with a great many issues in our culture. I simply believe that the OP's video isn't didactic but merely instructionally educational. Insight isn't simply a matter of "growing up" as you suggest, it requires input from a variety of sources and experiences if a person is to effect change. Are you suggesting that illustrating the increasingly complex situation involving a tyranny of choice facing people today requires no explanation or illumination to be effectively dealt with?

I don't accept that choice is a "tyranny". Most people are not going to be thrown into waves of doubt by buying a pair of pants, a car, a computer, or any of the stuff we have to select on a regular basis.

The one exception are individuals that feel they have to make choices that will satisfy beyond themselves. If you want to "impress your friends" and your choice in car or guitar fails to elicit that response, you might regret your decision.

Everybody "decides wrong" on occasion and sometimes you make a "right decision" that circumstances turn "wrong", but choice wasn't the problem and any rational adult will simply learn from the experience so as not to repeat it.

They say you learn more from your mistakes than your successes so, without choices to make, you can't learn.

If you just look at the guy in the video, does he look like he was really confounded by his selection of a pair of pants when he goes in front of a crowd in a worn T-shirt and baggy shorts?

[richard1]

I think the pair of pants thing was just used as a tongue-in-cheek example. You can witness the effect of virtually unlimited choice, simply by reading the multitude of posts on this site.
How many times do people sell off guitars because they ' Can't get on with the neck shape ' ' Decided I don't like Rosewood / mahogany etc. etc. ' ' Need something smaller 'cause my shoulder hurts ' you can add virtually thousands of reasons yourself.
The point is that if there was no other option out there, then they would just need to overcome the limitations of their guitar, and persevere until they can cope with it. I have seen many examples of beginners swapping out their guitar maybe ten times before they feel that they got the right one. Even then they worry about what to get the next time.
Many of us learned on crappy instruments for years, and though I agree that it is far from ideal, it was much cheaper and probably far more satisfying.

[devellis]

Originally Posted by HHP

Thought it was baloney. Gourmet baloney maybe, but still baloney.

This is what I call philosophical pandering. Telling people that the problems they face are the result of some external force rather than their own inability to deal with it.

Too much choice is only a problem if you are unable to authoritatively discriminate or to be fully secure in your ability to do so. Basically, finding what you want is dependent on your knowing what you want. If you don't know what you want, you will often be disappointed by any selection you make but the problem isn't the choices, its your inability to discriminate between them.

Not a philosophical position but an empirical one. But you're right that it isn't a universal. Not every study has shown that choice lowers satisfaction. But plenty have. In some situations, choice reduces happiness and satisfaction. We don't fully understand all of the "other things" than come into play in these situations. Not always the case that more choices lower satisfction, but clearly the case in certain situations.


Choices often involve trade-offs and trade-offs often involve alternative characteristics that the chooser can't fully understand. A medical condition might involve choosing between various combinations of side-effects and outcomes and neither the side-effects nor the outcomes may be familiar to the chooser. It's hard to say what would really be the "better outcome" or the "more tolerable side-effects" in these situations. What we want, a full recovery with no side-effects, simply isn't among the choices.


The data don't suggest that no choice is ideal but that, beyond a point, choices may work against us. This happens, in part, because the optimal combination of features just isn't available in any of the choices before us and seeing a very wide range of options makes us aware of things we have to give up in any choice we make.


That set of circumstances doesn't always lead to unhappiness but it does in some situations. I think (a) the less familiar we are with the implications of our choices, (b) the more choice entails having to forego certain desirable attributes in order to get others, and (c) the greater the cognitive overload we're presented with in the situation we face, the more likely it is that too many options will work against satisfaction.


If I'm looking for a part for faucet that needs fixing, there may be literally thousands of faucet parts I have to choose from. But only one will really fit my faucet. Especially if it's a rare faucet, finding a source that has many choices will increase the likelihood of my finding the right part. Choice is good in that context.



If I'm a contestant on The Bachelor (a show I've never watched, so I might not get the description of how it works right here), I'm faced with several appealing potential partners. They're all attractive, engaging, interesting, etc. This might not be the best way to build an enduring relationship. Whomever I choose, I am giving up all those other people and I may have a hard time forgetting that my choice lacks certain qualities (a particularly good sense of humor, an extraordinarily pleasing smile, a capacity for understanding my moods) each of which I could have had, in isolation, if I'd chosen someone else. On the other hand, if I met only one of those people, I might find them to be as close to an ideal partner as I could expect and might end up happier for my focus on what I was getting rather than on what I was missing.


Guitars are somewhere in between. On the one hand, there are more viable options than the one faucet part that will fit and on the other, the choices are more easily altered than when you're choosing a mate. For some people in some situations, I'm pretty sure that too many choices could reduce their satisfaction. For others, not so much.



But I think the point is, the notion that more choices are always, necessarily, better than fewer just doesn't stand up to empirical scrutiny.

[HHP]

Originally Posted by richard1

I think the pair of pants thing was just used as a tongue-in-cheek example. You can witness the effect of virtually unlimited choice, simply by reading the multitude of posts on this site.
How many times do people sell off guitars because they ' Can't get on with the neck shape ' ' Decided I don't like Rosewood / mahogany etc. etc. ' ' Need something smaller 'cause my shoulder hurts ' you can add virtually thousands of reasons yourself.
The point is that if there was no other option out there, then they would just need to overcome the limitations of their guitar, and persevere until they can cope with it. I have seen many examples of beginners swapping out their guitar maybe ten times before they feel that they got the right one. Even then they worry about what to get the next time.
Many of us learned on crappy instruments for years, and though I agree that it is far from ideal, it was much cheaper and probably far more satisfying.

Rejecting something that doesn't suit your current needs or tastes is hardly cause for deep self-doubt or the result of many other choices being available. Any more than you regret the purchase of some pants because you gained or lost weight and they no longer fit. This just falls under the "Stuff happens, deal with it" category.

If there was only one guitar available in the world, many would still have problems with the selection, they would just not express it as a matter of choice. They would just say "too loud" or "too quiet" or "too big" and be stuck in misery. Choice gives them a path out of misery.

[fazool]

Originally Posted by HHP

....Choice gives them a path out of misery.

In my opinion, this illustrates the disconnect:

Yes, choice gives them a path out of misery but having the choice instills within them "buyer's remorse" since they might have missed out on an even better choice.

So using the pants example:

Before they only had one choice of pants. They bought one that was lousy and they were miserable in their pants, but they didn't wallow emotionally about their choice - they had no choice so they didn't second guess themselves.

In the modern situation, they found pants that were much better and they were no longer miserable in their pants. But they bypassed hundreds of other choices and that leads to second guessing, self-doubt so their pants are terrific but they are miserable from their own uncertainty.

I get the sense that there are a lot of studies and seemingly current thinking that this is not an indication of a weak-minded human being or an emotionally undeveloped person, but a propensity for this issue that humans have.

The "misery" simply shifts from the real source (uncomfortable pants) to an imaginary one (I could have had more comfortable pants).

[KevWind]

I will have to ponder the video some more but initially and while HHP and I often have fairly different perspectives , and although I would not go so far as to call it "baloney"

I do agree at least with HPP in that it seems to be missing the point that ultimately people only feel regret about there choice if they "choose" to.... Ha! phunny,,, Particularly if is actually a good choice. Obviously most of us feel some regret when we realize we have made bad choice (believe it's it called learning about life and experiencing it)
I would tend to think that any confusion or indecision people might feel because of the number of choices available is more based in lack of critical thinking ability and or self induced fear of making a bad choice , or as stated not knowing what they want or don't want , than in the situation of the number of options exceeding some imagined threshold of optimum number of choices.

And I think any dissatisfaction, particularly with a good or reasonable choice, is fundamentally rooted in many in our society being prone to using material possession as the measurement and criteria for personal satisfaction or happiness .
In other words I have no doubt the amount of choice may result in many being indecisive or dissatisfied, I don't quite buy that "the number" is the root cause.

[HHP]

Originally Posted by fazool

In my opinion, this illustrates the disconnect:

Yes, choice gives them a path out of misery but having the choice instills within them "buyer's remorse" since they might have missed out on an even better choice.

So using the pants example:

Before they only had one choice of pants. They bought one that was lousy and they were miserable in their pants, but they didn't wallow emotionally about their choice - they had no choice so they didn't second guess themselves.

In the modern situation, they found pants that were much better and they were no longer miserable in their pants. But they bypassed hundreds of other choices and that leads to second guessing, self-doubt so their pants are terrific but they are miserable from their own uncertainty.

I get the sense that there are a lot of studies and seemingly current thinking that this is not an indication of a weak-minded human being or an emotionally undeveloped person, but a propensity for this issue that humans have.

The "misery" simply shifts from the real source (uncomfortable pants) to an imaginary one (I could have had more comfortable pants).

So its better to be miserable, content in the knowledge that everyone is miserable, than to be able to take action to end your misery?

When I run into people who get consumed over crap like this, I tell them that I find not giving a rat's rear works every time its tried.

[Glennwillow]

I thought it was a well executed presentation, a well crafted speech. And, I thought it was interesting.

At the same time, I don't feel any of the unhappiness he was describing. I don't dwell on perfection and how I might have missed it. I make decisions very quickly and I don't obsess over them.

But I know that for some people, making decisions is very difficult and stress inducing. My experiences of sitting on a jury during a trial has taught me that a fair number of people are incapable of making a decision based on the information provided and then being at peace with that decision. I hate sitting on a jury because I hate having to put up with people who can't make a decision. I am very well aware of the damage a jury can do on a civil or criminal case to an unfairly accused defendant. I am not at all insensitive to the importance of making correct and accurate decisions based on the facts of the case. But people who have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a logical decision after hours or days or weeks of difficult discussion really drive me crazy.

- Glenn

[richard1]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

I thought it was a well executed presentation, a well crafted speech. And, I thought it was interesting.

At the same time, I don't feel any of the unhappiness he was describing. I don't dwell on perfection and how I might have missed it. I make decisions very quickly and I don't obsess over them.

But I know that for some people, making decisions is very difficult and stress inducing. My experiences of sitting on a jury during a trial has taught me that a fair number of people are incapable of making a decision based on the information provided and then being at peace with that decision. I hate sitting on a jury because I hate having to put up with people who can't make a decision. I am very well aware of the damage a jury can do on a civil or criminal case to an unfairly accused defendant. I am not at all insensitive to the importance of making correct and accurate decisions based on the facts of the case. But people who have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a logical decision after hours or days or weeks of difficult discussion really drive me crazy.

- Glenn

And that is just between two options, Glenn. Guilty or not guilty. It's easy to understand how paralysis of cognition would render some individuals with seemingly insurmountable doubt.