The Off Topic Topic

[fhdz]

Surprise! The libertarian sees value in one argument and fails to see the - equal - value in the other

[Admiral Yi]

Decision paralysis (really choice paralysis) strikes me as a very Jewish-neurotic concept.

[Malthus]

Decision paralysis (really choice paralysis) strikes me as a very Jewish-neurotic concept.

That because us Jews have so many great choices. 

[Tamas]

Be a sheep if you want. "limit choices so I don't have to choose between that much". BS. That means somebody is making those choices instead of you, so people ARE capable of making those choices.

That's idiotic, and shows that you completely miss the point of the paradox.  The inefficiency comes not from the human inability to make a choice, but rather from the fact that every single individual has to make a choice from a large list. 

If an individual employee has a choice from 200 401k investment options rather than 10, it's unlikely that he'll significantly improve his returns.  However, he may be paralyzed by the fear of making the wrong choice, and just not participate at all, which would be a huge mistake.  Or, he may just waste too much time doing research to likewise avoid making a mistake, which multiplied by a 1,000 employees in a company amounts of a huge waste of time.

That doesn't mean that somebody like a professionally trained plan administrator is incapable of pruning the list.  If he does prune the list, then you go from a situation where 1,000 people have to choose among 200 options, to 1 person choosing from 200 options, and 999 people choosing from 10 options.  That would be a huge improvement:  less research costs, and less opportunity costs from decision paralysis.

and guess what, there are already services like that, which help you with decisions.

Point is, that if you agree that choice is good, with which he does, I don't think there is a thing as "too much choice". Being "disabled by too much choice" and using it as some sort of valid excuse, let alone a valid excuse to restrict choice, is simply wrong. Both morally and practically

And trust me, I KNOW what analysis paralysis is, how it looks like, and how annoying it can be. I play boardgames F2F. Still can't agree with the dude.

[Tamas]

Surprise! The libertarian sees value in one argument and fails to see the - equal - value in the other

these arguments are not equal in value. The second video argues that letting people choose is not only good for them, but in terms of products good for the producer as well.

The first one argues that people are not smart enough for truly free choices and he knows better.

[fhdz]

The first one argues that people are not smart enough for truly free choices and he knows better.

No, that isn't what he's arguing. But I understand why you are misinterpreting it that way; it has to do with your ideological view.

[Tamas]

The first one argues that people are not smart enough for truly free choices and he knows better.

No, that isn't what he's arguing. But I understand why you are misinterpreting it that way; it has to do with your ideological view.

what is he arguing then?

[DGuller]

The first one argues that people are not smart enough for truly free choices and he knows better.

It's not lack of intelligence, it's lack of knowledge.  We can't possibly know everything about everything, that's inefficient and impossible in any case.

Regardless of all that, one more thing that you miss is that in the book, the author goes on to give guidance on how to minimize the costs of too much choice.  Basically it amounts to training yourself that perfect is the enemy of good, and that you should go with a choice that appears good enough, and not beat yourself up about the possibility of losing out on an even better choice.

[Admiral Yi]

No, that isn't what he's arguing. But I understand why you are misinterpreting it that way; it has to do with your ideological view.

I don't see the ideological angle.  It seems to me the issue is valuation of the psychological cost of making a suboptimal choice.

[frunk]

It is easy to inject too much choice into any decision.  The number of colors that the human eye can differentiate is quite large, but most consumer products are available in only a tiny fraction of them.  I wouldn't consider myself slighted because of that.

That said, having many choices isn't so bad if you have an efficient and accurate way of filtering them.  If those 401Ks are differentiated only by their name unless you dive into the nitty gritty of what each one does, then they are likely to cause analysis paralysis.  If instead there's a handy sheet grouping them by desired criteria (riskiness, investment types) then you can focus on the half dozen that meet your desire and ignore the other 194.

[DGuller]

On a related note, one thing that always annoyed me is that it's hard to make a simple order in most fast food places.  If I want to try some new sandwich, I don't know WTF I want or don't want on it, I've never tried it before.  Don't ask me six questions about mayo, lettuce, tomatoes, etc.  Just give me a fucking sandwich, I'm not a fucking chef.  Unfortunately, if I say "just give me what normally goes on it", that either results in severe confusion on their part, or them putting everything possible on it. 

[Admiral Yi]

On a related note, one thing that always annoyed me is that it's hard to make a simple order in most fast food places.  If I want to try some new sandwich, I don't know WTF I want or don't want on it, I've never tried it before.  Don't ask me six questions about mayo, lettuce, tomatoes, etc.  Just give me a fucking sandwich, I'm not a fucking chef.  Unfortunately, if I say "just give me what normally goes on it", that either results in severe confusion on their part, or them putting everything possible on it. 

Go to any fast food joint except Subway.  Problem solved. 

[Ed Anger]

Oh yuk.

[DGuller]

On a related note, one thing that always annoyed me is that it's hard to make a simple order in most fast food places.  If I want to try some new sandwich, I don't know WTF I want or don't want on it, I've never tried it before.  Don't ask me six questions about mayo, lettuce, tomatoes, etc.  Just give me a fucking sandwich, I'm not a fucking chef.  Unfortunately, if I say "just give me what normally goes on it", that either results in severe confusion on their part, or them putting everything possible on it. 

Go to any fast food joint except Subway.  Problem solved. 

That's more a rule than the exception.  Anyway, mostly due to this, I just choose to stick with Triple Stacker;  at least Burger King knows what's supposed to go in the food-like products they sell.

[Admiral Yi]

That's more a rule than the exception.  Anyway, mostly due to this, I just choose to stick with Triple Stacker;  at least Burger King knows what's supposed to go in the food-like products they sell.

No burger joint forces you to choose toppings.  No chink joint, no pizza joint, no taco joint, no chicken joint, nothing.  Subway is the only place.