Is Too Much Choice Stressing Us Out? (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader writes: In the decades following World War 2, there was a dramatic expansion in choices for consumers. Where before there were only a few brands of bread, now there were dozens. Marketers were relentless in trying to fill every niche, to capture every last market segment. But in the 1990s and 2000s, we started to realize that this wasn't inherently a good thing. Choice paralysis demonstrably exists. It's made us start asking questions like: do we really need 30 types of jam on a store shelf? Is there a good reason for a firm to offer over 150 different pension plans? It turns out, no. Employees are much less likely to actually choose a plan when confronted with so many. In worrying about finding the best choice, they accidentally pick what is by far the worst: nothing. Barry Schwartz, a psychologist who helped bring this idea to the fore, has been advocating for less choice, and offers this suggestion: "The secret to happiness is low expectations."

Comments

Low expectations?

[HalAtWork]

I have this friend that believes he'll never be disappointed if he just thinks the worst is going to happen at any given moment. Cynical as fuck but swears he is constantly pleasantly surprised. This just sounds like a fucked up way to live. Imagine the fear that must rule you if you need to go around expecting the lowest lows in order to be happy.

I don't think low expectations are the way to go, personally. Maybe don't expect anything at all either way. Stop trying to predict and frame everything. Stop managing your expectations altogether and just live in the moment. Focus on what you're doing now and try to get the most out of it. If you're letting bad jam bring you down then you need to step back and calm down. Forget the jam and read a book or start a new hobby.

Re:Choice paralysis

[The-Ixian]

At my place of employment we use what we call an executive summary.

This summary lays out 3 options maximum even if there are many more.

If the customer wants to then discuss and make changes, we are happy to go into the weeds at that point.

We have learned that decision makers are generally not very good at decision making and less options lead to a sale more often.

Re:Capitalism and cripple-to-option

[Errol backfiring]

It is not the amount of choice that is freaking us out, it is the amount of effort to get to know what the choice actually is and how to get it. Especially due to capitalism, full products are deliberately crippled to plunder the customers. Nowadays, you can have a full-time job managing a company's software licenses. And the bigger the manufacturer, the less sense the license model has.

Re: Capitalism

[RabidReindeer]

In Victorian times, you weren't really respectable unless you had a cabinet full of every imaginable sort of jam, jelly and marmalade. Often with specialized silverware to go with them. So Choice Overload is hardly anything new.

A lot of the TFA "brand proliferation" is because before about 1930 or so, bakeries were local (when you didn't just bake at home). Roads weren't that great, transportation costs were high. No long-haul truckers, and probably the railroads weren't cost-effective for anything as cheap as bread. Now we may have lots of different brands, but many of them are from 6 states away or more.

It's true. I read the other day that a grocery store circa 1960 carried about 7000 distinct products, versus about 40,000 in modern-day stores, including a lot of international imports like genuine D.O.P. Parmesan cheese for no more than $15/lb and often less.

And it's true. I have myself been bewildered when confronting a new product that comes in a hundred different brands and varieties. Still, we manage to get by. If you need it bad enough, you'll eventually grab something and run.

You're right

[rsilvergun]

Communism doesn't work. It involves a large scale transfer of ownership of the means of production to the working class, and it's been shown that in the battle between the military and ruling class that ensues when you try to do that it all falls apart.

This folks is why I'm a Democratic Socialist. You can live however the heck you want so long as you're not causing pain and suffering to others. Trouble is the 1% will _always_ cause pain and suffering, because as you and I are diminished they are raised. It really is a Zero sum game, but for social status and political power rather than raw economics.

Nice talking points you got there though. Did you get 'em from Rush Limbaugh? You know he just got 'em from Karl Rove right?