Slashdot Mirror
The Paradox of Choice
sproketboy writes "Psychology professor Barry Schwartz has written a book which is a must read by those wanting to get Linux on the Desktop.
Dr. Schwartz examines the problem of too much choice in our society. Maybe Microsoft has it right after all?
Here's a video interview with Dr. Schwartz,
a review of the book from the New Yorker and
more info from PBS." Of course, the choice issue applies to far more than desktop computers, but is still instructive in that area. Thanks to Stefan Hudson for a SciAm story that has more information.
is what you got...
Freedom From Choice
Is what you want.
(Are we not men?)
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
This would have been an informed post, but there was a link to a video of the guy discussing the paradox of choice, a link to the article about the book, and a link to an interview with the guy in the video who wrote the book that the article was about... ...so I couldn't decide.
Should I post in this story or in the other stories? What to do? what to do? argh! I'm going crazy!!!
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
Looks like link this was going to be included in the article, but something got messed up. Sciam digital subscription required for the full article, unfortunately...
Scientific American: The Tyranny of Choice [ PSYCHOLOGY ]
Logic suggests that having options allows people
to select precisely what makes them happiest. But, as studies show, abundant choice often makes for misery
Linux (and Pizza) is like a Blowjob, no matter how bad it is, its still pretty good!
You can have a simple desktop that Joe Sixpack can play with, and at the same time set up a dialogue that allows the tweaker in some of us to have free reign over what each little widget and bit of desktop does.
I just don't get why it has to be such an "either or" choice here...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Tons of choices can be annoying - going to a restaurant and being forced to select from a huge list of foods can be overwhelming. Usually, all I end up doing is finding one thing I like and then ordering that all the time, without checking out other stuff. It's too much of a hassle to try out every choice that exists in the world.
Then again, if we didn't have as many choices, I might not be able to find one thing I like in the first place, and thus probably wouldn't go back to eat there - I'll choose to go somewhere else.
But if that choice was taken away, I'd have to eat something I didn't particularly like, which never killed anyone.
Morale of the story? Having too many choices is the real reason I'm a picky eater.
But anyway, I know I enjoy my choices. I can choose linux or windows. I much prefer choice to no choice. Does anyone really believe that we are better off when we can't make decisions for ourselves?
Sure, it might be nice to be a little drone in the big hive... You don't have to put any effort into thinking for yourself, or expanding your mind, since the hive could really care less about your individuality. In fact, indivduality is discouraged.
I dunno, I think linux allows us to express our individuality through choice (i.e. we can choose numerous desktops/themes/applications and customize them to our taste). Right now I'm enamoured with XFce.
Isn't Choice something that comes along with Freedom? Without Choice, we wouldn't notice if we no longer had freedom...
Apple used to have a massive product line with dizzying list of model numbers. Not only did it confuse customers but it also brought down quality and delayed shipping of many of the models. Now you can just buy a notebook (iBook and PowerBook) and a desktop (eMac, iMac & PowerMac) from Apple. Sure you can supe up the basic model they sell but you are still buying a standardized item.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
It's not about the number of choices. It's about the quality of them. Even the poorest schmuck has plenty of choices. It's just that they all suck.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The observations are a direct consequence of a well known usability heuristic called Hick's Law. Hick's Law states (roughly) that the time an individual requires to make a decision increases with the number of alternatives available.
But the thing is that with Linux, you can always back out to Windows, which in this day and age, is just a fine choice. So if I'm gonna install Linux, then be presented with 13 web browsers, 3 desktops, and 5 office suites, I'm much more likely to throw up my hands and say "fuck it" and re-install windows, then to try to deciper everything in Linux. Each distro should just pick out the best, and leave it at that. Not only do I not need a dozen web browsers, I don't *want* a dozen web browsers. This makes total sense.
I run a retail store. I have a large number of products that cover one particular need. Without help, customers just get overwhelmed and leave. We have to ask them what they need, and help them make a decision. Same thing with Linux, except that there's no help. You install a distro, get 1000's of programs, 95% which are useless to the user, and they get overwhelmed and bail.
Unless some expertise is offered (ie: each distro picks ONE office suite, ONE browser, ONE desktop, etc.), it's just too much to deal with, and completely unnecessary.
The Paradox of Choice
From the title, I thought this was going to be a deep mathematical or philosophical piece that I would have to give a lot of thought to.
I do agree with concept that we have too much choice in our society, or rather, we are deep in information overload. Too much choice is not a problem if you can quickly whittle down what you want and what you don't want. The problem is when the choices become confusing and ambiguous - and I think that has happened for the average individual. For instance, go into an applience store and say you want a tv, then hold on to your butts, because you're going to be there for a while. Then pretend you didn't know what all the fancy jargon stuff means (like the average consumer). If that wasn't bad enough, I think marketers actually inflate the problem on purpose, making it seem that there is more choice than there actually is - since that boosts the chances that a consumer will buy your product.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
"Too many choices, not enough voices" which I interpreted as too many people willing to settle for the norm and not enough people who will demand more, go out on a limb and challenge the status quo, which I think is the main reason that microsoft has its hold.
"The stupider people think you are, the more surprised they will be when you kill them..."
Smarter people should find ways to get the rest to do informed choice instead of "mass-hysteria-induced" choice. Getting "smarter" people to do choices for "dumber" people will only allow them to remain "dumb", even if temporarily more productive.
.sig
Choice is a fine thing for now. Most of the world is still being introduced to desktop computing. It is not yet time to select the best technologies for any given application because we don't understand the application well enough yet.
Even something as "basic" as word processing has changed radically in the last 10 years as a wider variety of people have gained access to computers. The "outliers" in the sample set have, in some cases, become the majority of users.
Open source OSes are especially subject to this. Our systems are designed by those who have a combination of real-world-need and ability to implement. As time goes on that will be a broader and broader segment, and others will be brought in to implement for those who have the need, but not the ability (certainly already happened in some areas).
Give computing 20 or so more years to find its feet and it will be time to make hard decisions, but for now I think choice is a good thing.
Now, moving on to the officeplace (which is where most people think of desktop computing in terms of adoption strategies), I think it's key that OS vendors such as Red Hat, Mandrakesoft, SuSE/Novell and others produce a desktop with clear defaults and clear ways for admins to limit choices. This is important for large scale systems admin where you are maintaining 2,000 systems on people's desks. You need some uniformity in order to scale that support reasonably. This does NOT meant that choice should not be available, but that it should be available to the admins who install the systems and the system should behave well once those choices are made.
I think Red Hat and Mandrake do a decent job here. I'm not as familliar with SuSE, so I can't say. But, that is clearly one of the jobs of a vendor: to establish best practices and ease compatibility.
while not forcing them to constantly make them. Having a simple, functional default desktop but with the adaptability/personalization we've come to expect is the best way. For those willing/desiring to modify, their options are open. For those who have better things to do (like work), the default is there for them.
Q: Choice is bad? A: Yes Q: Can anyone understand the issues? A: Think of how many letters there are in one word. Now multiply that by how many words are in a page, and then the book. Then by how many books there are. That's so much information! You shouldn't even try. Q: I like choice A: No you don't. You'd be happier if you didn't have them. Q: No, really, I like choice A: Well, here's some proof for you. People with cancer like having doctors treat them instead of creating their own chemo routines. Do you think you're better than people with cancer or something! THE END
Everything will be taken away from you.
Unfortunaely, in a wealthy society like America, even stupid people get to be rich.
Unfortunately.. it's usually the rule that stupid people get to be rich.
The gaining of wealth has nothing to do what what and how much you know.
it has everything to do with who you know, your sales ability or your ability to talk people out of their money for what you are offering..
very very few brilliant scientists or engineers are rich... it's tipically the businessmen and those good at selling that are.
and these people usually are pretty darn dumb when it comes to anything outside selling to persuading people...
Case in point... the Mercedes owner that needs the gas station attendant to explain and or show him how to use the gas pump, or the rich people that almost fall to pieces when the power in their area goes out for 3-4 hours and they do not know what to do and cannot fend for themselves without a microwave oven or resturant. (No joking, it happened here during the big blackout and we had interviews on tv from soccer mom's that could not figure out how to get food for their families when the power was out. one even complained.. "you cant even open a can of food!")
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
There's only a lot of choice in areas where there is still a lot of experimentation into the possible solutions. In areas where a suitable and economic solution has been found, choice is really rather limited.
It's a standard aspect of evolution: early forms show extraordinary variation and complexity; as time goes on the simplest and most economical solutions get standardized and the bizarre varieties get killed off.
The same happens in technology, which is why we converge on mature standards such as TCP/IP and (dare I say it) Linux.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
I agree. And even if each distribution picks, say, 1 standard software package to put in an "average Joe" version, you still have to pick a distribution, which isn't exactly the most straightforward choice when there really isn't any means of comparison (everything's so customizable that it really doesn't matter a whole lot, but it looks like it does).
The reason the average person doesn't switch to Linux is a lot like the reason the average person doesn't build their own computer; not because it's hard, but because it gives you too many choices (hard drive, motherboard, processor, case, etc.), and most people would rather just pick up a box that they can plug in and use.
This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
Having choices is fine, but when we have to many that is where we have a problem. Look at cable tv, or satellite. Do we really need 700,000 channels? Having to choose between 20 different products is difficult. Why do you think everyone just goes with MS? It is a universal product. No one *really* likes it, but everyone uses it.
Aunt Anne doesnt know which e-mail program to use in linux, but can cook better than most of us. She can choose a better sauce for this or that.
Joe sixpack know how to choose too. He know what the best beer is.
People want to choose when they KNOW what is to be choosen.
While that's a related problem, I don't think its the root cause. The fact is the choices aren't being made easy.
First of all, your choice involves a significant investment of time. Changing your mind is a lot of work. With your programming language, your job, things like this, you are limited by the learning curve. Many PC games are suffering from this badly (although its not as bad as during the Sim era of the 90s when obtuse displays and complex missions and controls were the norm).
Combine this with the fact that your choices aren't very well explained - when I click around in many apps or application managers, I don't know whats what, what's better, what's worse. I don't know what music to download, what channels to watch. If there's a significant time investment in the wrong answer, I might just choose the safest bet. If the cost of a proper search for the rigth answer exceeds the benefits of finding the superiour solution, then I might just choose to do what everyone else does.
This is why we are stuck in a monoculture - society has made it very hard to even find the offstream material, and those in the offstream have not made it easy to know which of their offerings are meritorious for whom. I'm not pointing the finger - noone can blame independants for being disorganised - if they were organised, they wouldn't be the independants. But you see the problem. I don't like pop music, but finding good music is so much work. Solution? I'm finding every single old Depeche Mode and Collective Soul album I missed back in their heydays. When I run out of old music I like, I'll just stop listening. I've alraedy resorted to that for a while.
I ushered a wedding this weekend. People could sit wherever they wanted. So i started by offering people to sit anywhere, but they just looked like a deer in the headlights. Finally I just started telling them to "follow me" and to "sit there." They were much happier.
Most people are not dumb, they just don't want to be bothered. I happen to be one of them.
Those who do wan't to be bothered will speak up anyway.
It's just like when I'm trying to find some good porn, I've overwhelmed!
So many fetishes, so little kleenex.
Josh
Psychology professor Barry "FUD" Schwartz receives $50 million from a mysterious donor...
I can concede that 50+ operating systems with no data exchange compatibility would be a bad thing. But that is not the same as having no choice at all. The old Soviet Union had one choice state owned monopolies. Look where it got them. The addition of choice becomes less of a problem when they all follow standards. Take a look at cars, they all have a steering wheel, brakes, etc. They all use similiar motor oil, the same gas etc. Having a choice in cars is good. Being locked into one supplier or manufacturer is bad. It's the same with computers. Open standards, choice, competition spurring innovation, all good things. One supplier, added features and imcompatibilties just to force an upgrade and maintain monopoly, bad!
The problem is made worse by the rapid improvement. Rules that apply last year do not apply this year.
But on the other side of that if the manufactures were not scum, that problem can easily be dealt with.
All it takes is a classification system, similar to what we do with cars.
People know what you mean when you say:
Compact
mini-van
jeep
SUV
sports-car
station waggon
What we need are some similar terms for the newer technologies to become more common.
We need categories like: game-system (high end video/audio), word-system (low-end MS word,Excel,presentationsm with low memory, low speed etc.), net-server (designed to host a web site or other network), etc. etc. to be come common terms that everyone knows and uses.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
That sounds like fascism, to me.
Consider: how many manufacturers and models of cars do we have? Consumer electronics? Colours and styles of paint?
When you go to the grocery, do you ask for 'meat', or do you specify species and cut?
You can feel free to live in your one size fits all soylent world. Go to your car dealership, and say like a simpleton, "I WANT A CAR". I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige you, and fill you out with a nice payment plan that suits your needs without you even having to read the fine print.
It's a common mistake to confuse choices with decisions. Decisions are what confuse and annoy people, not choices.
Some simple illustrations of this. Choice: "these are the desktop themes you can play with". Decision: "please choose a desktop theme to continue installation.
Choice: "tired of your wife? Here are ten more girls to choose from." Decision: "you gonna marry me or what?!"
Choice: "choose from fifty different fabric colors for your car interior". Decision: "what color interior do you want your next subway car to have?"
Basically a good designer maximises choice but minimizes the decisions needed to get started.
I believe the article has made the error of confusing the two.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Linus on the Desktop...A problem?
If Linus was sitting on my desktop, it would be pretty hard for me to work.
Which do you take, full freedom of choice or none whatsoever?
If you have the opportunity to choose from a great deal of options, you usually find that there are a few that are the best of the bunch, and the majority will go with those options.
This is especially true with software, except when you have a monopoly using anti-competitive practices in which to 'influence' or 'force' you to use a particular product.
Choice is good, it provides competition and allows people to decide which is best, rather than being forced to use something.
At least if choice is taken away from end-users, an elected body should decide what is or is not to be used. Decisions such as these should not be made by a monopoly. Anyway, isn't this attitude one that encourages monopolies? We all know what happens where there is no competition...
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
I saw this on a silly cable TV show and have been thinking a lot about it. Choice is nothing new, it's just that the types of choices we all have are changing. If you think about what career you should taken or where exactly you should live, the choices are absolutely staggering. These, for the most part aren't new developments, though more people have the ability to make a wider array of them.
What's interesting to me is that things that people have had to choose from for many number of years have special agents who specialize in making these choices; travel agents, real estate agents and career counselors. I expect that we'll see more and more of these agents in the future, though it's hard for me to imagine how a breakfast cereal agent would work exactly.
I understand that some people may feel overwhelmed by the breadth of choices presented to the average person, but it seems rather condescending to imply that you ought to give up your choices. The underlying attitude seems to be choice is bad for _you_, and I'll go ahead and keep reading the Economist and drinking my reserve cognac.
Concluding that choice is bad because it causes indecision is like concluding that the sun is bad because it causes sunburn.
After all, is freedom really slavery; ignorance, strength?
When you go to the grocery, do you ask for 'meat', or do you specify species and cut?
What the hell is this "meat"? Just give me a store full of gray boxes labelled "Food", damnit!
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
" Dr. Schwartz examines the problem of too much choice in our society. Maybe Microsoft has it right after all?"
Um, Microsoft being right or wrong doesn't really factor in here. It's the lack of effective competition that's creating a lack of choice. Apple OS has more or less limited themselves to their own platform, which is generally more expenisive than the average computer user is willing to pay, while Linux is still too obscure for the average user to screw around with. It's not that Windows is a spectacular product that by nature crushes all competition in it's path, it's the fact that what competition exists has been limiting itself in one form or another, giving MS free reign on the PC. As such, most products now cater to it, which makes it more popular.
Too much competition doesn't even begin to enter into the PC OS market, because there never has been that amount of competition. MS won by default, which has nothing to do with them being right or wrong.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Thousands of programs? 95% of which are useless?
13 web browsers? 3 desktops? What Linux Distribution are you using?
Come on man, have you tried some modern distros oriented towards the new user? (I.e. Mandrake 9.2/10, SuSE)? They give you a default desktop. In mandrake's case, that is KDE. They give you one browser (Konqueror). One email client (kmail). The alternative apps are buried in menus, but those apps are NOT immediately viewable to the user.
Most modern distros do a very good job of eliminating excessive choice for the new user. Mandrake is the easiest, and you should be using it if you are a linux newb.
Every fork, every distro is one more nail in Linux's chances on the desktop. Linux is divinding and conquering itself. Pick a distro. Name it the One True Linux. Promote the hell out of it. Then you'll see results.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
I read the article, which is about how people who will keep looking for something beyond the "good enough it works for me" stage are less happy with life in general not just linux. One lesson to be learned for linux desktop is that lots of people are happy with the "good enough" but linux isnt quite there yet, IMHO. I tried to switch my home system to mandrake 9.0 a while agin, and the "good enough" wasnt quite there yet. Yes, openoffice works, but cut/paste between that and the web browser didnt work. Reading files from my digital camera with usb took too much fiddling. The biggest PITA was that every single "top" cd burining software could not deal with the simple task of appending to a multi-session cd without lots of playing with switches etc. I read the manuals, checked the web, worked with parameters etc, and did get it working eventually. I still wound up giving it up, because getting it to do what I wanted was too hard - too much fiddling, where windows would just work. Its not the better/more features that is keeping linux off my desktop - I use it at work, and put cygwin on my pc because I cant live without ls and bash. I am comfortable with command-lines, but that doesnt mean I dont want the software to get the job done quick and easy like windows. Some people might want to buy a dvd player that lets you assemble and configure your own interfaces, but life is so much simpler if you can just open the box plug it in and watch the movie.
Linux has a much better answer to the problem of excessive choice than Windows does. Look for example at the KnoppMyth project. Its aim is to produce a live CD which gives you a PVR. That's incredibly powerful! In principle, all a user needs is this CD, plug it into their PC (assuming it has the necessary hardware), and PRESTO! All the complex stuff has been figured out by someone else, and the user has a simple interface to accomplish exactly what it is they want - to record/playback their television shows.
I imagine this special-purpose live-CD phenomenon will prove to be very powerful, and will be an important channel through which Linux will eventually eclipse Windows.
I take it you've never eaten at the HP cafe?
Lunch, the HP Way
by Stephen Harrison and Noel Magee
This is the story of a different kind. No melting CPU's, no screaming disc drives, just the kind of psychological torture that scars a man for life.
I had a 9:00 meeting with my sales rep. I needed to buy an entire new series 70, the works. He said it'd take about an hour. Three hours later, we'd barely got the datacomm hardware down on paper, so he invited me downstairs for lunch.
This was my first experience in an HP cafeteria. Above the service counter was a menu which began...
MMU's (Main Menu Units)
0001A Burger. Includes sesame-seed bun.
Must order comdiments 00110A separately
001 Deletes seeds.
002 Expands burger to two patties.
00020A Double cheeseburger, preconfigured. Includes cheese,
bun and condiments.
001 Add-on bacon.
002 Delete second patty.
003 Replaces second patty with extra cheese.
00021A Burger Upgrade to Double Cheeseburger
001 From Single Burger.
002 From Double Burger.
003 Return credit for bun.
00220A Burger Bundle. Includes 00010A, 00210A and 00310A
001 Substitute root beer 00311A for cola 00310A.
My eyes glazed over. I asked for a burger and a root beer. The waitress looked at me like I was an alien.
"How would you like to order that, sir?"
"Quickly, if possible. Can't I just order a sandwich and a drink?"
"No sir. All our service is menu driven. Now what would you like?"
I scanned the menu. "How big is the 00010 burger?"
"The patty is rated at eight bites."
"Well, how about the rest of it?"
"I dont have the specs on that, sir, but I think it's a bit more."
"Eight bites is too small. Give me the Double Burger Upgrade."
My sales rep interrupted. "No, you want the Single Burger option 002 'expands burger to two patties'. The double burger upgrade would give you two burgers.
"But you could get return credit on the extra bun," the waitress chimed in, trying to be helpful, "although it isn't documented."
I looked around to see if anybody was staring at me. There was a couple in line behind us. I recognized one of them, a guy who merely mowed me down in the parking lot with his cherry-red '62 Vette. He was talking to some woman who was waving her arms around and looking very excited.
"What if... we marketed the bacon cheeseburger with the vegetable option and without the burger and cheese? It'd be a BLT!"
The woman charged off in the direction of the telephone, running steeplechases over tables and chairs. My waitress tried to get my attention again. "Have you decided, sir?"
"Yeah, give me the double burger- excuse me, I mean the 00020A with the option 001. I want everything on it." She put me down for the Condiment Expansion Kit, which included mayonnaise, mustard and pickles with a option to substitute relish.
"Ketchup." I hated to ask. "I want ketchup on that, too."
"That's not a condiment, sir, it's a Tomato Product." My sales rep butted in again. "That's not a supported configuration."
"What now?" I kept my voice steady.
"Too juicy. The bun can't handle it."
"Look. Forget the ketchup, just put some lettuce and tomatoes on it."
The waitress backed away from the counter. "I'm sorry, sir, but that's not supported either, the bun can take it but the burger won't fit in the box. The sales rep defended himself. "Just not at first release." "It is being beta-tested, sir."
I checked the overhead screen. Fries, number 000210A, option 110. French followed by option 120, English. "What the hell are English Fries?" I turned to the sales rep. "Chips they call them. We sell a lot of them."
I gave up. "OK, OK just give me a plain vanilla Burger Bundle." The confused the waitress profoundly. "Sir, Vanilla as an option is configured
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I have no sympathy for people who have so many good choices that they have trouble choosing just one. None.
Wow. You're so heroic.
Your problem is that you think NORMAL people--i.e., people who don't visit Slashdot 10+ times a day and download the latest point release of something called "GNOME"--have the time, energy, and patience to learn which of their 8 text editors is the best. To them, the whole idea is ridiculous, and they'll ask you, "why don't they just make one good one?"
Are you going to whine at them how you have no sympathy for people who blah blah blah something about poor people in India blah blah blah, or are you just going to nod and agree like any sane person would?
The day anti-social, non-approachable nerds like you (this is not a troll but an accurate description of the mindset) stop controlling the direction of the Linux desktop community is the day it finally starts gaining real momentum outside of its current niche position.
This is a well-known phenomenon in people management. If you're trying to persuade someone to make a choice and give them 50 options they are most likely to not choose any of them (or in this case, stick with Windows). When you have so many options they get worried and confused - did I pick the right one? What if I had picked XYZ? What makes option XYZ better than option ABC?
.. N, etc..
Now, I'm not suggesting that choice is bad - but if you want someone to decide you must initially present them with a small number of options - A or B - not A or B or C or D or
Thanks,
--
Matt
I have often found that cell-phone (mobile) carriers have the vast array of plans which overlap and seem to not really give you feeling that you have a well-fitting plan.
Also, it's that Coke in a 1-liter bottle versus 6-cans versus 6 glass-bottles versus...
I tend to re-buy crap for this very reason: the first purchase I realize now why it was so cheap, the second purchase while more expensive I realize it's just over-hyped. The third typically is a good cost-to-quality ratio.
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
The summary (as I read it)? People like choice when it's related to what they want to do. If they're making a greeting card, they want to choose what font it uses and what overused clip-art to use. They don't want to choose its orientation as it comes out of the printer, or whether it's saved in MS Word or PDF or RTF or HTML or BMP.
So when I install a linux distribution, and I want to compose a word processing document? I don't care all that much whether I'm using KOffice or StarOffice or OpenOffice.org or AbiWord or whatever, because the point is not what program I'm using. The point is to write a document, and I shouldn't have to make a needless choice just to get to that point.
That's why modularity (versus "yes" or "no" to compiling it in) in the linux kernel is such a good idea, for example. It allows me to say, "make this choice for me if I need it, and don't hassle me about it."
Actually, when you go to the dealership, they DO make decisions for you. Like you said, there are thousands of cars, and about 500 variations of any given model - more on the expensive cars with lots of options.
You don't go in there knowing what all these options are. Most of them are shit you've never heard of. What the hell is Quadromechinational Steering and why the hell does it cost $5000? They tell you that stuff, and they help you make a decision on wether you want it, or want to take the normal power steering everybody else has.
They don't make the choice for you, and the above post doesn't suggest that. But you aren't just shown a list of the fifteen engines, four steering assemblies, seven or more fucking DOOR HINGES that any given car can have installed at the factory while the salesman sits there with a blank stare waiting for you to pick which ones you want.
Most of it you just get and don't worry about.
I don't care what kind of flanges are on my trunk door, just so it opens and closes, I'm happy. But I could picked from two different flanges on that hood. I don't even know what a flange is or does, let alone how one or the other is better, but they both cost the same thing, so I don't care.
After wrecking the car I've been talking about, I also learned that the 1997 Chevy Lumnia could have had one of four different engines, each of which has two different head assemblies. I don't know what all that shit is, and I don't want to pick one or the other.
I want that white car over there. You put the shit in it that makes it drive, I don't want to worry about flanges and fittings and what kind of clips hold the radiator hose in place. Fine, ok, I have seven different fan belt choices - I DON'T CARE, just make it DRIVE.
See? That's how people are with their computers. The coice is there, but they don't know what all this shit is. Yes, they use it, but they don't know one from the next, and that's why the vast majority of people still use Windows. You get the stuff, it's there, you don't have to think about it.
This is a simple, fundamental principle. Every option you give the user means that you dodged a design decision. Sometimes this is fine, but it can be tremendously overdone. In a great many cases, what you're doing is forcing the *user* to make design decisions: which fonts look good together, which icons are the clearest, which keys work best for various features, and so on. Have some spine! Keep things simple and clean!
With Linux things are worse, because the decisions forced on the user run much deeper. Now you don't just wade through pages of configuration settings in KDE, you have to choose which window manager to use in the first place. Bleah. I'm a techie, a programmer, and I don't want to mess with this stuff. Just give me something reliable and WELL THOUGHT OUT, and I'll use it.
What people seem to get confused is that reduced choices is not a bad thing.
Choice is a requirement of freedom, to be sure. But don't confuse how many car manufacturers and models are out there as freedom of choice. Freedom of choice is having at least 2 things to choose from. Ask yourself, do you really need a market with over 100 different car models (where half are a duplication of another with minor changes and a diferent name) Do you really need 50 different types of bread? Marketers want you to think so, that way they can say their model is better and they can split the market.
In reality, if the fewer choices are all of good quality, then you don't need 50 or more.
If you are choosing something, you need just a few options that suit your needs and are adaptable. One or two models of car with a menu of options is fine. It does not infringe on DEMOCRACY to have fewer options and a better involved populous than a large number of options and a populous who is confused and unable to be educated on which is better.
Overall, if you have few options, you can educate yourself on how each is good and bad and make a decision for yourself from a position of strength.
But, of course, that's the last thing marketers and politicians want...
You'd like to think that equations are harder to understand than complex human systems but then again you only believe what you want as it flatters you to think so.
Mozart and Picasso and Alexander the Great probably wouldn't be able to write a Perl script or analyze a chemical reaction if they were alive today. But I think few people would call any of them unintelligent.
As for wealth vs. intelligence, here's a book for you: "Rich Dad, Poor Dad." A bit repetitive, but it talks at length about how someone can be very smart in some ways but not when it comes to money.
Being able to figure out the decay rate of a new radioactive isotope doesn't make you good at figuring out which underpriced region is going to have the next big real estate boom. But both of those things require smarts.
That said, at least one study (admittedly, performed by someone whose views on the subject are controversial) shows a pretty good correlation between high IQ and financial success. That tracks pretty well with my experience in life: most of the rich people I know are pretty sharp. All of the self-made rich people I know are pretty sharp. If you can provide a pointer to any research showing a reverse correlation, I'd be fascinated to see it.
Less choice, less questions, less confusion. So far I have had no complaints. Obviously, as he gets comfortable he will want more choices later. At the beginning, I think the overwhelming amount of choice is what turns new users away from Linux.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
You have to realize this is a collective phenomenon, and it doesn't necessarily apply to each individual. I'm not a psychologist or anything, but I have observed this phenomenon.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
I've seen one professor talking about the problem
of having too much choices (I think it was the author of this book) and he was clear about
something, it only is a problem for one type of people; those who are not satisfied with their choice until they absolutly know for sure they made the best choice. Those with a "good is good enough for me" mentality do not have any problem with too many choices.
This concept was driven home for me in elementary school with the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. I could NOT read one of those without jamming my fingers between pages to mark interesting divergences in case my choice didn't work out! It drove me nuts to think that I might be missing out on something interesting somewhere else.
"Do you want to repair the damaged robot? Turn to p. 42"
"Or you want to flee with the princess? Turn to p.22"
Choices? Bah! I just gave up and went with the old "one narrative only" books. Much more satisfying.
I do agree with concept that we have too much choice in our society, or rather, we are deep in information overload. Too much choice is not a problem if you can quickly whittle down what you want and what you don't want. The problem is when the choices become confusing and ambiguous - and I think that has happened for the average individual.
Very good points. I see the issue in terms of 4 factors:
Rising Cost of Decision Making: Excessive options and excessive information on each option drive up the cost of choice. The cost of decision making can easily exceed the marginal benefit of making the decison.
Psychological Risk of Decision Making: Some people are more comfortable without choice because it absolves them of responsibility. If you have only one choice, you get to bitch about it. If you have multiple choices and you chose incorrectly, you have only yourself to blame.
Cost of Competition: We seem to live in a competative, judgemental socitey in which people are judged by the choices they make. This increases the importance of every minor decision. Faced with a number of reasonably good options, people often spend too much time deciding. They feel compelled to do this because of the perceived social penalty of making the wrong choice. Nobody wants to pick the second-best option even if it is nearly as good as the #1 option.
Scale of Society: The bigger problem is the increasing scale of society. Many might think that have umpteen types of mustard, text editors, or cars is too much. But there is no unanimous agreement on which alternatives to remove.
This problem will only get worse. I would wager that in most industries, the number of economically viable choices scales with the log of the market-accessible population. With global trade and rising standards of living, we will only see more choices.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I used to ask for "human, lean breast" but now they just call the cops when they see me coming. :-(
I don't get no respect.
--- Ban humanity.
"Choices are hard for most of less intelligent people. Any choices, not necessarily those related to computer software or even the technology as a whole."
I suspect that you have it backwards; it's the intelligent people who have problems with too many choices. They see the options, the details, etc, and tend to get lost in all the minutiae.
People who don't see all the options have it easier.
-Jeff
Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
That's really a sad approach, though. How long you take to make a decision on something should reflect how long it's going to affect your life. Little things can make a huge difference.
If you plan on spending $20,000 on your new car, and you plan on keeping for ten years, then you damn well better know the "door hinge" options and figure out which one you like the best. One little thing like a squeaky hinge (hey, you cheaped out) will annoy you for years and years.
Anyone who walks onto a car lot without knowing basically what they want, with the options they want, and knowing the price they should expect to pay, is an idiot who is going to end up paying too much money for a car they didn't really want.
Long term purchases require some actual THOUGHT be put into it.
What annoys me is people taking a half an hour to decide what they want to order off the menu when they won't even care tomorrow.
As far as computers are concerned, your choices today may impact you long after that 10 year old car is gone. Then again, it may not. Pick MP3 now and convert it to the next great format every few years. Whatever.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Consider: how many manufacturers and models of cars do we have? Consumer electronics? Colours and styles of paint?
How many models of cars that do things differently from every other model of car? If I buy a Ford, I don't need to take training because my last car was a Pontiac. Everything works the same. Sure, the placement of the A/C or cruise controls are a little different, but the steering wheel isn't square and in the trunk. The basics of "a car" does not change: it has four wheels, (in the States) a steering wheel on the left front side, two-three pedals, etc. Hell, even the order of the gears on an automatic are the same (P R N D 1 2 3).
Contrast that with Linux distros where some applications are present, and some are not. Some applications are placed here, and some are placed there. Some use this window manager, some use this one. Some keybindings are like this, some are like that. Some will work with hardware better than others. Some have this, some have that. Hell, I've tried 2-3 distros in the last few months, and only one that I remember contained a GUI util to change the screen resolution (an important util for noobs as most distros set your damn resolution to the absolute highest it will go, regardless of how you want it or not!)
I can climb into any car, start it up and drive it. Change your Linux distro, or just upgrade in some cases, and you spend hours just trying to figure out where everything is. THIS is why Windows is winning the desktop day in and day out. It has nothing to do with monopolies or political bullying. It never ceases to amaze me that the Linux community will stomp and scream like small children about anything that violates an open standard in any way, shape, or form, but outright REFUSES to create a single, standard, default desktop that is consistent across all distros. There's nothing stopping you or anyone else from changing it later, but start with SOMETHING.
Give 'em four tires and a steering wheel, if they want a Cartman antenna topper or a Jason Mewes window sticker, they can add it themselves. And, I know, there's gonna be tons of flames on this post..."Don't tell me what I can and can't run on my desktop!" "Who gives you the right to decide what's included in my distro?" For those contemplating such flames...get a clue. No one is suggesting locking anyone into a "one size fits all soylent world", idiot. They're suggesting giving a consistent base to build on.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
Your reaction to being overwhelmed by choice is actually quite typical. People seem to have a problem when presented with a set of choices without a clear winner. I think we have an algorithm that works like this.
Which is fine unless, of course, there are two or more options that have the same value. Then you have an eternal loop. Wouldn't this algorithm be better?
So, you're presented with mozilla and konquerer. You try mozilla first and find that it is good enough. You stop looking. Don't click on that konquerer icon. You're done. Simple, really.
I got a 20g iPod a couple of months ago and in some ways it's made walking with music a worse experience for me than before.
My first Walkmen (dating back to 1984) were cassettes, and while you could carry extra tapes, you were largely stuck with one or two and even then skipping around wasn't much of an option (no music search on a Walkman I could afford until the mid 1990s). So you listened to bands you really liked or spent a lot of time making a few mix tapes to guarantee you'd like most of the songs.
About 6 years ago I traded up to a Minidisc player and while the selection problem wasn't much different, I did start "running out" of music, even though I could reasonably carry a half-dozen discs. The ease of skipping made me far less satisfied with what I had playing.
Same thing occured when I got a Teac CD/MP3 player. Mine only took 7cm discs, but I'd still "run out" of music due to skipping around, even when I made a mix disc with a bunch of "good" songs I "liked".
Now that I have my iPod it's far, far worse. I can't run out of music (3k songs), but I do find myself bored/irritated with what I'm listening to, skipping around. On one recent excursion I damn near stepped into a hole because I was spending so much time fucking around with my iPod (trying to find music I "wanted").
I don't know if its *entirely* due to the paradox of choice or just a vague sense of dissatisfaction with everything, but the paradox of choice sure seems to explain it well.
Lets not throw such terms as "facism" around too easily. I totally understand what this person is saying. While choice is great, too much choice - without explanation or direction - sucks. When I go to the store for meat - i know there is chicken, beef, fish, and pork - do I know the plethora of cuts? No I do not. I go to the butcher and say "Hey I want to make this, what do you think." The butcher then tells me which cut I should take. Maybe he is all out for himself and selling me a terrible cut so he can make an extra buck. My alternative is to go buy a book and learn the fine art of being a butcher (something I do not plan on doing). So I need to rely on this person and hope he is an honest person (and if he isn't, when he comes to me for computer service I will return the favor "oh yea you need a wizzy gadget, it will run you 2 grand". When I go to download Linux I do not have a butcher telling me what would work best for my life style. That is what this person is stating. When I go to the dealership I go there with a thought process - be it cost, look style. So if I go to the dealership and say "hey i want a family car and i want to spend 21 grand" they will offer me help. If i go to the dealership and say "I WANT A CAR" I bet you the person is going to start asking questions like "are you single or married? have kids? do you want to off road? etc." The person has a valid argument, lets not chew him down because we love linux. -A
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
That's Apple's secret: Apple picks a lot of things for you. They don't always make the best choices, but they usually make workable choices, and even when their choices are technically bad (as they are from time to time), at least they still make them look good.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is all about choice (within well-defined, money-making parameters): you get zillions of audio and video CODECs, lots of configuration options for the UI, preference panels with sub-panels until your eyes glaze over, dozens of classes that all do the same thing, and let's not forget an ever expanding list of third-party utilities and add-ons to make up for the choices Microsoft didn't give you and the problems Microsoft created while creating all that choice. Microsoft isn't kidding when they are saying that they are giving you choices.
UNIX, like Apple, traditionally has made choices and stuck by them. For example, the UNIX folks at Bell Labs understood that the use of "tab" in Makefiles probably was a mistake, but it wasn't a big enough mistake to create another "make" utility (at least not for a couple of decades). And, yes, the file system may not be the ideal IPC or database mechanism, but it worked well enough and provided a good, simple answer.
Linux has inherited some of the UNIX simplicity and philosophy, although, sadly, there has been a lot of uncertainty and waffling come into it, mostly from people who are trying to turn Linux into Windows.
I recently bought two sets of tires for my SUVs. The set of brands and models were overwhelming. I got through the process by looking at reviews for the tires. Within 20 minutes I had narrowed the list to four models of tires. I checked prices locally and made purchases within the week from two different vendors.
Not only is choice of tires good, but choice of vendors. The qualification is, you have to be smart about it. I can see how choice could be bad for people with low comprehension skills. For those who negotiate prices and want the best quality, the more choice the better.
Reviews, either formal or informal, are key for high involvement purchases (choice in low involvement purchases don't matter as much, because the product is inexpensive, not critical, etc.).
"Never tell me the odds"
I thought the name of the professor sounded familiar, and sure enough, it was who I thought it was. His position is not agenda-free (not that anyone's is.)
Schwartz wrote a paper for the January, 2000 edition of the Journal of the America Psychological Association, American Psychologist, titled "Self-Determination, the Tyranny of Freedom."
The artical basically lays the groundwork for restricting freedom for people's own good, and to force beliefs on people for their own good. Coming from a libertarian viewpoint myself, the entire article was disturbing in a very subtle way -- and it was clear that a political or social agenda was a subtext.
It appears he is simply continuing on this theme.
Keanu "Look At Me Act" Reeves to The "Look I Know Latin" Architect: "The problem is choice."
"Or do you work for Microsoft?"
A huge percentage of the Windows user base is people who do not have a clue how to use a computer. This forces MS to design their products so that these people do not call MS PSS eighteen times a day because they've broken something.
If you had any clue you'd realize that MS doesn't want to force people into a mold. They want to give the idiots of the world a software experience that is powerful enough to be useful and "powerless" enough so that they can't hurt themselves. Microsoft wants to give people the richest possible experience but unfortunately it has learned that doing so is often a recipe for a support distaster.
Be happy. Nothing else matters.
Anyone interested in Rich Dad, Poor Dad should also check out this site. Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.
Each Sunday, I would comb the circulars, looking for a computer (started out looking at desktops, eventually looked for laptops). I would invariably spend over an hour picking "candidate" machines meeting my CPU, disk, memory, price, etc requirements.
And, invariably, I would give up rationalizing to myself I could go yet another week without getting that machine.
The problem? So many choices, so many configurations, so many prices, so many rebates (instant, and otherwise), I would just give up in frustration in trying to get a reasonable deal while meeting my needs (NOTE: I did not say "get the BEST deal", I just wanted to be sure I was getting a good deal).
All this while also continually searching the net for machines and prices.
While I all along had a vision of my requirements, the marketing sleight of hand, with the infinite "choice" kept me from making a decision for almost 2 years! (About one month ago I finally decided.)
The old MS joke comes to mind:
One world, One web, One program - Microsoft Ad
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer
Either this guy think this is a good idea or he doesn't understand choice.
The current choice is simply:
Easy oneway to do things. (well if you don't make use of its unix background wich you never need to touch if you don't want to)
Oneway for the OS. (easy until you become an admin, the old change network settings example comes to mind)
Choice for everything else. Just check how many email programs and office suits there really are for windows.
Roll your own. Choice in everything except hardware. And even there you got choice. Just write your own.
For the necrophiliacs.
But how is this any different from choosing a car? Choosing a house? Choosing a meal?
Do I want a car I can fix myself if needed (handy if you drive in remote places) or just a little town cruiser how about no car at all? Do I want my own house I can rebuild however I want or do I want a nice rented apartment fully furnitured with a maid? Do I want a meal I can microwave and be ready or do I want to spend hours in the kitchen to create a feast fit a king?
Now some people here seem to want everyone to make the same choice they have. This applies equally to all computer OSes. These people accuse other OS users of being zealots and never realise they are a very black pot.
I for one am not scared of choice. I am scared one day I will not have a choice. Choose whatever OS you want. But let it be YOUR choice.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Recently I was discussing what I see to be a central conflict in human beings. It is the conflict of two desires that every human being has:
;P
1. The desire to be an individual. To be unique.
2. The desire to be part of a group. To be accepted as being the same as others.
I'm not sure of the forces driving these two desires, but it certainly has an effect on making choices. Which leads to another issue which I think this article was focusing on: who has the control?
In situations where one entity has all the control (a centralized system), there are fewer choices to make and therefore the system tends to work better. However the downside is that the system will entity will naturally impose restrictions. This is the point where the desire for individuality comes into direct conflict with a centralized system.
In a situation where the individual has control, the system they are working within must allow for a variety of choices to be made since no individual is the same. With all this choice, the system has a tendency to be very complex and break down frequently (witness Macs vs. PCs, with PCs being more complex). It also has a tendency to lead to situaitons where there is no continuity. On the PC you have a gazillion choices no matter what OS you choose. Expand that to the hardware, and you have even more choices. With a Mac, you only have a handful of choices, but they are the "best" choices based on experience. The user gives up a certain level of control for a simpler experience.
So... what's the answer? There really isn't one. It's a flaw in human design. We would be largely better off without the desire for individuality and centralized control, but we would also be a lot less interesting. However, the trains would probably run on time...
Un-news
Why didn't anyone tell me that before I decided to get married? It was hell until I got divorced.
--jeff++
ipv6 is my vpn
Maybe there are people genetically predisposed to want to make choices, to want to choose from the widest array of options. These people would sometimes make the wrong choices and die. Then maybe there are others, people genetically predisposed to do what everyone else is doing. They would become unhappy when forced to make choices on their own (knowing, genetically speaking, that making the wrong choice may kill them.) Sheep and goats, you see. Maybe geeks tend towards the latter, and perhaps that's why most people here have a hard time grasping the fact that many people don't like to have too many choices.
Or maybe I'm just full of it. I don't know. Maybe the moderators will decide for me.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
This week's Newsweek has an op-ed article called Afflictions of Affluence that speaks on this very topic. According to it, there are 3 consequences of our rich society: obesity, time crunch and buyer's remorse.
In short the article goes on to say that because we're so rich and food is so cheap our portion sizes have been getting bigger. And that's why we're becoming fat.
We're facing a constant time crunch because we constantly view our time as more and more valuable (time is money in our capitalistic culture) ergo there's this need to cram all our activities into shorter time periods.
Lastly, ther'es buyer's remorse simply because we havfe so many choices out there. You buy one mp3 player but have time to research all 100. You're likely to find a feature in another mp3 player you wish you had.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
with voting there is a rule/problem (I don't know its name - Condorcet is all that comes to mind) that any vote with more than two participants may yield cycles (for example, in some cases, A is prefered to B is preferred to C is preferred to A....) or other nonoptimalities; thus voting methods may not give results consistent with what everyone would want of independent of how the vote is done. The problem with runoff systems (do you want A or B? do you want B or C?...) is that they depend on the order or options chosen; thus the person selecting the choices may have more power to determine the outcomes than the people nominally choosing the outcomes.
So while this way of putting choices resolves much of the problems with overwhelming choices, it potentially puts significant power in the hands of the one choosing the choices. Under certain circumstances this could be catastrophic, such as in gov't, where the selection procedure would give the voters the appearance of power and responsibility while concentrating the actual decision-making capacity elsewhere, out of sight and responsibility. I don't know a practical method around this because any of the multiple voting systems can behave badly under certain circumstances, just that this may be flawed. I believe the same problems apply to the decision making method above.
freedom of choice implies the freedom to choose to choose (or not).
.. *dizzy* ...
let me try that again: before i can make a choice between two or more options, i must first want (i.e. choose) to make that choice.
as an experienced computer user and programmer, i want to choose linux (or another alternative) for my desktop so that i can have the freedom of choice it offers.
as a casual user, my sister has no interest in choosing to have the kind of freedom of choice that linux offers; to her, windows 98 is still to this day "good enough" for her needs.
that one of us chose an option that leads to more choices and the other did not is immaterial; we each exercised our freedom to choose in coming to a decision that best fits our respective needs.
in my mind, there is nothing "paradoxical" (in the way that schwartz means) about not choosing in the face of myriad options, because to not choose is itself a choice.
Go out and read the Technological society, The Technological Bluff (J. Elluls) and Technopoly (N. Postman).
Most choices given by technological progress are an illusion.
Yes we today have 100's of automobiles to choose from but the choice of a mule or horse has been irrevokably removed in the name of technological progress.
This is despite the fact a mule and horse _can_ cross the Nevada desert unlike so many autonomous and piloted vehicles covered recently.
Most Payroll is now done by software and is rarely done by hand to the point I would say business has lost sight of a key process in favor of technological smoke and mirrors. Now we get into areas of how many hours the finance dept can "float" payroll offshore to avoid taxes or keep interest accruing then process it at the last moment. Only technological advances could give us such dangerous practices on a core process of business.
In effect Jacques Elluls and Neil Postman conclude in their books that technology beats you down to accepting the only choice, the one prefered is technologically the one forced upon you.
What Freedom!
I have to say several things:
I agree with Dr. Schwartz to some extent. Australia is seeing a huge amount of privitization throughout all industries. We are having to make a huge amount of choices for everything. I know the US have had it for years, but I get annoyed having to make too many choices every step of the way. I see it as a waste of time and energy that can be better spent elsewhere.
The other side of the coin is, though, that we need to have choices to avoid a monopoly/dictatorship. Whichever way you look at it - Microsoft is a dictator. They tell us to jump and we say 'how high?'.
This is unsatisfactory. So for this reason alone I prefer to have choices. Even if I do get annoyed, I would much prefer that I get annoyed than have some monopoly dictating my life.
The other thing to note is: Microsoft is treating the OSS movement as a THREAT to it's existance. Therefore, they are going all out to get at OSS in anyway possible. I see this study as FUD by Microsoft, (whether initially intentional or not).
-- main(s){printf(s="main(s){printf(s=%c%s%c,34,s,34
--- and real power returns to the god-like system administrator of old
When one of my end users calls and says "Why can't I...", I take great satisfaction in saying "Because you can't, have a nice day." God-like system administrators aren't so bad...as long as I'm one of them.
"Lame" - Galaxar
So when I do an experiment in which I assign people randomly to different groups, test their memory, find that people in group 1 have better memory than people in group 2, and use that empirical evidence to falsify a previous model of how memory works, am I not doing psychology, or am I not doing science?
All of the self-made rich people I know are pretty sharp. If you can provide a pointer to any research showing a reverse correlation, I'd be fascinated to see it.
Your
wish
is
my
command.
Looking at this list, it's a bit blonde-heavy. It seems further research into this strange pattern formation is required.
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
Too much choice? Well, perhaps for some people. But a where a line must be drawn, people always crowd around and push it one way or the other. Frankly, I'd rather be befuddled by too much choice than restricted by too little choice. I do believe Dr.Schwartz can kiss my ass.