So I watched these two awesome Ted Talks the other day and it got me thinking:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html
Gladwell's talk, it seems to me, is a reminder that, for a given kind of decision, more choices maximize the chances that everyone can find a choice they "like". Hence there is an economic incentive in a free market for companies to provide lots and lots of choices.
But Schwartz's talk seems to say that, based on both empirical studies and plausible psychological principles, lots of choices make people unhappy and anxious, both during and after the decision. Here is another nice (geekier) analysis:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/12/harmful-options.html . And two related comics:
Schwartz's talk really resonated for me, not only in recognizing why picking out jeans can make someone anxious, but why choosing a career, lifestyle, partner, etc. can cause anxiety (even after the choice is made!), especially in a city like San Francisco where there are so many options and so few 'judgements'. Any why commitment is harder in a city full of single people. It also suggests to me that maybe one reason people (artists, writers, everyone really) often perform better with constraints is the removal of anxiety. And that maybe the degree to which someone is ADD could be a cause (or effect?) of the paradox of choice for that person. Both "maybes" could probably be studied empirically.
That said, how do we, in general,
deal with the two contrasting principles from Gladwell and Schwartz to increase our happiness?
First, I think we should make sure we understand that the principles are in tension but not logically opposite. My interpretation is this: Gladwell says that more choices makes it more likely there will be some choice you "like", and that companies providing more choices will therefore often maximize profit. Schwartz, I think, is saying that while there may be a choice you really really like, your overall happiness (utility) can sometimes go down in a choice-rich environment. Perhaps you could say that one principle is measuring how good a "match" can be achieved between a person and a choice, while the other is measuring how good a person *feels* depending on the number of available choices.
That said, I think the possible "solutions" fall into one of the following four categories:
1) Change the system. Can we change the rules of society to reduce the number of excessive choices while preserving key values (i.e., prosperity and individual freedom)? To me the overall problem reminds me of the "tragedy of the commons":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons -- individual agents (people, companies) trying to maximize their individual utility at the expense of global average utility. And there are some "classic" ways to dealing with a tragedy of the commons, even while preserving basic capitalism. (Even though they all kind of suck in various ways or else we would have fixed pollution and political corruption by now). Do any of those ways apply here? Is there some government institution that can help? Who do we trust to "reduce" choices? Can we "privatize" choice-related anxiety and create an incentive to reduce excess choices? Maybe in the same way we have pollution credits or carbon credits? I am doubtful, but it's worth brainstorming...
2) Make better "meta-decisions". Can we change our "local" environment to reduce choice-related anxiety? We can choose to live in a certain type of community or country, hang out with a certain kind of subculture, shop in a certain kind of store -- each with different numbers of choices. Greater awareness of the paradox of choice may help with such meta-choices. We don't have to view people that choose to live in wilderness or rural areas as being irrational (mostly) -- or even the people that avoid superstore-type places. And we can all employ services (people, publications, products, software tools) that help us sift through choices without feeling guilty (mostly).
3) Nudge companies to do the right thing. Can we at raise awareness of the paradox of choice among companies and institutions (or people we work with or employ - wedding planners, say), and remind them that there are ways to maximize prosperity under current "rules" while not contributing to choice-anxiety? Many skilled retailers and product designers (hello Old Navy, hello Apple) will do this anyway, will attempt to maximize "the experience" rather than just the options, but it's worth nudging the others. All companies, if they're not paying attention, are vulnerable to "feature creep" or "choice creep", where lots of tiny additional choices gradually add up to a crappy, anxious (and often unprofitable) experience. I would also like to add that one reason I LOVE
my CSA is less choice-anxiety over what to buy and cook. There is similar "hidden value" in things like Pandora in freeing people from choice anxiety regarding music. So, prediction #1: in a world of ever-increasing choices, companies with "filtering" business models, combining convenience and choice reduction with trustworthy "good taste" (or trustable algorithms) will thrive even more in the future. Wine clubs, book clubs, boutique stores, collaborative filtering and social search, some kinds of dating websites, Digg, Slashdot, etc. all fall into this category. Prediction #2: the value of staying trustworthy will therefore increase for many companies as they move to these business models. Prediction #3: there will be a market for companies that can find a way to sell "metrics" of other companies or individuals trustworthines or good taste. In the same way we have credit-rating companies, perhaps we will have more companies that explicitly keep track of trustworthiness, good taste, editorial judgement, etc.? There is already a market in this (Green/Heart-smart/Joe's "Stamp of Approval" etc. Also things like the mod system on Slashdot), but it's going to grow proportionally to the growth in choices. The internet will be playing a role both as the cause of the problem (the net exposes people to more choices) and a solution (the net accelerates "information" markets, which is what both choice-filtering and reputation-tracking are).
4) Change our brains. Can we change *ourselves* so that we are, on a psychological level, less prone to choice-anxiety? Brain or genetic modification will probably have to wait. But can we train ourselves to stay aware of the Paradox of Choice and some of the cognitive biases at the heart of it (grass is always greener, loss-sensitivity, sunk cost fallacy, etc)? Can we give renewed attention to effective therapies for anxiety and ADD such as
Mindfulness Meditation?
I am thinking that 4) is probably the most likely and practical "solution", followed by 3), 2), and 1) in that order.
The problem kind of reminds me of society's problem with porn, TV, websurfing etc. New technologies and societal changes make ancient instincts (procreation, sociability, curiosity) pathological. In this case it's an old instinct that says "the more choices the better", which probably made sense in the choice-impoverished world of small tribes on the savanna.
So if we want to make ourselves happier, do we change the system, our local environment, the companies we deal with, or ourselves?
- Tim
