WEBVTT - Finding Satisfaction in a World of Endless Choice 0:00:14.956 --> 0:00:15.396 Pushkin. 0:00:29.676 --> 0:00:34.916 When our oldest grandchild was five ish, my wife went 0:00:34.996 --> 0:00:38.716 with her to the supermarket to buy a toothbrush, and 0:00:38.876 --> 0:00:42.556 she got to the toothbrush section of the aisle and 0:00:42.596 --> 0:00:45.716 there were one hundred and fifty or so, and she 0:00:45.836 --> 0:00:49.556 stood there, my five year old granddaughter, and was just 0:00:49.716 --> 0:00:54.916 completely overwhelmed and paralyzed and finally said, Grandma, would you pick? 0:00:55.876 --> 0:00:58.236 Does this sound familiar? Maybe for you? 0:00:58.316 --> 0:01:01.556 It wasn't toothbrushes, but what couch to buy or what 0:01:01.716 --> 0:01:06.356 doctor to see. Social psychologist Barry Schwartz, an emeritus professor 0:01:06.396 --> 0:01:10.516 at Swarthmore, has spent decades challenging the idea that more 0:01:10.676 --> 0:01:12.076 choice is always better. 0:01:12.636 --> 0:01:18.156 It makes making decisions harder, it makes making good decisions harder, 0:01:19.156 --> 0:01:22.516 and it ends up making you less satisfied even when 0:01:22.556 --> 0:01:25.156 you manage to make a good decision, because you know, 0:01:25.676 --> 0:01:28.396 somewhere out there is something that is even better. 0:01:32.836 --> 0:01:36.876 On today's show, Finding Satisfaction in a World full of 0:01:37.036 --> 0:01:42.196 endless choice, I'm maya Shunker and this is a slight 0:01:42.276 --> 0:01:45.276 change of plans, a show about who we are and 0:01:45.316 --> 0:01:57.996 who we become in the face of a big change. 0:02:00.196 --> 0:02:03.836 Barry Schwartz is an expert on decision making His latest 0:02:03.836 --> 0:02:07.556 book is called Choose Wisely. In it, he challenges some 0:02:07.636 --> 0:02:11.076 of the conventional wisdom tools people use to make decisions, 0:02:11.636 --> 0:02:13.916 as well as what it even means to make the 0:02:14.036 --> 0:02:17.956 right choice. We began with an overview of various models 0:02:17.956 --> 0:02:20.876 of decision making. There are all kinds of ways that 0:02:20.916 --> 0:02:23.556 people make decisions, right. Some people go with their gut. 0:02:23.996 --> 0:02:26.596 Others choose a decision based on what they think will 0:02:26.596 --> 0:02:30.796 minimize regret. Others go with their faith. They ask God, 0:02:31.156 --> 0:02:33.636 can you just give us a quick history lesson on 0:02:34.556 --> 0:02:37.756 these different models and how the scientific understanding of decision 0:02:37.756 --> 0:02:39.356 making has evolved over time. 0:02:40.116 --> 0:02:45.076 I'd be delighted in some respects. This is the story 0:02:45.116 --> 0:02:48.556 that the book Choose Wisely is trying to tell. You 0:02:48.636 --> 0:02:53.156 went through all of the kinds of approaches that people 0:02:53.236 --> 0:02:55.436 might have to make decisions that would occur to me. 0:02:56.196 --> 0:03:01.436 Going with your gut, relying on religious advice, relying on 0:03:01.516 --> 0:03:05.756 what your friends have chosen, relying on what respected elders 0:03:05.796 --> 0:03:09.636 have chosen, relying on habit, do the same thing today 0:03:09.716 --> 0:03:14.356 that you did last week. All of these are ways 0:03:14.396 --> 0:03:17.476 to ease the burden of choosing. In effect, when you 0:03:17.596 --> 0:03:21.196 do any of those things, you're delegating the choice to 0:03:21.796 --> 0:03:27.196 some respected other person, either the previous you, or you know, 0:03:27.276 --> 0:03:29.676 an elder in the community, or a good friend or 0:03:29.796 --> 0:03:30.396 what have you. 0:03:31.156 --> 0:03:34.076 What you just said reminds me of this very common 0:03:34.156 --> 0:03:36.556 refrain we have in these tough moments of decision making. 0:03:36.956 --> 0:03:38.156 Can you just decide for me? 0:03:38.596 --> 0:03:38.796 Yeah? 0:03:39.116 --> 0:03:40.356 How many times do we ask that? 0:03:40.396 --> 0:03:43.236 We asked set of physicians, we askset of our parents, 0:03:43.236 --> 0:03:45.916 we asked of our friends, of our spouses, Just make 0:03:45.956 --> 0:03:46.556 the choice for me. 0:03:46.676 --> 0:03:47.796 In fact, a lot of. 0:03:47.716 --> 0:03:50.916 Times in my life I've wanted the universe to eliminate 0:03:50.956 --> 0:03:53.036 an option, just so that I don't have to make 0:03:53.076 --> 0:03:56.956 the choice and have to deal with the psychic costs 0:03:56.956 --> 0:04:00.356 afterwards of regret and you know, questioning whether I actually 0:04:00.436 --> 0:04:01.316 made the right choice or not. 0:04:01.796 --> 0:04:05.836 But here's the thing, from the perspective of the discipline 0:04:05.836 --> 0:04:09.516 of economics on the one hand, and the psychology of 0:04:09.596 --> 0:04:15.156 decision making, any one of those alternatives you described is 0:04:15.716 --> 0:04:19.516 inferior to doing it the right way. 0:04:19.956 --> 0:04:23.116 And to clarify, Barry, when you say quote the right way, 0:04:23.596 --> 0:04:27.236 you're referring to a framework called rational choice theory, right. 0:04:27.276 --> 0:04:30.676 It is a model for how people ought to make decisions. 0:04:30.996 --> 0:04:33.436 And you actually take issue with this model, which we'll 0:04:33.436 --> 0:04:36.156 get to a bit later, but for now, tell us 0:04:36.196 --> 0:04:37.596 what this theory purports. 0:04:38.356 --> 0:04:43.316 Rational choice theory, mostly the product of economists, is the 0:04:43.396 --> 0:04:48.996 view that the way to make good decisions, rational choices, 0:04:49.876 --> 0:04:55.596 is to assess how valuable each option is to you, 0:04:57.396 --> 0:05:01.756 and how likely it is to be as valuable as 0:05:01.796 --> 0:05:05.796 you think it is. Every decision is a prediction. We 0:05:05.876 --> 0:05:09.436 sometimes predict that we'll love a restaurant and we don't. 0:05:09.436 --> 0:05:11.236 Well of a car, and we don't and so on. 0:05:11.796 --> 0:05:14.836 You create a little spreadsheet, you fill in for every 0:05:14.876 --> 0:05:18.436 option those two numbers, and then you do the math. 0:05:18.636 --> 0:05:22.916 That's the way rational people make decisions. And let me 0:05:22.996 --> 0:05:26.356 just say there's a cousin to this that is much 0:05:26.596 --> 0:05:31.316 more consequential in a way because it affects policy decisions 0:05:31.356 --> 0:05:34.956 of whole entities rather than just yours and my decisions 0:05:34.996 --> 0:05:39.756 as individuals. And it's called cost benefit analysis. You know, 0:05:40.276 --> 0:05:45.076 what's the best way to reduce our carbon footprint? Lots 0:05:45.116 --> 0:05:49.876 of people have different ideas about that, and the idea 0:05:49.916 --> 0:05:52.636 is that probably is a best way. And the way 0:05:52.676 --> 0:05:55.476 you figure it out is you figure out how much 0:05:55.516 --> 0:05:59.076 it will cost to implement and how large the benefit 0:05:59.156 --> 0:06:03.516 will be and out of this analysis will come the 0:06:03.636 --> 0:06:07.396 clear answer to the question, and you implement it not 0:06:07.636 --> 0:06:11.156 just for your own personal use, but for the whole 0:06:11.196 --> 0:06:15.516 society's use. So we live with that kind of analysis 0:06:15.876 --> 0:06:19.836 all the time, and we're encouraged to do that kind 0:06:19.836 --> 0:06:23.636 of analysis when it's our own personal decisions. That's what 0:06:23.756 --> 0:06:29.796 rational choice theory is. It critically depends on being able 0:06:29.836 --> 0:06:31.276 to quantify things. 0:06:32.196 --> 0:06:34.236 Is that why you think people are drawn to this 0:06:34.316 --> 0:06:37.836 model because it gives them a feeling of both ease 0:06:38.116 --> 0:06:42.636 and a feeling of confidence that they have done the work, 0:06:42.676 --> 0:06:45.196 if you will, and they have arrived at the right answer. 0:06:45.796 --> 0:06:49.196 I think maybe so. And let me say it isn't 0:06:49.276 --> 0:06:55.876 incidental that this theory is called rational choice theory. Rational 0:06:55.996 --> 0:07:01.236 is not a descriptor. Rational is an evaluative term. You 0:07:01.276 --> 0:07:05.796 know what that means is rational choice theory is the 0:07:05.916 --> 0:07:09.716 right way to make a choice theory? Yes, who wants 0:07:09.756 --> 0:07:10.676 to be irrational? 0:07:11.316 --> 0:07:11.556 Yeah? 0:07:11.596 --> 0:07:14.436 Of course, it's an affront to our intelligence to be 0:07:14.476 --> 0:07:16.476 told that we're being irrational. 0:07:16.116 --> 0:07:20.076 Exactly, So there's an horrific attached to it. And if 0:07:20.076 --> 0:07:23.236 they see and read articles in the newspapers where policy 0:07:23.276 --> 0:07:27.196 decisions are being made using a framework very much like this. 0:07:28.036 --> 0:07:30.236 What more evidence do you need that this is what 0:07:30.276 --> 0:07:33.716 the smart and powerful people do? But to me, the 0:07:33.836 --> 0:07:38.516 critical notion is that the fifty years of research by 0:07:38.556 --> 0:07:44.836 psychologists on the errors we make and two Nobel prizes 0:07:45.516 --> 0:07:50.316 in economics to psychologists who studied this and never not 0:07:50.516 --> 0:07:55.996 for a second was their questioning of whether the standard 0:07:56.116 --> 0:08:00.556 for what counts as a rational decision is the right standard. 0:08:01.036 --> 0:08:05.116 It was all just presupposed this is the right way 0:08:05.156 --> 0:08:07.316 to do it, and let's study the ways in which 0:08:07.356 --> 0:08:11.076 people fall short. And the point of this book is 0:08:11.156 --> 0:08:18.836 to suggest that the normative standard of rationality is catastrophically bad. 0:08:19.676 --> 0:08:24.436 You can't really use rational choice theory unless you can 0:08:24.556 --> 0:08:30.476 quantify how good the various outcomes will be for you 0:08:31.156 --> 0:08:34.676 and how likely they are to be that good. In 0:08:34.716 --> 0:08:38.476 other words, you need a value and a probability for 0:08:38.596 --> 0:08:42.276 everything you're thinking about, and they need to be on 0:08:42.356 --> 0:08:46.716 the same scale so that you can compare one option 0:08:46.916 --> 0:08:50.436 against another with respect to all the things that matter 0:08:50.516 --> 0:08:54.036 to you, so you can actually do the math. Putting 0:08:54.276 --> 0:08:59.116 discursive descriptions in that Excel spreadsheet isn't going to help 0:08:59.236 --> 0:09:03.156 you get to the answer. And the problem is we 0:09:03.716 --> 0:09:08.876 give quantification more respect than it deserves. We are often 0:09:09.356 --> 0:09:15.476 driven by the dimensions that are most easily quantified rather 0:09:15.556 --> 0:09:19.356 than by the dimensions that are actually most important to us, 0:09:19.996 --> 0:09:23.836 and that will lead to decisions that distort what we 0:09:23.956 --> 0:09:24.996 actually care about. 0:09:25.476 --> 0:09:27.796 There's also two other issues that I see. 0:09:27.916 --> 0:09:31.116 One is per the end of history illusion, where we 0:09:31.196 --> 0:09:34.236 forget that we will keep changing. We assume we are 0:09:34.276 --> 0:09:36.476 a fixed entity and that all of our preferences will 0:09:36.476 --> 0:09:39.036 stay stable into the future, and that we will be 0:09:39.076 --> 0:09:42.556 excellent cognitive forecasters and be able to anticipate how we'll feel. 0:09:42.596 --> 0:09:45.076 We know from decades of research that's simply not true. 0:09:45.356 --> 0:09:49.316 We're very bad at predicting how future events will make 0:09:49.396 --> 0:09:52.556 us feel. And then the second thing is that when 0:09:52.596 --> 0:09:55.796 it comes to large decisions, you have to differentiate when 0:09:55.836 --> 0:09:58.436 it comes to how much value you think you'll get 0:09:58.476 --> 0:10:02.916 from it, between what common in would call experiential happiness 0:10:02.996 --> 0:10:05.476 versus reflective happiness. So there are lots of choices we 0:10:05.556 --> 0:10:08.476 make where in the short term things are really hard. 0:10:08.516 --> 0:10:12.116 Think about having newborn baby, right, that's a really hard experience. 0:10:12.196 --> 0:10:15.276 You're not sleeping, you're barely eating, you're not allowing your 0:10:15.316 --> 0:10:17.956 needs to be met. But there's a massive payoff when 0:10:18.276 --> 0:10:20.956 you take moments to evaluate, Hey, how's my life going? 0:10:21.156 --> 0:10:24.036 Do I feel fulfilled? Do I feel satisfied? And having 0:10:24.036 --> 0:10:26.716 that kid might give you a massive boost or maybe 0:10:26.756 --> 0:10:28.876 thirty years down the line, it gives you that massive boost, 0:10:28.916 --> 0:10:30.676 and then how do you differentiate between those in the 0:10:30.716 --> 0:10:31.596 Excel spreadsheet? 0:10:31.756 --> 0:10:36.076 But you know, here too, the seduction of quantification screws 0:10:36.116 --> 0:10:41.356 you up because the long term satisfaction that you're talking 0:10:41.396 --> 0:10:45.796 about can't be quantified in the way that the number 0:10:45.796 --> 0:10:47.876 of hours of sleep you get at night and the 0:10:47.956 --> 0:10:50.956 number of hours you can spend working on your latest project. 0:10:51.436 --> 0:10:55.356 You know, those are quantifiable. So what is salient and 0:10:55.476 --> 0:10:58.796 pointable at and measurable in. 0:10:58.716 --> 0:11:00.356 This case is all the bad stuff? 0:11:01.076 --> 0:11:04.436 Yeah, you know, and the things you're talking about play 0:11:04.476 --> 0:11:07.836 second fiddle because we don't know how to quantify them. 0:11:07.956 --> 0:11:11.036 But you're absolutely right. And let me say, since this 0:11:11.076 --> 0:11:14.716 is your wheelhouse, that one of the problems that rational 0:11:14.796 --> 0:11:20.316 choice theory has is that it takes a snapshot of 0:11:20.436 --> 0:11:25.796 life in a given moment and freezes it and does 0:11:25.836 --> 0:11:29.756 not allow for you to change or the world to change. 0:11:30.636 --> 0:11:31.156 You know, it. 0:11:31.036 --> 0:11:34.716 Tricks us into thinking that decision making should be easy, 0:11:35.996 --> 0:11:36.596 and it's. 0:11:36.436 --> 0:11:44.076 Not when I think about my subjective assessment of whether 0:11:44.116 --> 0:11:46.716 I made the best decision. So let's say I'm trying 0:11:46.716 --> 0:11:52.556 to choose the right car for me. Okay, we should 0:11:52.636 --> 0:11:56.716 not only integrate how well the car services my needs 0:11:56.876 --> 0:12:01.476 and meets my various preferences and expectations. We should also 0:12:01.556 --> 0:12:06.276 consider these other more meta components, namely, how I feel 0:12:06.396 --> 0:12:09.516 about the decision that I made, whether it induces feeling 0:12:09.516 --> 0:12:12.116 of regret in me, whether I have psychic stress because 0:12:12.116 --> 0:12:14.676 I'm constantly reevaluating if it was the right choice or not. 0:12:15.476 --> 0:12:20.916 Does rational choice theory account for the psychic factors? The again, 0:12:20.956 --> 0:12:23.716 when I'm calling metafactors of how we are in real 0:12:23.756 --> 0:12:27.556 time evaluating the decision that we made, Because if I'm 0:12:27.676 --> 0:12:30.516 really upset with the decision, or it's causing me a 0:12:30.516 --> 0:12:34.716 lot of consternation, that will eat away at my positive utility. 0:12:35.596 --> 0:12:39.396 You ask very good questions, oh thanks very and every 0:12:39.476 --> 0:12:44.116 question has a more complicated answer, I'm afraid. So there 0:12:44.116 --> 0:12:46.716 are a couple of ways to treat this view. You 0:12:46.956 --> 0:12:51.196 have to consider what you might call transaction costs. 0:12:52.396 --> 0:12:54.436 There is a price that you pay. 0:12:54.716 --> 0:12:59.036 For complexifying your decision, and maybe it's not worth paying 0:12:59.036 --> 0:12:59.836 the price. 0:12:59.956 --> 0:13:02.316 Like mental transaction costs to be clear. 0:13:02.276 --> 0:13:05.396 Yes, and not just mental, you know, like it takes time, 0:13:05.636 --> 0:13:08.956 and that's time that you could be spending doing something else, 0:13:09.236 --> 0:13:12.116 doing your job better. So that's one problem. If you 0:13:12.236 --> 0:13:15.956 factor in the transaction costs, you might adopt a different 0:13:15.996 --> 0:13:17.116 decision strategy. 0:13:17.356 --> 0:13:17.716 Yes. 0:13:18.556 --> 0:13:22.316 The second thing is that, from the economist point of view, 0:13:22.716 --> 0:13:27.756 adding options and thus making the decision more complicated, can't 0:13:27.836 --> 0:13:32.676 be bad. And that can't be bad because if you're 0:13:32.836 --> 0:13:38.276 happy alternating between two breakfast cereals and I add a 0:13:38.316 --> 0:13:41.556 third one to the grocery shelf, you can ignore it. 0:13:42.636 --> 0:13:45.956 So adding an option doesn't make you worse off, and 0:13:46.036 --> 0:13:49.876 it may make somebody better off. And if it's true 0:13:49.916 --> 0:13:52.196 of a third option, it's the same thing as true 0:13:52.196 --> 0:13:54.436 of a fourth and a fifth and a fiftieth and 0:13:54.476 --> 0:14:00.436 one hundredth. So that approach essentially doesn't acknowledge that the 0:14:00.516 --> 0:14:05.476 kind of cost you're worrying about exist. What I suggest 0:14:05.556 --> 0:14:08.676 in the book is that more is better than less, 0:14:08.756 --> 0:14:13.236 but a point is reached where still more starts to 0:14:13.316 --> 0:14:18.276 become worse, and it can become sufficiently worse that, instead 0:14:18.316 --> 0:14:21.316 of being liberated by all these options, you're paralyzed. 0:14:24.996 --> 0:14:27.916 After the break, Barry gives us a path out of 0:14:27.996 --> 0:14:31.436 decision paralysis. We'll be back in a moment with a 0:14:31.476 --> 0:14:51.236 slight change of plans. Professor Barry Schwartz and I have 0:14:51.316 --> 0:14:54.836 been talking about the sneaky mental costs of decision making. 0:14:55.636 --> 0:14:59.636 One reason you might find choosing between options particularly stressful 0:15:00.116 --> 0:15:05.076 is because you're a maximizer. Psychologists contrast this with another 0:15:05.156 --> 0:15:09.236 type of decision maker, a satisficer. I ask Barry to 0:15:09.316 --> 0:15:10.236 explain the difference. 0:15:10.956 --> 0:15:14.556 A maximizer is someone who's out for the best. Whatever 0:15:14.636 --> 0:15:18.436 that means. The best can be subjective. In fact, it 0:15:18.476 --> 0:15:22.276 is almost always subjective. But if you're buying a new appliance, 0:15:22.316 --> 0:15:24.796 you want the best appliance, And if you're buying a 0:15:24.796 --> 0:15:26.596 new car, you want the best car. And if you're 0:15:26.636 --> 0:15:28.196 buying a house, you want the best house. 0:15:28.276 --> 0:15:29.396 YadA, YadA, YadA. 0:15:29.516 --> 0:15:34.116 A satisficer is someone who wants good enough. If you're lucky, 0:15:34.276 --> 0:15:36.716 you look at one thing, it meets your standards and 0:15:36.756 --> 0:15:40.036 you're done. And in some areas that can mean very 0:15:40.076 --> 0:15:43.316 low standards, and in others that can mean very high standards. 0:15:43.836 --> 0:15:46.836 But once you find good enough, you stop looking. Yes, 0:15:47.556 --> 0:15:50.356 And the reason this is important is that in the 0:15:50.356 --> 0:15:53.756 world we currently live in, if you want the best, 0:15:54.036 --> 0:15:58.316 you have to look at every option. And as everybody knows, 0:15:58.436 --> 0:16:01.156 when you start looking at every option, you'll be dead 0:16:01.276 --> 0:16:04.036 before you get to the end of the list. So 0:16:05.276 --> 0:16:09.316 it's become an unachievable goal to find the best. 0:16:09.916 --> 0:16:14.436 Yeah, I love, I love that you articulate that a 0:16:14.516 --> 0:16:18.156 satisficer can have very high standards. Yep, it's just that 0:16:18.236 --> 0:16:20.756 it's good enough against the backdrop of those high standards, 0:16:20.756 --> 0:16:23.916 which does not mean that you are okay with bottom 0:16:23.956 --> 0:16:25.516 of the barrel outcomes, you know. 0:16:25.836 --> 0:16:30.236 No, no, And it's really important this point because most 0:16:30.276 --> 0:16:34.036 people when they hear satisficing, which is a technical term 0:16:34.116 --> 0:16:39.036 invented by a Nobel Prize winning psychologist slash Economists seventy 0:16:39.116 --> 0:16:42.476 years ago, they don't hear it as. 0:16:42.276 --> 0:16:43.476 A neutral description. 0:16:44.036 --> 0:16:47.796 Yes they you know, when you say satisfice, what people 0:16:47.836 --> 0:16:48.596 here is. 0:16:48.516 --> 0:16:51.276 Settling, Yes, exactly. 0:16:50.916 --> 0:16:53.476 And nobody thinks that settling is neutral. 0:16:53.876 --> 0:16:57.316 I mean it's used disparagingly. Yeah, in the context of relationships, 0:16:57.316 --> 0:16:59.156 for example, don't settle. 0:16:59.116 --> 0:17:01.916 Absolutely, you know. And there so there's a word in 0:17:01.956 --> 0:17:06.756 parentheses that isn't stated, and that word is just he's 0:17:07.236 --> 0:17:13.356 just settling, which is an implicit criticism. And so I 0:17:13.356 --> 0:17:17.196 think everybody is pushing us, and we push ourselves not 0:17:17.236 --> 0:17:22.556 to accept good enough, because we should have higher expectations 0:17:22.596 --> 0:17:25.756 of ourselves, We should make more demands of ourselves, and 0:17:25.836 --> 0:17:29.276 so on. What we found and other people have found, 0:17:29.476 --> 0:17:34.876 is that it makes making decisions harder, in some cases 0:17:34.956 --> 0:17:40.196 close to impossible. It makes making good decisions harder, and 0:17:40.756 --> 0:17:43.436 it ends up making you less satisfied even when you 0:17:43.516 --> 0:17:44.036 manage to. 0:17:43.956 --> 0:17:46.756 Make a good decision totally, because. 0:17:46.516 --> 0:17:51.356 You know somewhere out there is something that is even better. Absolutely, 0:17:51.436 --> 0:17:57.156 you know, if you get into ten colleges, you can 0:17:57.636 --> 0:18:02.276 torture yourself to oblivion trying to decide which of these colleges. 0:18:01.836 --> 0:18:02.356 To go to. 0:18:02.956 --> 0:18:06.876 When people a little older than you know, it doesn't 0:18:06.916 --> 0:18:10.236 make a damn bit of difference totally. There's a New 0:18:10.316 --> 0:18:13.276 Yorker cartoon that I show sometimes when I give talks 0:18:13.316 --> 0:18:17.636 on this of a young woman who's got a sweatshirt 0:18:18.436 --> 0:18:26.676 that says Brown parentheses. But my first choice was Yale. 0:18:27.196 --> 0:18:32.236 Now it's funny, but imagine spending four years at Brown, 0:18:32.756 --> 0:18:37.756 a wonderful institution, and every day you wake up with 0:18:37.876 --> 0:18:41.396 that sentence in your head. Yep, are you going to 0:18:41.436 --> 0:18:43.276 get as much out of being at Brown as you 0:18:43.316 --> 0:18:46.316 possibly can not on your life. You'll spend every day 0:18:46.356 --> 0:18:48.876 you're at Brown thinking how much better life would be 0:18:48.916 --> 0:18:53.036 if only you'd gotten into Yale. So it's not a 0:18:53.116 --> 0:18:57.276 frivolous problem. It's a very serious problem. It's stabilitating. It 0:18:57.316 --> 0:19:00.556 makes people feel like they are consistently making bad decisions, 0:19:00.876 --> 0:19:05.436 and it undermines confidence and SAPs energy. So it's very, 0:19:05.516 --> 0:19:07.036 I think, very consequential. 0:19:07.876 --> 0:19:11.316 Yeah, my friends who are on dating apps feel this acutely. 0:19:11.596 --> 0:19:13.716 You know, it used to be that you, well, back 0:19:13.756 --> 0:19:16.716 in the good old days, right, you had a few options. 0:19:17.636 --> 0:19:20.236 Maybe it's who you went to school with, or to 0:19:20.356 --> 0:19:24.476 church with, or saw your local community whatever. And now 0:19:24.836 --> 0:19:28.076 what's so interesting about the dating app thing is it's 0:19:28.076 --> 0:19:29.996 not even like you had the ten options laid out 0:19:29.996 --> 0:19:32.716 in front of you. It's that you know that if 0:19:32.756 --> 0:19:36.556 you keep swiping, you will keep getting more and more people. 0:19:36.716 --> 0:19:40.436 So there is this counterfactual world of infinite options that 0:19:40.516 --> 0:19:42.996 lives in your head at all times, which can really 0:19:43.036 --> 0:19:45.716 eat away at your ability to satisfice. 0:19:45.916 --> 0:19:48.596 A lot of the point of the paradox of choice 0:19:48.636 --> 0:19:52.236 is to show that even when people make good decisions 0:19:52.916 --> 0:19:57.796 by their own standards, they feel less good about them. Yeah, 0:19:57.836 --> 0:20:01.076 for a variety of reasons. You know, if it's not perfect, 0:20:01.116 --> 0:20:03.916 you regret having chosen, if you haven't been able to 0:20:03.956 --> 0:20:06.996 look at all the options, You're sure that some option 0:20:07.116 --> 0:20:09.796 out there that you didn't get to would be better 0:20:09.876 --> 0:20:12.036 than the one that you ended up choosing, and all 0:20:12.076 --> 0:20:15.836 of that makes the quality, the subjective quality, the decision 0:20:16.676 --> 0:20:17.476 feel less good. 0:20:17.596 --> 0:20:20.636 Absolutely, absolutely. I have so many reflections here. 0:20:20.676 --> 0:20:22.396 One is I mean, you strike me as someone who's 0:20:22.476 --> 0:20:25.276 more of a satisficer than a maximizer. 0:20:24.916 --> 0:20:25.436 Very much. 0:20:25.476 --> 0:20:28.756 So I'm curious to know for people listening who are 0:20:29.276 --> 0:20:32.356 well one I'm imagining someone's listening, they might think, well, 0:20:32.356 --> 0:20:36.156 I'm not across the board a satisficer or a maximizer. 0:20:36.196 --> 0:20:38.836 There are certain areas of life, certain domains of life 0:20:38.876 --> 0:20:42.076 where I doesn't really matter to me what microwave I get. 0:20:42.156 --> 0:20:44.956 I'm a satisficer in that domain, but when it comes 0:20:44.956 --> 0:20:47.476 to my long term partner, I'm going to be a maximizer. 0:20:47.716 --> 0:20:49.836 So they might have that response. What I want to 0:20:49.836 --> 0:20:55.596 know from you is, is a satisficing mindset something people 0:20:55.716 --> 0:20:58.756 can cultivate let's say that they're being driven crazy by 0:20:58.756 --> 0:21:02.236 their maximizing tendencies, can they do something about it very 0:21:02.356 --> 0:21:04.636 or we sort of destined just to be the way 0:21:04.676 --> 0:21:04.956 we are. 0:21:05.556 --> 0:21:08.956 So I have two things to say. First, you're absolutely 0:21:09.236 --> 0:21:13.276 right that nobody's a maximizer about everything, which means, of 0:21:13.316 --> 0:21:16.596 course that we all know how to be satisfiers because 0:21:16.636 --> 0:21:19.876 there are some decisions where that's what we are, and 0:21:19.996 --> 0:21:23.396 people have that. Most people's intuitions are well, you know, 0:21:23.516 --> 0:21:27.236 with unimportant stuff, it's foolish to maximize. But when it 0:21:27.316 --> 0:21:31.596 gets to be important, why would you not look for 0:21:31.636 --> 0:21:36.996 the best? And relationships is often where people you know 0:21:37.116 --> 0:21:39.636 can't imagine what it would mean to look for a 0:21:39.676 --> 0:21:45.236 good enough life partner. So there's one or two studies 0:21:45.396 --> 0:21:49.516 where they try to induce people to take up maximizing 0:21:49.716 --> 0:21:55.756 or a satisficing orientation and suggests that you can create 0:21:56.676 --> 0:22:00.996 satisficing orientation in people who, on the questionnaires that we 0:22:01.116 --> 0:22:03.196 develop look like they're maximizers. 0:22:03.676 --> 0:22:04.396 How interesting. 0:22:04.876 --> 0:22:08.316 What's unsatisfying about that is you don't know how long 0:22:08.356 --> 0:22:13.076 this lasts. You're in the lab, you get something to 0:22:13.196 --> 0:22:17.196 read or to hear, and it makes you a satisficer 0:22:17.276 --> 0:22:18.676 for the next thirty minutes. 0:22:19.076 --> 0:22:22.436 And then what I'm imagining someone reading this right before 0:22:22.476 --> 0:22:24.956 they get proposed to or the issue a proposal. 0:22:25.356 --> 0:22:27.396 I just need to last for thirty minutes. 0:22:27.156 --> 0:22:36.516 Very yes, the unsolved, confident proposer. Yeah, probably ship that 0:22:36.756 --> 0:22:41.156 treatment condition to the partner so that you know this 0:22:41.316 --> 0:22:43.516 is the golden thirty minute window when you're going. 0:22:43.476 --> 0:22:45.676 To say yes. Yeah. 0:22:45.276 --> 0:22:48.476 But the other piece of evidence I have is that 0:22:48.556 --> 0:22:51.796 when the book The Paradox of Choice came out, which 0:22:51.876 --> 0:22:56.876 was twenty years ago, I've got hundreds, maybe thousands of 0:22:56.916 --> 0:23:02.636 emails from people who said I thought I was the 0:23:02.676 --> 0:23:06.396 only one who had this problem. I thank you so 0:23:06.636 --> 0:23:10.396 much for making it clear that the world has given 0:23:10.436 --> 0:23:12.836 me and a lot of other people this problem. 0:23:13.196 --> 0:23:14.956 You mean when they said I didn't know I was 0:23:14.956 --> 0:23:16.596 the only one to suffer from this. It was the 0:23:16.596 --> 0:23:18.356 maximizing mindset right. 0:23:18.316 --> 0:23:24.276 Correct, and it succeeded in changing the way they made decisions. 0:23:24.956 --> 0:23:29.156 So this is personal testimony. I obviously don't have any 0:23:29.236 --> 0:23:32.956 data about what A whether they actually did change the 0:23:32.956 --> 0:23:35.356 way they make decisions, and B whether that last. 0:23:36.316 --> 0:23:39.876 I do think it's meaningful that if a short intervention 0:23:40.636 --> 0:23:43.276 where you're reading about someone who's a satisfier versus a 0:23:43.276 --> 0:23:47.076 maximizer can give you that little nudge to things slightly differently. 0:23:47.756 --> 0:23:50.636 That's meaningful because at least shows this is malleable enough. 0:23:51.236 --> 0:23:55.476 And I also think that the mere recognition of these 0:23:55.516 --> 0:23:59.836 two concepts is powerful in its own right. I feel 0:23:59.876 --> 0:24:02.596 like when I was studying judgment and decision making during 0:24:02.596 --> 0:24:05.796 my post doc and was learning about these concepts, I'm 0:24:05.836 --> 0:24:08.356 just thinking through my daily decisions, and when I find 0:24:08.396 --> 0:24:10.156 that I've been in the Google search. 0:24:09.996 --> 0:24:13.116 Rabbit hole for four hours. 0:24:12.716 --> 0:24:15.036 Trying to figure out what couch I want, I can 0:24:15.076 --> 0:24:18.996 at least use labels to identify what's happening, and you 0:24:18.996 --> 0:24:26.196 can ask yourself this primary question, is this decision worthy 0:24:26.316 --> 0:24:30.036 of the maximizing mindset given the cost I will incur 0:24:30.356 --> 0:24:32.316 to my psychological well being? 0:24:32.516 --> 0:24:36.436 I absolutely agree, and giving a name to things often 0:24:36.716 --> 0:24:40.716 in many ways, diffuses the impact that these things will have, 0:24:41.316 --> 0:24:44.636 and finding out that you're just one among many will 0:24:44.676 --> 0:24:47.636 make you stop feeling like that you have some pathology 0:24:47.716 --> 0:24:51.476 that needs to be corrected. So I think that's right. 0:24:51.636 --> 0:24:56.716 Naming things helps a lot, and it can lead to 0:24:57.076 --> 0:25:02.076 very different strategies and very different approaches to making decisions. Yes, 0:25:02.796 --> 0:25:06.116 what I have just started doing is using a slightly 0:25:06.156 --> 0:25:11.996 different word to distinguish it rational, and the word is reasonable, 0:25:13.516 --> 0:25:16.716