Ballet
Slippers or Adorable?
One
of more interesting things I noticed during the Ted Talk presentation was the
subtle on-screen imagery, such as when, during the Communist-drink analogy, the
weight of choice was depicted as Atlas holding up a tower of soft drink, the
purpose of which perhaps to relate multiple choice as cumbersome and
overbearing. Upon analyzing the content of the presentation and Dr. Lyengar’s
body language, it appears she may be a proponent of some Left-leaning sensibilities
rooted in Marxism, or at least opposed to certain components of Capitalism,
such as an ultra-competitive, disposable, consumer-based economy that is driven
and dependent on the presence and availability of Choice. Alluding to her
research, Dr. Lyengar suggests the concept of Collectivism in decision-making
(or ceding option of choice altogether) and simplicity in the availability of
resources to choose from, both reflecting Marxist ideals.
That
being said, Dr. Lyengar goes on suggest that people’s perception of choice is sometimes
culturally dependent, or a learned concept based on socioeconomic upbringing,
which seems accurate. As she states, people who have never experienced the benefit
of choice are less inclined to identify choice as an asset, and will likely have
a much more rigid attitude toward it. Dr. Lyengar seems to suggest that while Americans
are incapable of using choice to their advantage, the Asians and Eastern
Europeans she cites in her study simply failed to identify choice as
advantageous at all; troubling to think that in both instances, choice is
considered a complication and negativism.
Which
begs the question of what role choice should play in our respective societies,
if any. Dr. Lyengar goes on to suggest that too much choice
appears to unnecessarily complicate the decision-making process, the result
being an over-complicated task stemming from information overload.
Additionally, while it may seem that more choices increase the chance of
getting an optimal bargain or more applicable product, it also raises the
chance of picking the wrong one due to the sheer availability of choices, some
or many of which may not be the close
to the optimal choice. According to the Economist, as options multiply, there may be a point at which the
effort required to obtain enough information to be able to distinguish sensibly
between alternatives outweighs the benefit to the consumer of the extra choice.
“At this point”, writes Barry Schwartz in “The Paradox of Choice”, “choice no
longer liberates, but debilitates. It might even be said to tyrannise.” In
other words, as Mr Schwartz puts it, “the fact that some choice is good
doesn't necessarily mean that more choice is better” (The Economist,
2010).
For this reason, it appears that
striking a balance may be the best policy, in which choice is available, but
not enough choice so that it hinders decision-making. However, there remains a
fundamental question with potentially troubling connotations: We have decided
that too much choice can be bad, but have not addressed at what point too
little choice becomes a limiting factor. Also, if it be determined that too
much choice can be bad, then who is to dictate how much people should have? At
what point does removing choice become removing personal freedom?
Reference
The Economist. You choose. Retrieved
from http://www.economist.com/node/17723028
