I was raised in a Libertarian/Objectivist environment with the idea that liberty/freedom/choice was the bestest thing in the world, the most important virtue, and nothing could compete.
Then I grew up and I decided that I'd rather have people be happy and well than have them have as much freedom as possible. I'd rather balance freedom with happiness and well being, because while sometimes freedom promotes happiness, sometimes it does not.
There are several issues involved and I think The Paradox of Choice is pretty much a must-read for anyone who thinks "freedom" and "choice" is always ideal. But first off, more choice means more work. I view having to look through more options as a tax that consumers pay. If those options are all of value, but have different pros and cons, then this is likely worth it. If those options are all of value, but some will be better for some people and some better for others, than those options are worth it. But choices that are actively harmful and bad are a tax consumers pay for no benefit. We don't view it as a tax, because we don't view being forced to use our time and cognitive resources as a cost, but it is a very real cost.
People have limited cognitive resources, and the more choices they need to sort through, the sooner these run out. And if they have to make choices for every little thing, they'll make poorer choices. Too many choices for pain killer and they'll make poorer choices with which phone company they use. That sort of human limitation is not accounted for in any of the market models I've seen, because the two areas do not interact at all.
They've shown that when you present workers with a small number of stock portfolios to pick from, all of them decent, they will end up generally benefiting from these investments. But when you let them pick from a very large number many of them will basically give up on making a good choice and choose fairly randomly, and this greatly increases their odds of doing poorly. By presenting a large number of options, you make people feel overwhelmed, and then they cannot choose what they want well. Giving people the ability to shoot themselves in the foot is not actually going to promote well being or happiness, and simply having to make the choice of whether or not to shoot yourself in the foot is going to cost everyone, even those who do not choose to, because they will have fewer resources for the next choice they face.
It is, of course, worse the more they have to do it in fields they do not even understand well. And if you're talking a medical situation, people often do not have the time to analyze the pros and cons, if they even have the ability. (I've often found I do not have the ability to assess the claims of various medical things I am considering trying. I am lucky to have a medical professional that will talk to me at basically whatever length I want to, do research for me, and not charge me for it, but most people won't have that.)
There is also the fact that options create the illusion of something really good being out there. If there are countless options and you can't look through all of them, you are more likely to feel that if you searched more or chose differently that you could have found something better. But this isn't necessarily the case. If we know there is nothing better out there, then this will just make people less happy with what they do choose and the outcome they do have.
Since people do not benefit from this in any way, I don't see why "freedom of choice" should always be our highest priority. I will fight for choices that people really care about, ones where the options really do make a difference. I think people should be able to choose who they live with, where they live, what jobs they have, which books they read, etc. There's some pretty good reasons to think that being forced into models you don't like in these areas is harmful. But for outright fraudulent "treatments" the only reason I am aware of that people feel bad if they cannot use them is because they were presented with false hope in the first place. The correct solution is to take away the false hope. And then let people focus their choice-making mental resources on the choices that matter.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 7/10/10 10:06 pm (UTC)From:Then I grew up and I decided that I'd rather have people be happy and well than have them have as much freedom as possible. I'd rather balance freedom with happiness and well being, because while sometimes freedom promotes happiness, sometimes it does not.
There are several issues involved and I think The Paradox of Choice is pretty much a must-read for anyone who thinks "freedom" and "choice" is always ideal. But first off, more choice means more work. I view having to look through more options as a tax that consumers pay. If those options are all of value, but have different pros and cons, then this is likely worth it. If those options are all of value, but some will be better for some people and some better for others, than those options are worth it. But choices that are actively harmful and bad are a tax consumers pay for no benefit. We don't view it as a tax, because we don't view being forced to use our time and cognitive resources as a cost, but it is a very real cost.
People have limited cognitive resources, and the more choices they need to sort through, the sooner these run out. And if they have to make choices for every little thing, they'll make poorer choices. Too many choices for pain killer and they'll make poorer choices with which phone company they use. That sort of human limitation is not accounted for in any of the market models I've seen, because the two areas do not interact at all.
They've shown that when you present workers with a small number of stock portfolios to pick from, all of them decent, they will end up generally benefiting from these investments. But when you let them pick from a very large number many of them will basically give up on making a good choice and choose fairly randomly, and this greatly increases their odds of doing poorly. By presenting a large number of options, you make people feel overwhelmed, and then they cannot choose what they want well. Giving people the ability to shoot themselves in the foot is not actually going to promote well being or happiness, and simply having to make the choice of whether or not to shoot yourself in the foot is going to cost everyone, even those who do not choose to, because they will have fewer resources for the next choice they face.
It is, of course, worse the more they have to do it in fields they do not even understand well. And if you're talking a medical situation, people often do not have the time to analyze the pros and cons, if they even have the ability. (I've often found I do not have the ability to assess the claims of various medical things I am considering trying. I am lucky to have a medical professional that will talk to me at basically whatever length I want to, do research for me, and not charge me for it, but most people won't have that.)
There is also the fact that options create the illusion of something really good being out there. If there are countless options and you can't look through all of them, you are more likely to feel that if you searched more or chose differently that you could have found something better. But this isn't necessarily the case. If we know there is nothing better out there, then this will just make people less happy with what they do choose and the outcome they do have.
Since people do not benefit from this in any way, I don't see why "freedom of choice" should always be our highest priority. I will fight for choices that people really care about, ones where the options really do make a difference. I think people should be able to choose who they live with, where they live, what jobs they have, which books they read, etc. There's some pretty good reasons to think that being forced into models you don't like in these areas is harmful. But for outright fraudulent "treatments" the only reason I am aware of that people feel bad if they cannot use them is because they were presented with false hope in the first place. The correct solution is to take away the false hope. And then let people focus their choice-making mental resources on the choices that matter.