The Paradox of Choice
Friends!
In last week's blog, I referenced "the paradox of choice." I first learned of this particular phrase while reading the book with the same title by Professor Barry Schwartz of Swarthmore College and again in his now-famous 2005 TED talk that has been seen by over 15 million people.
“Autonomy and Freedom of choice are critical to our well-being, and choice is critical to freedom and autonomy. Nonetheless, though modern Americans have more choice than any group of people ever has before, and thus, presumably, more freedom and autonomy, we don’t seem to be benefiting from it psychologically.”
— BARRY SCHWARTZ IN THE PARADOX OF CHOICE, 2004
While it was the first time I had ever come across the term, I’ve been well acquainted with the concept of "less is more" for many years. Eating is a great example. We all have the same experience. We love something. We want more of it. We eat too much of it. And we don't feel so good afterward. In fact, our entire country has an "overeating" problem, which I have mentioned many times on these pages. (And I promise I will keep covering until we have solved the problem!)
Consider the recent popularity of Marie Kondo and her concept of decluttering and organizing your life in pursuit of seeking joy. In music, we learned that it is the silence between the notes that shapes tonality, rhythm, and beauty. Or in design, we have learned from many great architects and software designers the importance and value of minimalism in helping users make better choices.
In economics, we learn about the "Laffer Curve," which states that we can generate more total tax revenue by LOWERING the tax rate. This was something I learned a lot about living through some of Sweden's highest tax eras in the 1980s. I remember then opposition leader, and subsequent Prime Minister, Carl Bildt once said in a debate: "If higher taxes was a solution to any problem, Sweden wouldn't have any problems." (During a time in which marginal tax rates were approaching 100%.)
There are many other areas in life where we see this type of relationship. A classic one is the relationship between pressure and performance. With no pressure, our performance suffers. We don't work as hard. We don't expect as much. We don't try as hard. With increased pressure and expectations, our performance, on average, tends to improve over time. However, as with anything, there is such thing as too much of a good thing. If we apply inordinate pressure on ourselves, we risk trying too hard, ignoring the importance of recovery and rest, and could develop aspects of “performance anxiety.” Our ambition could end up actually depressing our performance.
We also learned from Frederick Herzberg's important work on motivation theory in organizations. His "hygiene-motivation" theory from 1958 is a classic. He basically proved that the attributes that make us dissatisfied are DIFFERENT from those that make us satisfied. This means, for instance, that if employees are super unhappy about dirty environments, it doesn't mean they will get happier and happier the cleaner those environments become. Same with noise, salary, time off, etc. We can also look to executive pay as another example. According to many sources, CEO pay has grown by 1000% in the last 40 years. Does anyone really believe those CEO's are 1000% happier?
Constraints are both real and beneficial. We don't always welcome them. But when reflecting on what has made most people, countries, and companies successful, you often find that scarcity, not abundance, laid the foundation of their successes. You hear it all the time. Necessity is the mother of invention.
This is, indeed, the paradox of choice. We want to believe that more freedom, liberty, and choice MUST be a good thing. And, it is – for those that don't have any. In some areas (and certainly many countries), more choice is critical. And still very much needed. But in others, it might be less desirable and could have side effects that we should be more aware of? Questions to ponder are:
Will too many choices make us less committed to making a choice or to sustaining the choices we’ve made?
Are too many choices producing more paralysis than liberation? (Barry Schwartz believes it does!)
What are the opportunity costs of too much choice? (Consider the time and cost to select vs the marginal improvement in happiness from having 100 more styles or choices to choose from?)
We might be all suffering from a sort of “extrapolation syndrome.” In a world of an abundance of data and machine learning, is there an increased risk that we identify relationships in the past and exaggerate their meaning for our future? Shakespeare reminded us that the past is prologue. It’s certainly true. But while our roots contain our future, we must never let our future be contained by our roots.
Please watch this talk. It's only 8 minutes. I found Pete David's graduate speech at Harvard Law School in 2018 to be very inspiring and made me think deeper about how grateful I am for the choices I have made and more committed to redoubling my efforts within my own journey. (Rather than spending my time exploring the many possible potential detours I could take!)
Here are the things inspiring me this past week (including above-mentioend talks for ease of reference):
Barry Schwartz TED talk, per above.
Pete David's Graduate Talk (also from above.)
Very important and a well-written op-ed by Persuasion and former FT Editor around how the "press needs to resurrect its ideals of fairness."
I am an optimist. I have to be. It’s the only way to live. I want to believe that what we are experiencing is the beginning of a much better future. We all do. Therefore, I found David Brook’s case for why Biden may be the “accidental” (my edit) leader we need to be very hopeful. Let’s make it so. We all win if that is the case!
And for those of you who missed it or want to relive it. Amanda Gorman's beautiful Poem "The Hill We Climb" is worth watching or reading many times over. Here are my favorite few lines:
And so we lift our gaze, not to what stands between us, but what stands before us.
We close the divide because we know to put our future first, we must first put our differences aside. We lay down our arms so we can reach out our arms to one another. We seek harm to none and harmony for all. Let the globe, if nothing else, say this is true.
That even as we grieved, we grew.
That even as we hurt, we hoped.
That even as we tired, we tried.
We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation, rather than share it. Would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy. And this effort very nearly succeeded. But while democracy can be periodically delayed, it can never be permanently defeated.
In this truth, in this faith we trust, for while we have our eyes on the future, history has its eyes on us.
