Katja notes that Barry Scwartz’s Paradox of Choice is the TED talk (see below) she hears praised most often, in which Schwartz summarizes, with great force and clarity, the argument he advanced in his book The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less, and goes on to muse:
Why should we fail to adapt? Even if we can’t adapt psychologically, as inability to deal with choices becomes more of a problem, more technologies for solving it will be found. Having the benefits of choice without the current costs doesn’t appear an insoluble problem.
I am not sure whether this advanced as a contrarian gambit but either way I think it misses the point. It is really worth seeing Schwartz’s presentation if you aren’t familiar with his thesis. The Wikipedia article is reasonable, but it is no substitute. In essence Scwhartz pays attention to the psychology and notes that we are drowning in choice. This chart from Jessica Hagy sums up the situation neatly (h/t Sullivan).
We simply get stressed by the array of choices and divert too much time and energy trying to make sense of it all (see the talk).
But more importantly, the whole situation has the opposite to that intended. Clearly we want all of the choice because we believe it will make us happy but, quite apart from the above-mentioned stress, it has the opposite effect, making us more dissatisfied (see the talk).
Scwartz makes another important point. drawing back and looking at the situation globally, there can be little doubt (certainly to my mind) that it is no accident that the industrial world monopolises the world’s resources and all measures of powe, including the ability to project into violence to any part of the globe. The net result is a surplus in the industrial world which is making it’s citizens miserable (see the talk) and a shortage of resources in the ‘developing’ world which is making its citizens even more miserable. This is a very, very irrational situation.
While what is happening with the goods, the resources and the consumer durables is important, the really interesting story, as with global warming, is taking place in the mind. (By the way, an interesting Idea of the Day post at the Times, The Rise of the ‘Neuro-Novel’ reminds me that even novelists are losing sight of their minds.) As with the climate science debate, an incoherent materialist philosophy lies at the core of the problem.
In this case it is materialist in both senses of the word. In The High Price of Materialism Tim Kasser presents the results of some ingenious studies showing the relationship between well-being, wealth and whether people are motivated by external factors (mostly status and acquiring wealth). All three are important. For those living marginally, who need to work to get fed clothed and sheltered, being oriented towards external factors is perfectly rational. Obviously they need to be focused on these issues and they are perfectly happy with it. However if we look at those that are running a surplus, those that have the essentials, then those that are materialistically oriented are markedly less contented and more depressed than those that are more concerned with self-development.
From a Buddhist perspective these remarkable results make perfect sense by the way. For anyone in a subsistence situation it makes perfect sense for them to focus on putting food in their belly. But for those with a surplus, persisting in the chase for more can stuff only make bring unhappiness (note, it is not having stuff that is the problem, but the chasing of it–this can’t be emphasized enough; it isn’t the having but the chasing that is the problem). from a Buddhist perspective happiness comes about due to its causes and conditions, and if you aren’t going about this intelligently, if you are not doing things to promote your own happiness, then you will be making yourself unhappy in the long run. Any given situation will have a mass of factors acting on it so, while I could be experiencing lots of happiness as a result of past intelligent actions, I can also be storing up problems for the future. The studies that Kasser discuss plainly shows this effect. (And you can be sure that there are a large contingent of researchers trying to knock them down and create as much confusion as possible–indeed my understanding is that this is the case.)
The Paradox of Choice
I am not sure whether this advanced as a contrarian gambit but either way I think it misses the point. It is really worth seeing Schwartz’s presentation if you aren’t familiar with his thesis. The Wikipedia article is reasonable, but it is no substitute. In essence Scwhartz pays attention to the psychology and notes that we are drowning in choice. This chart from Jessica Hagy sums up the situation neatly (h/t Sullivan).
We simply get stressed by the array of choices and divert too much time and energy trying to make sense of it all (see the talk).
But more importantly, the whole situation has the opposite to that intended. Clearly we want all of the choice because we believe it will make us happy but, quite apart from the above-mentioned stress, it has the opposite effect, making us more dissatisfied (see the talk).
Scwartz makes another important point. drawing back and looking at the situation globally, there can be little doubt (certainly to my mind) that it is no accident that the industrial world monopolises the world’s resources and all measures of powe, including the ability to project into violence to any part of the globe. The net result is a surplus in the industrial world which is making it’s citizens miserable (see the talk) and a shortage of resources in the ‘developing’ world which is making its citizens even more miserable. This is a very, very irrational situation.
In this case it is materialist in both senses of the word. In The High Price of Materialism Tim Kasser presents the results of some ingenious studies showing the relationship between well-being, wealth and whether people are motivated by external factors (mostly status and acquiring wealth). All three are important. For those living marginally, who need to work to get fed clothed and sheltered, being oriented towards external factors is perfectly rational. Obviously they need to be focused on these issues and they are perfectly happy with it. However if we look at those that are running a surplus, those that have the essentials, then those that are materialistically oriented are markedly less contented and more depressed than those that are more concerned with self-development.
From a Buddhist perspective these remarkable results make perfect sense by the way. For anyone in a subsistence situation it makes perfect sense for them to focus on putting food in their belly. But for those with a surplus, persisting in the chase for more can stuff only make bring unhappiness (note, it is not having stuff that is the problem, but the chasing of it–this can’t be emphasized enough; it isn’t the having but the chasing that is the problem). from a Buddhist perspective happiness comes about due to its causes and conditions, and if you aren’t going about this intelligently, if you are not doing things to promote your own happiness, then you will be making yourself unhappy in the long run. Any given situation will have a mass of factors acting on it so, while I could be experiencing lots of happiness as a result of past intelligent actions, I can also be storing up problems for the future. The studies that Kasser discuss plainly shows this effect. (And you can be sure that there are a large contingent of researchers trying to knock them down and create as much confusion as possible–indeed my understanding is that this is the case.)