Re: Barry Schwartz: The Paradox of Choice

[raj1037]

I seriously doubt that he's suggesting totalitarian government or removal of choice by force. It's more about how we (and companies) approach the consumer market.

The "redistribution" line was just an observation on international economy, and an accurate one. The U.S. can't continue it's current "produces nothing, consumes everything" tactic forever. We eventually have to PRODUCE something which other parts of the world can consume. Our consumer choices would naturally drop/while their's rose.

[Kway32]

Yes, Barry got a little carried away with the conclusion, mentioning income redistribution.

That does not mean the rest of the argument is false.

[BrettDunbar]

I agree wholeheartedly. These people that follow that guy are brainwashed retards.

[MateusPasseri]

You totally missed the point of Barry's speech. I guess you must have a grudge with him for any other reason and made this pointless vision.

[dannidandannikins]

@MateusPasseri "You totally missed the point of Barry's speech" No, you did. The point of Mr Schwartz's speech was to justify the use of force to arbitrarily take money from producers 'for the greater good'.

[thehoogard]

You put forth a really bad argument.

Firstly, this clip doesn't reflect Barry's own position. It's a position he ascribes to OTHERS.

Now you could make an argument that the people he says have this view don't, but that's another story.

That you got this blatantly ovious thing wrong would according to your own argumentation discredit everything else you had to say.

However, that would be a "Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything), a logical fallacy.

[dannidandannikins]

@thehoogard

1. 'Now you could make an argument that the people he says have this view don't, but that's another story.' That is what I did and it is known as demonstrating that he is attacking a straw man.

2. "Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus" applies when arguing in this manner: 'he made a typing error ergo his epistemology is wrong', which is not what I did - I demonstrated that he was erring at the base of his argument so everything derived from that base is wrong.

[thehoogard]

@dannidandannikins

1. Good that we agree on this then.

2. What he argues isn't derived from that base. He says it's contradictory to that base.

Btw, another note, that freedom is an end by itself doesn't prevent it from being a means to welfare.

[dannidandannikins]

@thehoogard "another note, that freedom is an end by itself doesn't prevent it from being a means to welfare."

Very true, but if you restrict freedom on the grounds of welfare then by necessity you are rejecting the claim that it is a good in itself.

As to your other arguments, on a reviewing of my video I have decided that I will remake it sometime to clarify certain points which I will concede that I have not explained adequately here.

Cheers for commenting.

[thehoogard]

@dannidandannikins

Barry, as far as I interpret him, doesn't say you should reduce freedom to maximize welfare, he says you should reduce choice. Now I think it's you who are saying that more choices lead to more freedom, something you denied in this vid.

Cheers yourself, I enjoy our discussion. I hope you don't find me antagonistic :)

Ps. I also thinkg welfare vs freedom is an interresting debate on its own.

[dannidandannikins]

@thehoogard "Barry... doesn't say you should reduce freedom to maximize welfare, he says you should reduce choice"

What then do you consider as freedom, if not the ability to make choices?

"Now I think it's you who are saying that more choices lead to more freedom, something you denied in this vid."

No, but I am claiming that holding a gun to someone's head and forbidding a choice reduces freedom.

re freedom/welfar - properly conceived there's no conflict, but that's another video called for.

[thehoogard]

@dannidandannikins

I would say reducing the number of choices can but does not automaitcally lead to less freedom. First of all the range of choices could still be the same, just that some "intermedeates" dissapear.

Secondly if choice does cause paralysis then that's even less freedom, and that's his rather counterintuitive message I would say.

[dannidandannikins]

@thehoogard " I hope you don't find me antagonistic :)"

I did at first but thanks for saying otherwise. Have a good one.

[dumbnetworks]

you sir are stupid

[dannidandannikins]

If you are going to try to insult people using 19th century mannerisms then you should at least correct your grammar, sir. You'll still look like a pretentious tosser, sir, but at least you'll not have made an abject fool of yourself.

[dumbnetworks]

I just made a fact obvious.... sorry if that hurts, at least you let people comment, I respect that.

[dannidandannikins]

a) Don't kid yourself that showing 'respect' to me for allowing comments on my video will in any way at all alter the impression I have formed of you.

b) I let people comment because occasionally there are people who have something to say that is worth my time reading, not because I respect the opinions of yobs like you

c) It does not hurt to receive an inept insult from a person whose opinion means nothing to me.

d) Your grammar is a mess, again.

[dumbnetworks]

hmm, ok

a)I don't give a fuck about my grammar I am not american or english, and I speak more languages than you heard of.

b) I don't give a fuck about your impression about me, I just stated a fact, you are stupid, but you can evolve, maybe... actually I don't care if you do.

Reading more books wont help you, I see that now, go to a doctor instead, you have huge personality issues, I hope for you that you will realise that before you turn 50. CHEERS!

[Davesfavoritethings]

You should read, "Guerrilla Marketing in 30 Days," a popular book about marketing. It specifically states that you should be careful about giving your customers more choices because, paradoxically, that can cause you to lose market share.

Your ideological objection to Mr. Schwartz's arguments is irrelevant. Empirically, what he says is true.

[dannidandannikins]

Sure, people need a way of managing choices, that's why when I go shopping I go to shops which I know to have a selection of products that largely suit my aims rather than just turning up at some vast warehouse with everything under the sun. However, Schwartz is saying that the choices, rather than being managed on the individual level, should be limited on the societal level. He is completely wrong.

[lozjammack]

Did you even read quote? He is not determining the amount of choice. He is just suggesting that we might have gone 'too far' (i get the fact that might be too abstract a term for you to understand).

But since you made the choice not to read my quote/interpret it as it was clearly meant, I will leave you to this forum of yourself and anyone else who thinks Barry is EVIL. Oooohhh he is just so EVIL I might not be able to sleep any time soon.

[dannidandannikins]

Did you even listen to his speech? He explicitly says that we should raise taxes in order to limit choice. this is not 'a suggestion that we have gone to far' but an assertion that we should retreat.

If you want to throw a tantrum because i disagree with you then fine, do as you please but you make a fool of yourself when you pick on my choice of the word 'evil' since i clearly use it in the sense of being the opposite of good as it is a violation of fundamental property rights.

[lozjammack]

You are taking this far too seriously. His opinion is just that...and opinion. It is SIMPLY his way of making people THINK about the world the live in and how they LIVE their lives.

[lozjammack]

Read HIS lips....

"There is NO question. That some choice is better than none. But it doesn't follow from that that more choice is better than some choice (i.e. more choices does not mean better for the individual)...There maybe some perfect amount. There is some magical amount...I am pretty confident we have launched (meaning gone a long way) passed this point...where (more) options improve our welfare."

[dannidandannikins]

You have pick out pretty much the most offensive part of his speech. The notion that someone - anyone - should have a role in determining what level of choice is preferable is monstrous.

Watch his speech again, see the bit where he talks about policy recommendations. see how he advocates using taxation to limit people's choices. That is evil.

[lozjammack]

to answer your question i think (partly) yes. But i the message I got more from Mr Schwartz's video is to (1) be very aware that this inertia is happening (2) learn to be content with the 'choice you made' rather than being forever chasing the 'perfect choice'. You obviously made it with the best information available at the time. I didn't get any hint that he was suggesting we get rid of choice altogether. Limit our choices from 100's to 10's perhaps....what u think?

[dannidandannikins]

the thing is that getting rid of some choices means banning people from making some decisions, which is evil. Ultimately, schwartz is advancing the argument that limiting freedom will improve general welfare. Firstly, this is untrue. More importantly, even if limiting freedom would improve welfare, it would still be evil.

[lozjammack]

wow...this is a highly intellectual debate. All I know is that when I shop around for mobile phone contracts it is very difficult to come to a choice that is satisfactory. I end up staying with the company I am with. Whoever believes too many choices isn't bad obviously has had to deal with this type of situation

[dannidandannikins]

There are difficulties from having too many choices, and it can lead to inertia. is the solution to remove the choices for everyone or for you to work out how to make a more rational choice when shopping?

[mvflyhalf]

Would it be alright if we moved the discussion to private message. The 500 character maximum of the comment boxes is limiting.

[dannidandannikins]

Do you feel that limiting your choice of characters to 500 is an impediment to your sense of free expression? By all means message me but you must be aware of the irony here.

[mvflyhalf]

1) Based on the clip you showed, I felt you were attacking Schwartz personally when I felt he was merely framing a supposition of how society incorrectly attributes freedom with choice. But Id rather drop that contention because I feel it is more or less moot to the grand scheme of ideas represented in the lecture.

[dannidandannikins]

Ok, first off, I do want to personally attack Barry Schartz personally (albeit with words not fists) because he is clearly a filthy communist.

'society incorrectly attributes freedom with choice' I argued that Schwartz's understanding of the relationship between freedom and choice is wrong. Even if he were right though, limiting choices necessarily means forbidding people from making a free choice, by definition, and therefore his arguments are anti-freedom.

[mvflyhalf]

2) I do not believe applying cursory understanding is sufficient in postulating the concepts Schwartz addresses in The Paradox of Choice. Much of the theories and concepts that support his paradox are often counterintuitive to cursory knowledge. Although it seems intrinsic that more choice would be directly related to more freedom and utility, there are many sound counter-examples that demonstrate otherwise and Schwartz should not be condemned for discussing them.

[dannidandannikins]

'Although it seems intrinsic that more choice would be directly related to more freedom and utility, there are many sound counter-examples that demonstrate otherwise and Schwartz should not be condemned for discussing them.' The only things he discusses are how more choice has led to less utility, this doesn't equate to less freedom. It is his failure to differentiate the two (because he sees freedom as a means to an end not an end in itself) that makes his arguments repulsive.

[mvflyhalf]

3) Again, cognitive dissonance theory is just one common example of how dissonance increases when more viable choices are introduced.

[dannidandannikins]

Cognitive dissonance is thinking two contradictory things at the same time. It's what Orwell labelled 'Double think' in '1984'.

Schwartz argues we will be more free if we limit our choices:

1. Freedom means being able to make decisions for oneself.

2. Limiting choices means preventing people from making their own decisions.

(1) and (2) are incompatible. Ergo, there is clearly dissonance in his stance. Ergo, he is a fool.

[mvflyhalf]

I think you are misinterpreting the perspective Barry Schwartz takes in the clip you show and thus misdirecting your argument. In the clip he is not defining freedom as he believes it to be. Conversely, he is supposing western societys view, beliefs and practice of freedom (the dogma) conflict with the very ideals of freedom. Thats the whole point of the lecture, the paradox. Anyways, Schwartzs ideas and contributions to the academic world and to society are highly valued.

[dannidandannikins]

With respect, I don't see on what basis you think I am misinterpreting his speech. He goes on to assert that people would be happier if government were to curtail their choices and that therefore government should curtail choices through redistribution. Even if people were to be happier by doing this, which they clearly wouldn't as a cursory understanding of economics demonstrates, it would still be an assault on freedom and therefore immoral and I hold him in contempt for not realising this.

[theglib]

You're not as smart as Barry Schwartz. Let me dumb his argument down for you. If you go to In and Out Burger, which I'm sure you haven't as you're either a european with a bad speech impediment or an american with a really really band speech impediment, you see that there are very few choices on the menu. This makes it better for the customer for two reasons. 1 its easy to make a decision, and 2 they specialize in fewer items so the items are better, and its easy to get what you want.

[dannidandannikins]

The few choices on the menu at in and out burger is itself an expression of choice: The managers choose to make a compromise: fewer items on the menu means potentially fewer customers (i.e. if they also served curry then they could get customers who want that food as well as the existing customer base of burger lovers) in favour of a higher turnover of customers and a lower operating cost by specialisation. The customer has lots of choice because there are lots of competing

[dannidandannikins]

restaurants, each providing different choices. In fact what you have said actually reinforces my point by showing that the market can by itself manage the number of choices available to the consumer because undesirable choices will be removed from the menu. You are also wrong about the other thing, I am a lot smarter than Barry Schwartz.

p.s. I do have a slight impediment pronouncing the letter 'r'. You however seem to have an impediment performing the task of thought. I pwefer my pwoblem.

[bslaer]

He's sees a different perspective on choice than you and maybe you can learn from. He's not trying to take away your choice, just trying to enlighten you a little bit.

[dannidandannikins]

Here is a short list of all the things you have wrong in your last three posts:

1) 'you don't want an intelligent discussion' this coming from a guy whose opening dialogue stated how he didn't care to listen to me. you started the twat-talk.

2) 'Learn to accept that there are no absolutes' - so it's an absolute that there are no absolutes is it? I beg to differ. There are absolutes, there is objective truth.

3) 'He's spreading awareness' wrong. he's spreading idiocy, you've caught it.

[dannidandannikins]

4) 'He doesn't recommend taking away our freedoms' Wrong. His policy recommendation at the end of his talk is to redistribute wealth. This means forcibly taking money away from the affluent and giving it to the poor. His policy recommendation is an infringement on property rights and a cessation of the freedom to own the products of one's labour.

5) If 'awareness of our minds [sic] tendency' were the point of his talk then his policy recommendation should be to have a mature acceptance of the

[dannidandannikins]

fact that sometimes you will make mistakes, not that choices should be limited.

6) since he says that more choices means more freedom, his policy suggestion of reducing the number of choices is akin to recommending a reduction of freedom.

He is absolutely wrong, on everything.

p.s. I'm sure you'll make a great doctor with your indecisiveness. The medical profession is one in which you will never be called upon to make difficult life-or-death decisions.

[bslaer]

You obviously don't want an intelligent discussion if you're going to resort to petty name calling. I agree taking away our freedoms is not the thing to do and Barry certainly doesn't say it. Awareness of our minds tendency is point of the talk and the book. Learn to accept they're are no absolutes and it is possible that a number of different perspectives can be right.

[bslaer]

He's spreading awareness. He doesn't recommend taking away our freedoms or reducing our options, Having so much choice reduces our satisfaction with what we decide upon. He is not suggesting denying us the right to make choices. He is discussing a psychological effect of having choice, which is it diminishes our satisfaction with what we choose. Anyone can see that.

[bslaer]

in my own life, I am indecisive. I am a medical student and I could be a businessman. I could be an actor, I could do many other careers. The fact that I could do all these other things makes me constantly evaluate whether medicine is the correct choice for me. I have so much choice and yet if I didn't have any choice but had to do medicine, I would be happier. It's a paradox. The paradox of choice.

[dannidandannikins]

Oh, so you are a fucking moron who can't cope with having to make decisions? Right, in that case the solution is to take choice away from everyone -to make you feel better- by undermining the market system and making slaves of all of us by denying us the right to make choices? What if the lack of choice you cry for meant that you had to be a landfill worker, do you still think it would make you happier or do you think it might be a bit stinky?

Get fucked you dumb cunt communist twat. Dismissed.

[bslaer]

The idea is that we are more miserable with more choice, and I know this to be true in my own life. there is definitely truth in what he is saying, i think you fixated on two small things, and I didnt' follow what you were saying or care to.

[dannidandannikins]

you know that you are more miserable from more choice do you? are you more miserable because of the great range of medical treatments, educational opportunities, travel opportunities, youTube viewing opportunities, opportunities to participate in politics and opportunities to become economically independent? Thought not. idiot.

I focused on the fundamentals of his argument and showed them to be misconceived. if you weren't listening that's your own problem. Dipshit.

[ammonjerro47]

...I think its hard to deny that in nearly ALL Western countries, there are huge welfare mechanisms. If libertarianism were in the water supply, and the "offical dogma" of neoliberalism which he talks about was really so prevalent, then we would see small government and hardly any state control. He's a commie disguised as a liberal academic :D

[ammonjerro47]

Great video. I would like to add one thing which you didnt mention, which is that advocates of HEW programs, wealth distribution fanatics and commies in general rely on coercion to implement their policies, and that the libertarian position requires no such coercion, but only advocates voluntary cooperative action. When Schwartz claims that its the laissez faire attitude which is embedded in the water supply, he is simply making another gigantic strawman...