Kruse Kronicle

The Paradox of Choice

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

Here is a great clip from TEDS featuring Barry Schwartz. It is over two years old but touches on issues related to living with affluence that I’ve just started blogging about. It is thought-provoking and entertaining. (HT: Virgil)

“Psychologist Barry Schwartz takes aim at a central belief of western societies: that freedom of choice leads to personal happiness. In Schwartz’s estimation, all that choice is making us miserable. We set unreasonably high expectations, question our choices before we even make them, and blame our failures entirely on ourselves. His relatable examples, from consumer products (jeans, TVs, salad dressings) to lifestyle choices (where to live, what job to take, whom and when to marry), underscore this central point: Too many choices undermine happiness.”

Comments

12 responses to “The Paradox of Choice”

  1. Virgil Avatar
    Virgil

    Michael I am glad you enjoyed the TED talk. On the other hand, I am not sure I completely agree with him; he is making some right observations from a secular perspective but I think in light of our faith we can turn what he is saying upside down. Some questions I was pondering are: How can we use those nearly infinite number of choices for a higher purpose, or perhaps even for glorifying God? Schwartz is claiming that choice is virtually tyranny, but in light of a relationship with God, is that true? Is choice not a daily exercise to manifest God’s love? Etc.
    Either way, the analysis of choice is paradoxical indeed. Maybe Calvinists do have a point after all about freedom of choice eh? 🙂

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Virgil, I don’t compeletely agree with myself half the time. 🙂 I think your cautions are important but I do think that the basic the of choices being paralyzing, and the issue of disatisfaction from rising expectations is very good stuff.
    See. If would had all just accepted our predestination instead of listening to those Arminians, we wouldn’t be having this problem. 🙂

    Reply
  3. neil Avatar
    neil

    Schwartz makes some great observations in his book. I have a friend who grew up on the mission field in New Guinea, when she returned to the US for college she walked into the grocery store and had a panic attack because of the choices she faced, it certainly didn’t make her any happier.
    I just bought a new TV, I was anxious for days as I researched and studied screen size, resolution, plasma vs LCD vs projection, contrast ratio, brand… I bought a TV and I am no happier now than I was before and because of the huge range of choice I had it was actually a negative experience for me.

    Reply
  4. RonMck Avatar
    RonMck

    His logic is not quite right. He has to premises.
    1. We need to maximize freedom.
    2. We maximize freedom by maximizing choice.
    For a Christian, the first premise is wrong, because true freedom is freedom under God’s will, not unconstrained freedom. More importantly he demonstrated that the second premise might be wrong, but he did not show that the first premise is wrong, so he has not destroyed the entire dogma as he claims.
    His argument about the second premise is probably correct. Many Americans are getting close to satiation, so they do not get much marginal utility from anything. Maybe the best way to obtain additon utiility would be to avoid the difficult choices by forgetting about going to the jeans store and start thinking about creative ways to help people in poverty. That would produce greater exciement (utility) than being satiated with more goods.
    His solution is wrong. Redistribution of income does not reduce choice, it will actually reduce freedom. People will have just as many choices, but the ability to choose them will have reduced because they have less income, so their satisfaction will decrease. Therefore forced redistribution does not produce a pareto optimum.
    Only voluntary redistribution, where people reject more mindless choices for further satiation and find creative ways to help people in need, will produce a pareto optimum. The reason that it does that it that the rich person loses no freedom and the poor gain it.

    Reply
  5. Virgil Avatar
    Virgil

    Ron, I don’t think Schwartz comes out in favor of redistribution of income but I see shades of that in his book. If he is a socialist, he does a good job at hiding it.
    Either way, he is making some excellent points, and remember he is a psychologist not an economist, and his proposal of maximizing freedom is by choosing a satisfying option, not necessarily the best option. Therefore, in a psychological context, the “good-enough” option becomes the best option.
    I actually agree with you, redistribution of income will destroy ANY choice, so no choice will be available.

    Reply
  6. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Choice can be paralyzing. I didn’t get the sense that Schwartz was calling for forced redistribution.
    Ron, one article I read not long ago talked about how the difference in daily life between the lives of the very rich and, say, the rest of the top 20% in society are very minimal. The differences tend to be more of the variety of owning a house on cliff overlooking the ocean vs. owning the same house elsewhere. Daily quality of life is not that far apart. After a point the marginal utility of more for most folks isn’t that great.
    As to maximizing freedom from a Christian perspective, freedom is not the freedom do whatever we want but freedom to choose the things of God. That’s how I see it.

    Reply
  7. RonMcK Avatar
    RonMcK

    I have not read the book. His conclusion on the talk above is that redistribution does result in a pareto optimum.

    Reply
  8. Peggy Avatar
    Peggy

    There are those who are saying that our young children have too many choices, as well, and that it is detrimental to their ability to establish boundaries and have a sense of stability. Hmmm…..

    Reply
  9. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Peggy, I’ve heard and sensed this too but what choice do we have? 🙂

    Reply
  10. RonMcK Avatar
    RonMcK

    If we are free, we can choose to avoid being overwhelmed by choice.
    We can choose stores that offer limited simple choice. We can take advice from experts on what to buy. We can imitate people that we admire (just buy the same brand and style of jeans as Scot McKnight).
    We too often allow ourselves to be seduced by the benefits of choice.

    Reply
  11. Peggy Avatar
    Peggy

    Well, we need to be their parents, not their buddies, and give them choices that help them learn confidence and responsibility rather than the mistaken notion that they are entitled to the right to choose in every circumstance. To not correct this very mistaken notion is to be cruel to our children and set them up for a very rude awakening!

    Reply
  12. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Good stuff guys. Thanks. I think we all struggle from these issues but I think it is particularly pronounced the younger you go down the age spectrum. I’ve seen few good resources that coach people on coping with choices.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to VirgilCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading