Heap Overrun

Earlier this month, Sheena Iyengar gave a great talk at TED on the art of choosing. She raises some excellent points about how we approach choice in the Western world, believing that more choice is good. Incidentally, this is the same phenomenon that has led to the idea that the paying customer is always right; we expect so much choice that we expect things just the way we want them and get upset when choices we feel strongly about and are accustomed to having are suddenly removed from our control.

We have a strong belief that choice is a near-sacred thing that all people must have to the fullest extent possible, but is this true? Iyengar notes an experience where residents of former Communist countries approached the choice between seven different types of soda pop as being fundamentally the same choice. Only when different types of beverages were introduced did the number of choices perceived increase. For them however, they were used to having either no choice or choosing between things that are substantially different. In contrast, we are required to make many choices from an early age, so we are good at perceiving the minor differences between strikingly similar choices. The difference between Coke and Pepsi for example, or in geek circles the difference between vi and emacs. To the people loyal to one or the other, this will likely be enough to set off a quasi-religious war over why their choice is clearly superior, but to the uninitiated we may as well be saying "soda pop is better than soda pop" or "text editor is clearly superior to and easier to use than text editor". Of course, Emacs seems to think it's an operating system-in-training, but we forgive it most of the time.

The three assumptions addressed in Iyengar's talk are worth listing here and briefly addressing. The first assumption is that we must make our own choices. Certainly we must all make some choices, but do we really need to make all choices that affect us by ourselves? Do we even try? We frequently consult others on choices we plan to make, and often it is input from people we trust that influence our decision. In some cases, our decision is based entirely on the collective decision of a few people, which is fundamentally the same as having someone else make the decision for us.

The second assumption is that more choices directly correlates to making better choices. This is clearly not true, but no matter how many times we prove this false we constantly return and demand more choices so we can make the best possible decision. More information, possibly with more choices but likely not, is what is necessary for making better choices. If, for example, we must choose between five politicians. Based on the available information, they are all politicians, they all donate considerable time and money to various well-recognized charities, and they are all quick to defend the interests of the people they represent. One is a Communist, one is socially conservative and economically conservative, the third is socially liberal but economically conservative, the fourth is socially conservative but economically liberal, and the last is socially conservative, economically liberal and a vocal supporter of improving the environment without requiring substantial expenditures by businesses. Each of us will choose the one which most fits our points of view. However, the attractiveness of each option changes with a little more information: the Communist has a long track record of working toward true Communism rather than the brands we're all familiar with, has never been caught doing a single thing contrary to their stated opinions, and has never been shown to have knowingly lied about anything; the second politician holds secret meetings with representatives of various media corporations, refuses to confirm any such meetings occurred and then acts with the best interests of these corporations despite any desires of the average people; the third politician is vocally against equal treatment for same-sex couples and is fighting to require that marriage only be allowed for opposite-sex couples; the fourth is currently in charge of their province (or state, depending on what political system you're most familiar with) and has run up the largest debt in recent history; and finally, the environmentalist owns an original Hummer and puts all of their donated time and money toward exclusively environmental causes. Have you changed your mind? Even if you ignore this admittedly artificial set of choices and look at the choices you had in your most recent election, would adding more politicians to the ballot have made any major difference? Instinctively we would all say "yes", but sit back and really think about it. Take at least twenty minutes of solid thought and see if you are still as certain as you were before you thought about it.

Finally, the third assumption is that we must never say no to the opportunity to make a choice. Iyengar's example is perfect, so I will essentially repeat it here. Consider that you are a parent and you must rush your very young lone child to the hospital. After a number of hours, the doctor informs you that your child requires permanent life support. A very difficult and painful prognosis for any parent to hear, but in at least Canada and the United States the doctors would further compound this pain by asking you to decide whether to let your child die without life support or spend their lives in a coma, or otherwise unable to interact with the world. Numerous parents who had been in similar situations and whose child had died were interviewed on the effects of their choice or lack thereof. In France, the doctors made the decision for the parents. Research showed that French parents had a better experience overall and preferred that the doctors have that difficult decision. On the western side of the Atlantic Ocean, parents had significantly worse experiences, felt that they had played a role in their child's death, and balked at the concept that any other person should ever have that choice.

So is choice really the good thing we think it is? Clearly (or perhaps only clearly to one who has never known anything else) some choice is a good thing and we must be able to make certain choices for ourselves. Beyond a certain point, however, choice loses its benefits and can become detrimental, and so someone else should make these choices for us. The difficult part, which ironically requires making a large series of difficult choices, is deciding at which point the choices should be made and how similar two things must be before we consider them as being fundamentally identical. Western marketing would prefer that we consider even the most minute details when making choices, since in many cases it is only minute details that separate one product from another. Marketing, however, is clearly not looking out for our best interests.

What I took away from Iyengar's talk was to slow down and think clearly about the choices I make and then decide when two or more things are similar enough that I may as well consider them identical. It's only been a few days since her talk was posted, but it's already been quite entertaining to walk around major shopping centres and note how many products are fundamentally (or frequently absolutely) identical. With a single exception, even the experiences I've had in the various stores in the local mall have been fundamentally identical. The lone exception has been a jewelery store named Spicer Smith & Cole; their customer service has been far beyond anything else from any other company I've dealt with and they have some truly unique products to complement the things that could also be found in at least a half-dozen other stores around the mall. I challenge you to do the same thing; sit back and consider when you are making choices between fundamentally identical things.