![]() ![]() Yet Schwartz argues against shifting the “burden” of choosing onto the individual because the stakes are so high. These domains surely fall under “things that matter”. Not long after this, Schwartz suggests that with retirement plans, health insurance, and healthcare, governments, employers and doctors should make choices for others. Barry Schwartz in The Paradox of Choice ![]() Initially, his concerns about choice overload appeared to be limited to choices about trivial things: In particular, I couldn’t tell whether Schwartz supports having more choice in domains that matter, such as retirement plans. However, Schwartz also acknowledges that there are some benefits to having more choice, and it wasn’t clear how he thought the balance should be struck. Schwartz’s argument that more choice is not always better (which I endorse) came through very strongly. The weak structure also contributed to the next problem: confusing or inconsistent arguments. At times, Schwartz seemed to make subtly different points, but it was hard to pick up all his nuances. There are a few problems with the way The Paradox of Choice is written.įirst off, the structure of the book was rather weak. Problems with The Paradox of Choice – the book Book Summary: The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz.So, although this post outlines some problems with The Paradox of Choice - both the book and the idea - I try to do so constructively. Schwartz makes some excellent points that paved the way for further research, and the book has definitely impacted my life and my thinking. His conclusions are that people should aim to be satisficers, rather than maximizers, and that by having standards to live by, rather, than, say, rigidly enforced rules from some higher authority, we can eliminate some choice in our lives that isn’t really needed.I liked The Paradox of Choice. It is, however, unlikely that most people search for products that way.īeyond choice paralysis caused by too many choices, an abundance of choice is also likely to produce worse decisions because people attempt to simplify the choice to a point where the simplification impedes their ability to make a good choice. If you know exactly what you want - you know prior to searching precisely what characteristics you want - then more choices are likely to be better, because you are more likely to find something that most closely matches what you desire. The more fund choices offered by employers offering matching 401k plans, the fewer people actually selected any fund at all, even though that meant foregoing ‘free’ money. ![]() One of the more important examples cited is that of 401k plans. He cites studies that indicate people are less likely to buy a product when faced with too many choices. “Satisficers” are those who settle for a choice that is “good enough” for them These people are generally happier with their choice, and spend less time choosing, leaving them free to enjoy other things.īarry Schwartz aptly demonstrates that having too many things to choose from often leads to the consumer feeling bewildered when facing the choice, and less satisfied even after taking a decision. ![]() This behavior generally consumes a lot of time, and often leads to nagging doubts, perhaps where no one clear winner emerged. “Maximizers” are people who, given a choice, will exhaustively search all the options, seeking all possible information, in order to make the best possible choice. Giving people too many choices tends to lessen their satisfaction. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |