Speaker 1: Pushkin.
Speaker 2: When our oldest grandchild was five ish, my wife went
Speaker 2: with her to the supermarket to buy a toothbrush, and
Speaker 2: she got to the toothbrush section of the aisle and
Speaker 2: there were one hundred and fifty or so, and she
Speaker 2: stood there, my five year old granddaughter, and was just
Speaker 2: completely overwhelmed and paralyzed and finally said, Grandma, would you pick?
Speaker 3: Does this sound familiar? Maybe for you?
Speaker 1: It wasn't toothbrushes, but what couch to buy or what
Speaker 1: doctor to see. Social psychologist Barry Schwartz, an emeritus professor
Speaker 1: at Swarthmore, has spent decades challenging the idea that more
Speaker 1: choice is always better.
Speaker 2: It makes making decisions harder, it makes making good decisions harder,
Speaker 2: and it ends up making you less satisfied even when
Speaker 2: you manage to make a good decision, because you know,
Speaker 2: somewhere out there is something that is even better.
Speaker 1: On today's show, Finding Satisfaction in a World full of
Speaker 1: endless choice, I'm maya Shunker and this is a slight
Speaker 1: change of plans, a show about who we are and
Speaker 1: who we become in the face of a big change.
Speaker 1: Barry Schwartz is an expert on decision making His latest
Speaker 1: book is called Choose Wisely. In it, he challenges some
Speaker 1: of the conventional wisdom tools people use to make decisions,
Speaker 1: as well as what it even means to make the
Speaker 1: right choice. We began with an overview of various models
Speaker 1: of decision making. There are all kinds of ways that
Speaker 1: people make decisions, right. Some people go with their gut.
Speaker 1: Others choose a decision based on what they think will
Speaker 1: minimize regret. Others go with their faith. They ask God,
Speaker 1: can you just give us a quick history lesson on
Speaker 1: these different models and how the scientific understanding of decision
Speaker 1: making has evolved over time.
Speaker 2: I'd be delighted in some respects. This is the story
Speaker 2: that the book Choose Wisely is trying to tell. You
Speaker 2: went through all of the kinds of approaches that people
Speaker 2: might have to make decisions that would occur to me.
Speaker 2: Going with your gut, relying on religious advice, relying on
Speaker 2: what your friends have chosen, relying on what respected elders
Speaker 2: have chosen, relying on habit, do the same thing today
Speaker 2: that you did last week. All of these are ways
Speaker 2: to ease the burden of choosing. In effect, when you
Speaker 2: do any of those things, you're delegating the choice to
Speaker 2: some respected other person, either the previous you, or you know,
Speaker 2: an elder in the community, or a good friend or
Speaker 2: what have you.
Speaker 1: What you just said reminds me of this very common
Speaker 1: refrain we have in these tough moments of decision making.
Speaker 3: Can you just decide for me?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 3: How many times do we ask that?
Speaker 1: We asked set of physicians, we askset of our parents,
Speaker 1: we asked of our friends, of our spouses, Just make
Speaker 1: the choice for me.
Speaker 3: In fact, a lot of.
Speaker 1: Times in my life I've wanted the universe to eliminate
Speaker 1: an option, just so that I don't have to make
Speaker 1: the choice and have to deal with the psychic costs
Speaker 1: afterwards of regret and you know, questioning whether I actually
Speaker 1: made the right choice or not.
Speaker 2: But here's the thing, from the perspective of the discipline
Speaker 2: of economics on the one hand, and the psychology of
Speaker 2: decision making, any one of those alternatives you described is
Speaker 2: inferior to doing it the right way.
Speaker 1: And to clarify, Barry, when you say quote the right way,
Speaker 1: you're referring to a framework called rational choice theory, right.
Speaker 1: It is a model for how people ought to make decisions.
Speaker 1: And you actually take issue with this model, which we'll
Speaker 1: get to a bit later, but for now, tell us
Speaker 1: what this theory purports.
Speaker 2: Rational choice theory, mostly the product of economists, is the
Speaker 2: view that the way to make good decisions, rational choices,
Speaker 2: is to assess how valuable each option is to you,
Speaker 2: and how likely it is to be as valuable as
Speaker 2: you think it is. Every decision is a prediction. We
Speaker 2: sometimes predict that we'll love a restaurant and we don't.
Speaker 2: Well of a car, and we don't and so on.
Speaker 2: You create a little spreadsheet, you fill in for every
Speaker 2: option those two numbers, and then you do the math.
Speaker 2: That's the way rational people make decisions. And let me
Speaker 2: just say there's a cousin to this that is much
Speaker 2: more consequential in a way because it affects policy decisions
Speaker 2: of whole entities rather than just yours and my decisions
Speaker 2: as individuals. And it's called cost benefit analysis. You know,
Speaker 2: what's the best way to reduce our carbon footprint? Lots
Speaker 2: of people have different ideas about that, and the idea
Speaker 2: is that probably is a best way. And the way
Speaker 2: you figure it out is you figure out how much
Speaker 2: it will cost to implement and how large the benefit
Speaker 2: will be and out of this analysis will come the
Speaker 2: clear answer to the question, and you implement it not
Speaker 2: just for your own personal use, but for the whole
Speaker 2: society's use. So we live with that kind of analysis
Speaker 2: all the time, and we're encouraged to do that kind
Speaker 2: of analysis when it's our own personal decisions. That's what
Speaker 2: rational choice theory is. It critically depends on being able
Speaker 2: to quantify things.
Speaker 1: Is that why you think people are drawn to this
Speaker 1: model because it gives them a feeling of both ease
Speaker 1: and a feeling of confidence that they have done the work,
Speaker 1: if you will, and they have arrived at the right answer.
Speaker 2: I think maybe so. And let me say it isn't
Speaker 2: incidental that this theory is called rational choice theory. Rational
Speaker 2: is not a descriptor. Rational is an evaluative term. You
Speaker 2: know what that means is rational choice theory is the
Speaker 2: right way to make a choice theory? Yes, who wants
Speaker 2: to be irrational?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Of course, it's an affront to our intelligence to be
Speaker 1: told that we're being irrational.
Speaker 2: Exactly, So there's an horrific attached to it. And if
Speaker 2: they see and read articles in the newspapers where policy
Speaker 2: decisions are being made using a framework very much like this.
Speaker 2: What more evidence do you need that this is what
Speaker 2: the smart and powerful people do? But to me, the
Speaker 2: critical notion is that the fifty years of research by
Speaker 2: psychologists on the errors we make and two Nobel prizes
Speaker 2: in economics to psychologists who studied this and never not
Speaker 2: for a second was their questioning of whether the standard
Speaker 2: for what counts as a rational decision is the right standard.
Speaker 2: It was all just presupposed this is the right way
Speaker 2: to do it, and let's study the ways in which
Speaker 2: people fall short. And the point of this book is
Speaker 2: to suggest that the normative standard of rationality is catastrophically bad.
Speaker 2: You can't really use rational choice theory unless you can
Speaker 2: quantify how good the various outcomes will be for you
Speaker 2: and how likely they are to be that good. In
Speaker 2: other words, you need a value and a probability for
Speaker 2: everything you're thinking about, and they need to be on
Speaker 2: the same scale so that you can compare one option
Speaker 2: against another with respect to all the things that matter
Speaker 2: to you, so you can actually do the math. Putting
Speaker 2: discursive descriptions in that Excel spreadsheet isn't going to help
Speaker 2: you get to the answer. And the problem is we
Speaker 2: give quantification more respect than it deserves. We are often
Speaker 2: driven by the dimensions that are most easily quantified rather
Speaker 2: than by the dimensions that are actually most important to us,
Speaker 2: and that will lead to decisions that distort what we
Speaker 2: actually care about.
Speaker 3: There's also two other issues that I see.
Speaker 1: One is per the end of history illusion, where we
Speaker 1: forget that we will keep changing. We assume we are
Speaker 1: a fixed entity and that all of our preferences will
Speaker 1: stay stable into the future, and that we will be
Speaker 1: excellent cognitive forecasters and be able to anticipate how we'll feel.
Speaker 1: We know from decades of research that's simply not true.
Speaker 1: We're very bad at predicting how future events will make
Speaker 1: us feel. And then the second thing is that when
Speaker 1: it comes to large decisions, you have to differentiate when
Speaker 1: it comes to how much value you think you'll get
Speaker 1: from it, between what common in would call experiential happiness
Speaker 1: versus reflective happiness. So there are lots of choices we
Speaker 1: make where in the short term things are really hard.
Speaker 1: Think about having newborn baby, right, that's a really hard experience.
Speaker 1: You're not sleeping, you're barely eating, you're not allowing your
Speaker 1: needs to be met. But there's a massive payoff when
Speaker 1: you take moments to evaluate, Hey, how's my life going?
Speaker 1: Do I feel fulfilled? Do I feel satisfied? And having
Speaker 1: that kid might give you a massive boost or maybe
Speaker 1: thirty years down the line, it gives you that massive boost,
Speaker 1: and then how do you differentiate between those in the
Speaker 1: Excel spreadsheet?
Speaker 2: But you know, here too, the seduction of quantification screws
Speaker 2: you up because the long term satisfaction that you're talking
Speaker 2: about can't be quantified in the way that the number
Speaker 2: of hours of sleep you get at night and the
Speaker 2: number of hours you can spend working on your latest project.
Speaker 2: You know, those are quantifiable. So what is salient and
Speaker 2: pointable at and measurable in.
Speaker 4: This case is all the bad stuff?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, and the things you're talking about play
Speaker 2: second fiddle because we don't know how to quantify them.
Speaker 2: But you're absolutely right. And let me say, since this
Speaker 2: is your wheelhouse, that one of the problems that rational
Speaker 2: choice theory has is that it takes a snapshot of
Speaker 2: life in a given moment and freezes it and does
Speaker 2: not allow for you to change or the world to change.
Speaker 4: You know, it.
Speaker 2: Tricks us into thinking that decision making should be easy,
Speaker 2: and it's.
Speaker 1: Not when I think about my subjective assessment of whether
Speaker 1: I made the best decision. So let's say I'm trying
Speaker 1: to choose the right car for me. Okay, we should
Speaker 1: not only integrate how well the car services my needs
Speaker 1: and meets my various preferences and expectations. We should also
Speaker 1: consider these other more meta components, namely, how I feel
Speaker 1: about the decision that I made, whether it induces feeling
Speaker 1: of regret in me, whether I have psychic stress because
Speaker 1: I'm constantly reevaluating if it was the right choice or not.
Speaker 1: Does rational choice theory account for the psychic factors? The again,
Speaker 1: when I'm calling metafactors of how we are in real
Speaker 1: time evaluating the decision that we made, Because if I'm
Speaker 1: really upset with the decision, or it's causing me a
Speaker 1: lot of consternation, that will eat away at my positive utility.
Speaker 2: You ask very good questions, oh thanks very and every
Speaker 2: question has a more complicated answer, I'm afraid. So there
Speaker 2: are a couple of ways to treat this view. You
Speaker 2: have to consider what you might call transaction costs.
Speaker 4: There is a price that you pay.
Speaker 2: For complexifying your decision, and maybe it's not worth paying
Speaker 2: the price.
Speaker 1: Like mental transaction costs to be clear.
Speaker 2: Yes, and not just mental, you know, like it takes time,
Speaker 2: and that's time that you could be spending doing something else,
Speaker 2: doing your job better. So that's one problem. If you
Speaker 2: factor in the transaction costs, you might adopt a different
Speaker 2: decision strategy.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: The second thing is that, from the economist point of view,
Speaker 2: adding options and thus making the decision more complicated, can't
Speaker 2: be bad. And that can't be bad because if you're
Speaker 2: happy alternating between two breakfast cereals and I add a
Speaker 2: third one to the grocery shelf, you can ignore it.
Speaker 2: So adding an option doesn't make you worse off, and
Speaker 2: it may make somebody better off. And if it's true
Speaker 2: of a third option, it's the same thing as true
Speaker 2: of a fourth and a fifth and a fiftieth and
Speaker 2: one hundredth. So that approach essentially doesn't acknowledge that the
Speaker 2: kind of cost you're worrying about exist. What I suggest
Speaker 2: in the book is that more is better than less,
Speaker 2: but a point is reached where still more starts to
Speaker 2: become worse, and it can become sufficiently worse that, instead
Speaker 2: of being liberated by all these options, you're paralyzed.
Speaker 1: After the break, Barry gives us a path out of
Speaker 1: decision paralysis. We'll be back in a moment with a
Speaker 1: slight change of plans. Professor Barry Schwartz and I have
Speaker 1: been talking about the sneaky mental costs of decision making.
Speaker 1: One reason you might find choosing between options particularly stressful
Speaker 1: is because you're a maximizer. Psychologists contrast this with another
Speaker 1: type of decision maker, a satisficer. I ask Barry to
Speaker 1: explain the difference.
Speaker 2: A maximizer is someone who's out for the best. Whatever
Speaker 2: that means. The best can be subjective. In fact, it
Speaker 2: is almost always subjective. But if you're buying a new appliance,
Speaker 2: you want the best appliance, And if you're buying a
Speaker 2: new car, you want the best car. And if you're
Speaker 2: buying a house, you want the best house.
Speaker 4: YadA, YadA, YadA.
Speaker 2: A satisficer is someone who wants good enough. If you're lucky,
Speaker 2: you look at one thing, it meets your standards and
Speaker 2: you're done. And in some areas that can mean very
Speaker 2: low standards, and in others that can mean very high standards.
Speaker 2: But once you find good enough, you stop looking. Yes,
Speaker 2: And the reason this is important is that in the
Speaker 2: world we currently live in, if you want the best,
Speaker 2: you have to look at every option. And as everybody knows,
Speaker 2: when you start looking at every option, you'll be dead
Speaker 2: before you get to the end of the list. So
Speaker 2: it's become an unachievable goal to find the best.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I love, I love that you articulate that a
Speaker 1: satisficer can have very high standards. Yep, it's just that
Speaker 1: it's good enough against the backdrop of those high standards,
Speaker 1: which does not mean that you are okay with bottom
Speaker 1: of the barrel outcomes, you know.
Speaker 2: No, no, And it's really important this point because most
Speaker 2: people when they hear satisficing, which is a technical term
Speaker 2: invented by a Nobel Prize winning psychologist slash Economists seventy
Speaker 2: years ago, they don't hear it as.
Speaker 4: A neutral description.
Speaker 2: Yes they you know, when you say satisfice, what people
Speaker 2: here is.
Speaker 3: Settling, Yes, exactly.
Speaker 4: And nobody thinks that settling is neutral.
Speaker 1: I mean it's used disparagingly. Yeah, in the context of relationships,
Speaker 1: for example, don't settle.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, you know. And there so there's a word in
Speaker 2: parentheses that isn't stated, and that word is just he's
Speaker 2: just settling, which is an implicit criticism. And so I
Speaker 2: think everybody is pushing us, and we push ourselves not
Speaker 2: to accept good enough, because we should have higher expectations
Speaker 2: of ourselves, We should make more demands of ourselves, and
Speaker 2: so on. What we found and other people have found,
Speaker 2: is that it makes making decisions harder, in some cases
Speaker 2: close to impossible. It makes making good decisions harder, and
Speaker 2: it ends up making you less satisfied even when you
Speaker 2: manage to.
Speaker 4: Make a good decision totally, because.
Speaker 2: You know somewhere out there is something that is even better. Absolutely,
Speaker 2: you know, if you get into ten colleges, you can
Speaker 2: torture yourself to oblivion trying to decide which of these colleges.
Speaker 4: To go to.
Speaker 2: When people a little older than you know, it doesn't
Speaker 2: make a damn bit of difference totally. There's a New
Speaker 2: Yorker cartoon that I show sometimes when I give talks
Speaker 2: on this of a young woman who's got a sweatshirt
Speaker 2: that says Brown parentheses. But my first choice was Yale.
Speaker 2: Now it's funny, but imagine spending four years at Brown,
Speaker 2: a wonderful institution, and every day you wake up with
Speaker 2: that sentence in your head. Yep, are you going to
Speaker 2: get as much out of being at Brown as you
Speaker 2: possibly can not on your life. You'll spend every day
Speaker 2: you're at Brown thinking how much better life would be
Speaker 2: if only you'd gotten into Yale. So it's not a
Speaker 2: frivolous problem. It's a very serious problem. It's stabilitating. It
Speaker 2: makes people feel like they are consistently making bad decisions,
Speaker 2: and it undermines confidence and SAPs energy. So it's very,
Speaker 2: I think, very consequential.
Speaker 1: Yeah, my friends who are on dating apps feel this acutely.
Speaker 1: You know, it used to be that you, well, back
Speaker 1: in the good old days, right, you had a few options.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's who you went to school with, or to
Speaker 1: church with, or saw your local community whatever. And now
Speaker 1: what's so interesting about the dating app thing is it's
Speaker 1: not even like you had the ten options laid out
Speaker 1: in front of you. It's that you know that if
Speaker 1: you keep swiping, you will keep getting more and more people.
Speaker 1: So there is this counterfactual world of infinite options that
Speaker 1: lives in your head at all times, which can really
Speaker 1: eat away at your ability to satisfice.
Speaker 2: A lot of the point of the paradox of choice
Speaker 2: is to show that even when people make good decisions
Speaker 2: by their own standards, they feel less good about them. Yeah,
Speaker 2: for a variety of reasons. You know, if it's not perfect,
Speaker 2: you regret having chosen, if you haven't been able to
Speaker 2: look at all the options, You're sure that some option
Speaker 2: out there that you didn't get to would be better
Speaker 2: than the one that you ended up choosing, and all
Speaker 2: of that makes the quality, the subjective quality, the decision
Speaker 2: feel less good.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, absolutely. I have so many reflections here.
Speaker 1: One is I mean, you strike me as someone who's
Speaker 1: more of a satisficer than a maximizer.
Speaker 4: Very much.
Speaker 1: So I'm curious to know for people listening who are
Speaker 1: well one I'm imagining someone's listening, they might think, well,
Speaker 1: I'm not across the board a satisficer or a maximizer.
Speaker 1: There are certain areas of life, certain domains of life
Speaker 1: where I doesn't really matter to me what microwave I get.
Speaker 1: I'm a satisficer in that domain, but when it comes
Speaker 1: to my long term partner, I'm going to be a maximizer.
Speaker 1: So they might have that response. What I want to
Speaker 1: know from you is, is a satisficing mindset something people
Speaker 1: can cultivate let's say that they're being driven crazy by
Speaker 1: their maximizing tendencies, can they do something about it very
Speaker 1: or we sort of destined just to be the way
Speaker 1: we are.
Speaker 2: So I have two things to say. First, you're absolutely
Speaker 2: right that nobody's a maximizer about everything, which means, of
Speaker 2: course that we all know how to be satisfiers because
Speaker 2: there are some decisions where that's what we are, and
Speaker 2: people have that. Most people's intuitions are well, you know,
Speaker 2: with unimportant stuff, it's foolish to maximize. But when it
Speaker 2: gets to be important, why would you not look for
Speaker 2: the best? And relationships is often where people you know
Speaker 2: can't imagine what it would mean to look for a
Speaker 2: good enough life partner. So there's one or two studies
Speaker 2: where they try to induce people to take up maximizing
Speaker 2: or a satisficing orientation and suggests that you can create
Speaker 2: satisficing orientation in people who, on the questionnaires that we
Speaker 2: develop look like they're maximizers.
Speaker 3: How interesting.
Speaker 2: What's unsatisfying about that is you don't know how long
Speaker 2: this lasts. You're in the lab, you get something to
Speaker 2: read or to hear, and it makes you a satisficer
Speaker 2: for the next thirty minutes.
Speaker 1: And then what I'm imagining someone reading this right before
Speaker 1: they get proposed to or the issue a proposal.
Speaker 3: I just need to last for thirty minutes.
Speaker 2: Very yes, the unsolved, confident proposer. Yeah, probably ship that
Speaker 2: treatment condition to the partner so that you know this
Speaker 2: is the golden thirty minute window when you're going.
Speaker 4: To say yes. Yeah.
Speaker 2: But the other piece of evidence I have is that
Speaker 2: when the book The Paradox of Choice came out, which
Speaker 2: was twenty years ago, I've got hundreds, maybe thousands of
Speaker 2: emails from people who said I thought I was the
Speaker 2: only one who had this problem. I thank you so
Speaker 2: much for making it clear that the world has given
Speaker 2: me and a lot of other people this problem.
Speaker 1: You mean when they said I didn't know I was
Speaker 1: the only one to suffer from this. It was the
Speaker 1: maximizing mindset right.
Speaker 2: Correct, and it succeeded in changing the way they made decisions.
Speaker 2: So this is personal testimony. I obviously don't have any
Speaker 2: data about what A whether they actually did change the
Speaker 2: way they make decisions, and B whether that last.
Speaker 1: I do think it's meaningful that if a short intervention
Speaker 1: where you're reading about someone who's a satisfier versus a
Speaker 1: maximizer can give you that little nudge to things slightly differently.
Speaker 1: That's meaningful because at least shows this is malleable enough.
Speaker 1: And I also think that the mere recognition of these
Speaker 1: two concepts is powerful in its own right. I feel
Speaker 1: like when I was studying judgment and decision making during
Speaker 1: my post doc and was learning about these concepts, I'm
Speaker 1: just thinking through my daily decisions, and when I find
Speaker 1: that I've been in the Google search.
Speaker 3: Rabbit hole for four hours.
Speaker 1: Trying to figure out what couch I want, I can
Speaker 1: at least use labels to identify what's happening, and you
Speaker 1: can ask yourself this primary question, is this decision worthy
Speaker 1: of the maximizing mindset given the cost I will incur
Speaker 1: to my psychological well being?
Speaker 2: I absolutely agree, and giving a name to things often
Speaker 2: in many ways, diffuses the impact that these things will have,
Speaker 2: and finding out that you're just one among many will
Speaker 2: make you stop feeling like that you have some pathology
Speaker 2: that needs to be corrected. So I think that's right.
Speaker 2: Naming things helps a lot, and it can lead to
Speaker 2: very different strategies and very different approaches to making decisions. Yes,
Speaker 2: what I have just started doing is using a slightly
Speaker 2: different word to distinguish it rational, and the word is reasonable,
Speaker 2: And so it seems to me that what you want
Speaker 2: is reasonable choice theory, which acknowledges that not everything can
Speaker 2: be quantified, not everything can be compared to everything else.
Speaker 2: All you can do is give it your best shot
Speaker 2: at thinking about the aspects of the decision that seem important,
Speaker 2: and how you'll respond to those aspects, and how the
Speaker 2: people you care about will. With the understanding that you
Speaker 2: should not expect a level of precision that is greater
Speaker 2: than the problem you are trying to solve, there are
Speaker 2: certain kinds of decisions where it seems quite reasonable to
Speaker 2: try to be as precise as possible. You know, if
Speaker 2: you're deciding what bet to make in a gambling casino,
Speaker 2: you should know the odds. You should know how much
Speaker 2: you're going to win and how much you're going to lose.
Speaker 2: The precision is there, and there's no excuse for you
Speaker 2: not knowing it. But when you're trying to decide where
Speaker 2: to go on vacation, or what job to take, or
Speaker 2: how to discipline your kid who just transgressed, that kind
Speaker 2: of precision doesn't exist, and when you seek it or
Speaker 2: impose it, you're distorting the problem that you need to
Speaker 2: solve rather than illuminating it. But you know this is
Speaker 2: not snap your fingers and it goes away. You've got habits.
Speaker 2: It's going to feel very uncomfortable in the beginning for
Speaker 2: you to break those habits, and you'll think, oh, what
Speaker 2: did I What opportunity did I pass up by not
Speaker 2: spending another ten minutes looking? But over time you will
Speaker 2: discover that you feel maybe even better about your decisions
Speaker 2: and your day has suddenly added a couple of hours.
Speaker 2: So how about reasonable choice theory instead of rational choice theory?
Speaker 1: Love it very Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. It's such a pleasure to see
Speaker 2: you again.
Speaker 1: Hey, thanks so much for listening. If you know someone
Speaker 1: who's currently struggling with a tough decision, make sure to
Speaker 1: send them this episode. And if you found life making
Speaker 1: choices for you, make sure to read my new book,
Speaker 1: The Other Side of Change, Who We Become When Life
Speaker 1: makes Other Plans. You can find it wherever you buy books,
Speaker 1: or at the link in show notes. We'll be back
Speaker 1: in a week with another episode of a slight Change
Speaker 1: of Plans.
Speaker 3: I'll see You then.
Speaker 1: A Slight Change of Plans is created, written, and executive
Speaker 1: produced by me Maya Schunker. The Slight Change family includes
Speaker 1: our showrunner Alexander Garatin, our editor Daphne Chen, our lead
Speaker 1: producer Megan Lubin, our associate producer Sonia Gerwitz, and our
Speaker 1: sound engineer Erica Huang. Louis Scara wrote our delightful theme
Speaker 1: song and Ginger Smith helped arrange the vocals. A Slight
Speaker 1: Change of Plans is a production of Pushkin Industries, so
Speaker 1: big thanks to everyone there, and of course a very
Speaker 1: special thanks to Jimmy Lee