"The problem is, choice can be a terrible thing."

[Pointedstick]

I was reading an article on software development for iOS vs Android and I was struck by how it gradually became a discussion on the desirability of freedom itself. From the article:

Nerds like to say that people care about choice at that level. Nerds are wrong. Nerds care about choice, and nerds are such a tiny minority of people that nobody else much cares what the hell they think. Android is designed with far too much nerd philosophy, and open is gravy to those people because it’s synonymous with customisation.

Customisation matters deeply to people who are deeply troubled by what they perceive as minor imperfections or inefficiencies. These same people, as a rule, have a stunning lack of ability to even imagine that others may not share their position. “Pick a sensible default, and skip the Options window”? isn’t just anathema; it’s incomprehensible. They need choice.

The problem is, choice can be a terrible thing. People perceive choice as the poster-boy of our Western watch-word freedom. Try telling people that freedom is a bad thing, and watch the handguns suddenly appear from concealed shoulder-holsters. But freedom is bad, when you get too much of it. Just like sugar, or water, or air. Too little is unsustainable and quickly dangerous. Just enough is wonderful. Too much is the worst. It’s a slow death. A thousand cuts. Starvation. Asphyxiation.

I used to be of this mindset myself, and I think what I didn't understand at the time was that the freedom to choose includes the freedom not to choose, or to have someone else choose for you if the available choices are too overwhelming. Think DIY PP vs PRPFX vs American Asset Management.

Those of this mindset seem to misunderstand that having the freedom to choose someone else to choose for you is NOT the same as lacking that freedom and having someone else impose on you what they believe to be the best option--even if it truly is the best option. But what if they're wrong? What if tomorrow it ceases to be the best option? What if it comes with strings attached that you're not comfortable with? If you don't have the ability to back out and select another option, then too bad!

[jackely]

Since this article was written by software developers I will respond as a software developer whose been doing it since there was such a thing as software.

Way back when I would write a program that did X number of things and I would give you a list and you could use the arrow keys to scroll up and down and choose one of the X number of things you wanted that my program offered.

Today I have to present you with a screen with infinite possibilities - click here, click there - do things I never even dreamed you could do with my program - and I, the programmer, don't even have complete control over it.

For the record, I have never met anyone who used my old software who prefers the new way of doing things. I think most people like both simplicity and freedom.

Oh, and also for the record, I think what sucks most about software nowadays is that it won't do the most basic and simple thing you want it to do without pointing and clicking everywhere on the screen and trying to figure out what the hell the programmer was thinking when he wrote this piece of ....

[Lone Wolf]

I used to be of this mindset myself, and I think what I didn't understand at the time was that the freedom to choose includes the freedom not to choose, or to have someone else choose for you if the available choices are too overwhelming. Think DIY PP vs PRPFX vs American Asset Management.

Those of this mindset seem to misunderstand that having the freedom to choose someone else to choose for you is NOT the same as lacking that freedom and having someone else impose on you what they believe to be the best option--even if it truly is the best option. But what if they're wrong? What if tomorrow it ceases to be the best option? What if it comes with strings attached that you're not comfortable with? If you don't have the ability to back out and select another option, then too bad!

Exactly.  Sure, decision fatigue is a real phenomenon.  That doesn't mean freedom is bad.  The solution to decision fatigue is to adopt or devise a system that you trust, not to place your hopes in the hands of some imbecilic, self-interest politico.  Many of them have made wrecks of their own lives... and can't wait to start with yours!

Consider how many people improve their physique and health with effective systems like Body-for-Life, the paleo diet, WeightWatchers, various low-carb diets, basic calorie counting, the "Fathead" / Weston A. Price approach... you name it.  They place their trust in these simple systems and execute them so long as they deliver the results that they are after.  This is great -- no need to make millions of little decisions yourself.  What's not okay is being told what to eat/drink by some Bloombergian politician with little brainpower, even less muscle mass, and absolutely no regard for your freedom.

Freedom doesn't mean committing to making thousands and thousands of trivial decisions just because you can.  Freedom is living as you please.

The Permanent Portfolio is an excellent system for clearing out unnecessary decision-making from your financial life.  It was designed by Harry Browne, one of the greatest advocates for freedom in my lifetime.  He understood that only you can choose the system that is right for you.  He put it best:

The most ignorant person in the land still knows enough to come in out of the rain.  The lowliest soul in America knows better than you do what would make him happy.  How can you presume to set the rules of life for him - and to force everyone to obey your rules - and then have the audacity to claim that you're doing it for everyone's own good?

[SteveGo]

+1, LW

As to software, which I have been selling for quite a little while: my customers appreciate the simple interface, with defaults. If they want to change them, they can, assuming they read the help file. I think software these days is much better, much more bug free, and much easier to use. Hey, but it's only how I make my living...

[Greg]

I used to be of this mindset myself, and I think what I didn't understand at the time was that the freedom to choose includes the freedom not to choose, or to have someone else choose for you if the available choices are too overwhelming. Think DIY PP vs PRPFX vs American Asset Management.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill."

Rush "Freewill"

They knew what they were talking about. Not sure if they have a Canadian PP though. Do you know Gosso? haha

[KevinW]

Fundamentally I think some people are wired to be individualists and some are wired to be collectivists. The former, including me and probably most of the people on this forum, feel secure and confident when they understand and control (or at least could control) all the systems they depend on. The latter feel secure and confident when the systems they depend on are popular, have a large community of like-minded people around them, and are endorsed by authority figures.

In the realm of software platforms, IMO the open source Unix world, which includes Android, represents the individualist extreme. Monolithic integrated platforms from single vendors, such as Java, .NET, and iOS, are the other extreme. Debates between these camps are inconclusive because the two sides talk past each other about values the other side doesn't care about. "You can recompile or replace any part of Linux, so you control everything and aren't beholden to anyone, why can't you see how powerful that is?" "Yeah, but on .NET Microsoft has an official solution for everything and you don't need to mess around with ill-fitting components and details. And there are more books about it at Barnes & Noble. Don't you see how powerful that is?" Both of them have a point.

[Pointedstick]

KevinW, I think you're absolutely right.The only two things I have to add to that are that first of all, I think to a certain extent we all have both individualism and collectivism in us, and one of our biggest challenges in life is learning how to balance them in a manner that works best for us. Secondly, I think it's important to acknowledge that without freedom in the first place, you don't have the ability to choose that balance for yourself. Even if you end up outsourcing most of your life to a small army of cooks, nannies, gardeners, cleaners, assistants, and accountants, you need the freedom of a world that lets you do that to begin with. Even collectivists can often chafe under especially repressive regimes.

And to get back to the subject of software, even my tech-illiterate family members frequently bump up against Apple's policy decisions on their iOS devices. I have to tell them that they can't do something not because of any technical limitation, but because Apple said they can't.

Basically, you need the freedom to decide if you want to jettison most of it.

[KevinW]

...I think to a certain extent we all have both individualism and collectivism in us, and one of our biggest challenges in life is learning how to balance them in a manner that works best for us.

Sure.

[Gosso]

I used to be of this mindset myself, and I think what I didn't understand at the time was that the freedom to choose includes the freedom not to choose, or to have someone else choose for you if the available choices are too overwhelming. Think DIY PP vs PRPFX vs American Asset Management.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill."

Rush "Freewill"

They knew what they were talking about. Not sure if they have a Canadian PP though. Do you know Gosso? haha

Let me check (dials "8" on phone (Bill Hicks fans will understand)):

"Geddy!"

"What do you want Gosso?"

"I was wondering what you do with your millions of dollars?  Are they in some offshore bank account, guarded by girls in bikinis?  Or how about being intelligently invested by a team of the smartest and greatest hedge fund managers?  Or how about -- "

"No no, none of that fancy stuff.  I have a couple of buddies look after my finances for me:



"They have a unique investment philosophy of investing in what they know.  From what I can gather they are long beer, back-bacon, Tim Hortons and toques.  Although I think their fee of a daily "two-four" is a bit extreme, but if you want great advise then you have to pay for it."

"Geddy, that's crazy!  You should have your investments divided evenly into gold, long term bonds -- "

"WHAT!  50% in gold and long bonds!!  Take Off!"

"But but, they work together to create -- "

"I said TAKE OFF, EH!"

***

I guess not. 

[Gumby]

Part of life is having a balance. It's nice to have some choice. But too much choice is a pretty bad experience.

See: TED: The Paradox of Choice

Psychologist Barry Schwartz takes aim at a central tenet of western societies: freedom of choice. In Schwartz's estimation, choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied.
Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz ... hoice.html

For instance. It's ideal to have three choices of gas when you pull up to a gas station (regular, plus, premium). But, imagine you pulled up to a gas station with 50 different types of gas. That would not be a good experience. It would cause lots of confusion and few people would be happy about it.

And truthfully, when was the last time you ever heard someone complain that we only have three different types of unleaded gas to choose from? It doesn't happen.

The same would be true for choosing a healthcare plan, or an insurance plan, etc. Obviously, people might be better off having the ability to fine-tune and customize their healthcare or insurance plans. But, most people would not enjoy the process of learning everything there is to know about every healthcare or insurance plan available to them. It's too much to think about for the average person.

Sometimes eliminating choices can often free a person's mind to enjoy not having to make a decision. It's a paradox.

[Gumby]

From the TED video (TED: The Paradox of Choice)...

" All of this choice has two effects, two negative effects on people. One effect, paradoxically, is that it produces paralysis, rather than liberation. With so many options to choose from, people find it very difficult to choose at all. I'll give you one very dramatic example of this: a study that was done of investments in voluntary retirement plans. A colleague of mine got access to investment records from Vanguard, the gigantic mutual fund company of about a million employees and about 2,000 different workplaces. And what she found is that for every 10 mutual funds the employer offered, rate of participation went down two percent. You offer 50 funds -- 10 percent fewer employees participate than if you only offer five. Why? Because with 50 funds to choose from, it's so damn hard to decide which fund to choose that you'll just put it off until tomorrow. And then tomorrow, and then tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, and of course tomorrow never comes. Understand that not only does this mean that people are going to have to eat dog food when they retire because they don't have enough money put away, it also means that making the decision is so hard that they pass up significant matching money from the employer. By not participating, they are passing up as much as 5,000 dollars a year from the employer, who would happily match their contribution. So paralysis is a consequence of having too many choices....

So that's one effect. The second effect is that even if we manage to overcome the paralysis and make a choice, we end up less satisfied with the result of the choice than we would be if we had fewer options to choose from. And there are several reasons for this. One of them is that with a lot of different salad dressings to choose from, if you buy one, and it's not perfect -- and, you know, what salad dressing is? -- it's easy to imagine that you could have made a different choice that would have been better. And what happens is this imagined alternative induces you to regret the decision you made, and this regret subtracts from the satisfaction you get out of the decision you made, even if it was a good decision. The more options there are, the easier it is to regret anything at all that is disappointing about the option that you chose.

Second, what economists call "opportunity costs." ... When there are lots of alternatives to consider, it is easy to imagine the attractive features of alternatives that you reject, that make you less satisfied with the alternative that you've chosen."
Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz ... hoice.html

[Gumby]

More from the TED video (TED: The Paradox of Choice)...

" I wear jeans almost all the time. And there was a time when jeans came in one flavor, and you bought them, and they fit like crap, and they were incredibly uncomfortable, and if you wore them long enough and washed them enough times, they started to feel OK. So I went to replace my jeans after years and years of wearing these old ones, and I said, you know, "I want a pair of jeans. Here's my size." And the shopkeeper said, "Do you want slim fit, easy fit, relaxed fit? You want button fly or zipper fly? You want stonewashed or acid-washed? Do you want them distressed? You want boot cut, you want tapered, blah blah blah ..." On and on he went. My jaw dropped, and after I recovered, I said, "I want the kind that used to be the only kind."

(Laughter)

He had no idea what that was, so I spent an hour trying on all these damn jeans, and I walked out of the store -- truth! -- with the best-fitting jeans I had ever had. I did better. All this choice made it possible for me to do better. But I felt worse. Why? I wrote a whole book to try to explain this to myself.

(Laughter)

The reason I felt worse is that, with all of these options available, my expectations about how good a pair of jeans should be went up. I had very low -- I had no particular expectations when they only came in one flavor. When they came in 100 flavors, damn it, one of them should've been perfect. And what I got was good, but it wasn't perfect. And so I compared what I got to what I expected, and what I got was disappointing in comparison to what I expected. Adding options to people's lives can't help but increase the expectations people have about how good those options will be. And what that's going to produce is less satisfaction with results, even when they're good results...

The reason that everything was better back when everything was worse is that when everything was worse, it was actually possible for people to have experiences that were a pleasant surprise. Nowadays, the world we live in -- we affluent, industrialized citizens, with perfection the expectation -- the best you can ever hope for is that stuff is as good as you expect it to be. You will never be pleasantly surprised because your expectations, my expectations, have gone through the roof. The secret to happiness -- this is what you all came for -- the secret to happiness is low expectations."
Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz ... hoice.html

[Tyler]

I used to work for a design firm who made products for RadioShack.  RadioShack was a huge proponent of limiting product choices to 3 per category to make the decision process easier for customers.  They had studies that showed that analysis paralysis cost Best Buy money, and they went so far as to pass out free copies of "The Paradox of Choice" to all their employees.

End result? RadioShack stock is trading at an all time low.  I'll let you visit one and judge for yourself whether the curated options makes you want to spend your money there.

Limiting choice to the "best" options sounds great in theory, but (like most centralized political philosophies) its only as good as the taste and motivations of the bureaucrat controlling the filter. 

[MediumTex]

I used to work for a design firm who made products for RadioShack.  RadioShack was a huge proponent of limiting product choices to 3 per category to make the decision process easier for customers.  They had studies that showed that analysis paralysis cost Best Buy money, and they went so far as to pass out free copies of "The Paradox of Choice" to all their employees.

End result? RadioShack stock is trading at an all time low.  I'll let you visit one and judge for yourself whether the curated options makes you want to spend your money there.

Limiting choice to the "best" options sounds great in theory, but (like most centralized political philosophies) its only as good as the taste and motivations of the bureaucrat controlling the filter. 

I feel like I have traveled back in time 10 or 20 years every time I go into a Radio Shack.

[Gumby]

I used to work for a design firm who made products for RadioShack.  RadioShack was a huge proponent of limiting product choices to 3 per category to make the decision process easier for customers.  They had studies that showed that analysis paralysis cost Best Buy money, and they went so far as to pass out free copies of "The Paradox of Choice" to all their employees.

End result? RadioShack stock is trading at an all time low.  I'll let you visit one and judge for yourself whether the curated options makes you want to spend your money there.

Limiting choice to the "best" options sounds great in theory, but (like most centralized political philosophies) its only as good as the taste and motivations of the bureaucrat controlling the filter.  

I feel like I have traveled back in time 10 or 20 years every time I go into a Radio Shack.

I have to agree. RadioShack does not limit choices to the "best" of anything. The store is so obsolete it literally has the word "Radio" in the name. (And the image of a "Shack" isn't helping either). The only thing RadioShack does that is useful is provide a place to recycle batteries.

[MediumTex]

I used to work for a design firm who made products for RadioShack.  RadioShack was a huge proponent of limiting product choices to 3 per category to make the decision process easier for customers.  They had studies that showed that analysis paralysis cost Best Buy money, and they went so far as to pass out free copies of "The Paradox of Choice" to all their employees.

End result? RadioShack stock is trading at an all time low.  I'll let you visit one and judge for yourself whether the curated options makes you want to spend your money there.

Limiting choice to the "best" options sounds great in theory, but (like most centralized political philosophies) its only as good as the taste and motivations of the bureaucrat controlling the filter.  

I feel like I have traveled back in time 10 or 20 years every time I go into a Radio Shack.

I have to agree. RadioShack does not limit choices to the "best" of anything. The store is so obsolete it literally has the word "Radio" in the name. (And the image of a "Shack" isn't helping either). The only thing RadioShack does that is useful is provide a place to recycle batteries.

Neither their prices nor their selection are all that impressive.

I was in there a while back and they asked if I would allow them to check my upgrade eligibility for my mobile phone.  I know I am eligible for an upgrade because I have had the same phone for four years, but I let him check anyway because he said I would get a $5 store credit by email if I did.  I never got the credit by email and the next time I was in there I asked about it and the guy looked at me like he didn't know what I was talking about.

With this sort of thing I always wonder to myself if you're not going to do it right, why bother to do it at all?

[jackely]

+1, LW

As to software, which I have been selling for quite a little while: my customers appreciate the simple interface, with defaults. If they want to change them, they can, assuming they read the help file. I think software these days is much better, much more bug free, and much easier to use. Hey, but it's only how I make my living...

I think the best software presents a simple interface that you can use to get the job done but with the option of more powerful features if you want to dig deeper. What you usually get nowadays, with Microsoft and IBM in the lead, is a world of complexity from the start. Sometimes it seems like you have to do the equivalent of a college course just to figure out how to do the simplest things. (Admission: Could be I'm just getting old).

I also disagree about software being more bug free. My Blackberry locks up at least once a week and I have to reset it. Same with my DVR and other electronic devices where programming is involved. Was sitting in a meeting today where the host was trying to do something with Internet Explorer and it kept crashing until he had to finally give up. I see this all the time. I don't necessarily blame the developers because they are given a world of complexity to work with and unrealistic deadlines that don't leave room for doing quality work.

[MachineGhost]

The reason that everything was better back when everything was worse is that when everything was worse, it was actually possible for people to have experiences that were a pleasant surprise. Nowadays, the world we live in -- we affluent, industrialized citizens, with perfection the expectation -- the best you can ever hope for is that stuff is as good as you expect it to be. You will never be pleasantly surprised because your expectations, my expectations, have gone through the roof. The secret to happiness -- this is what you all came for -- the secret to happiness is low expectations."[/font][/size]
Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz ... hoice.html

What a bunch of apologist B.S..  So we should tolerate the cheap chinese shit that is orders of magnitude inferior to the previously American and Japanese manufactured-products that lasted decades?  Its not an expectations issue when reality itself takes a downturn.

I rather have the choice of 100 video game cards to research and pick the best from.  Anyone that complains of unhappiness otherwise are just dimwits and can go live in communist Belarus.  Intelligent people don't regret their choices because they made sure it was the best fit for their needs before purchasing.  Doh!

I bet its those collectivist losers doing all the complaining.

[Pointedstick]

MG, it definitely is, but I think the problem is that collectivists are wired up to not like all that choice. It makes them feel lost and overwhelmed. You may see 100 video cards and think "Aha, I can find the best one for my needs at the lowest price that still fits within my budget!" ...but the collectivist thinks, "My god, how in the heck am I ever going to figure out which of these are any good? Why can't they just make one that works well for everyone so I don't have to do all this work when I really don't care about video cards at all?"

[Greg]

I used to be of this mindset myself, and I think what I didn't understand at the time was that the freedom to choose includes the freedom not to choose, or to have someone else choose for you if the available choices are too overwhelming. Think DIY PP vs PRPFX vs American Asset Management.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill."

Rush "Freewill"

They knew what they were talking about. Not sure if they have a Canadian PP though. Do you know Gosso? haha

Let me check (dials "8" on phone (Bill Hicks fans will understand)):

"Geddy!"

"What do you want Gosso?"

"I was wondering what you do with your millions of dollars?  Are they in some offshore bank account, guarded by girls in bikinis?  Or how about being intelligently invested by a team of the smartest and greatest hedge fund managers?  Or how about -- "

"No no, none of that fancy stuff.  I have a couple of buddies look after my finances for me:



"They have a unique investment philosophy of investing in what they know.  From what I can gather they are long beer, back-bacon, Tim Hortons and toques.  Although I think their fee of a daily "two-four" is a bit extreme, but if you want great advise then you have to pay for it."

"Geddy, that's crazy!  You should have your investments divided evenly into gold, long term bonds -- "

"WHAT!  50% in gold and long bonds!!  Take Off!"

"But but, they work together to create -- "

"I said TAKE OFF, EH!"

***

I guess not.  :)

That was hilarious Gosso. Strange Brew was an awesome movie. I actually lol'ed at most of your comments, and I hate using the term "lol" so it means a lot when I say it hah. Good job.

[Gosso]

Haha...I am here to entertain 

[6 Iron]

My desire for choices is variable: gadgets, vacations, food...good. But if I am roped into a trip to pick out upholstery fabric with my wife, the myriad choices, and her thoroughness, suck the life force from my body.

[moda0306]

My desire for choices is variable: gadgets, vacations, food...good. But if I am roped into a trip to pick out upholstery fabric with my wife, the myriad choices, and her thoroughness, suck the life force from my body.

True dat!

[MediumTex]

My desire for choices is variable: gadgets, vacations, food...good. But if I am roped into a trip to pick out upholstery fabric with my wife, the myriad choices, and her thoroughness, suck the life force from my body.

True dat!

I find choices in those types of realms to be utterly exhausting as well.  I can feel my brain struggling to organize, categorize and make value judgments, but it soon exhausts itself and then all of the senses begin to simply shut down.

[KevinW]

I find choices in those types of realms to be utterly exhausting as well.  I can feel my brain struggling to organize, categorize and make value judgments, but it soon exhausts itself and then all of the senses begin to simply shut down.

I read the Paradox of Choice book, and while I didn't agree with his suggestions for choice-reducing public policy, I did appreciate his ideas for paring down overwhelming options for personal choices. One idea is pick a preferred vendor and limit yourself to their product line. For example I've been satisfied with Dell, and their prices are competitive, so any time I need to buy a computer I just pick whichever Dell is closest to what I want. Instead of hundreds of viable options I have 1-3.

Or, establish some kind of ground rules for yourself. E.g. my wife and I decided we like Arts&Crafts-style furniture. So instead of having hundreds of options for a couch, there are the 5 couches at the one Arts&Crafts furniture store near us. Or only wear black, or eat vegetarian, or whatever.